PPECMC2021CovidCrusaders

  In Locke’s Chapter V he assumes the inherent ability of man to value property such that 1) they can use it to the ‘best’ of its ability for us ‘to enjoy’ (Par 31), and 2) can divide and trade property in a way that upholds the law of nature such that all are treated equally and independently.   Both of those rely strongly on his theological premise that the world was given to Man in common. Having studied “Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration,” I have seen firsthand Locke’s tendency to manipulate the scripture to assist the people of the era in coming to conclusions through his seemingly Bible-backed arguments. This is seen in Chapter V when he states, “Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy” (Par 31) he is seemingly claiming that enjoyment and destruction are mutually exclusive. By simply stating his own theological commandments in conjunction with the Bible, he sets out a blueprint for crafting an ideal citizen out of your run-of-mill 16th-century rel...

January 28th Blog 1 In Locke’s chapter on property, he explains the justification for legitimately owning property through one’s labor with two provisos: scarcity and spoilage. Locke argues that the land itself is abundant and belongs to everyone, but once someone exerts labor on land, the fruit of those efforts are his property (paragraph 31). The natural limits to this are ensuring that there is still land for others and harvested goods do not go to waste (paragraph 30 and 32). Are these the only natural limits to man’s right to property? And are there other values that I don’t elaborate on that should also place limits on property? At first glance Locke’s argument is reasonable, but upon closer examination it is unconvincing for two reasons. First, Locke highlights that humans are ordained with the right to “having dominion” over nature (paragraph 34). However, this ignores the idea that nature, separate from humans, has inherent value in its awesomeness (the literal and not vernacu...

     In Of Public Jurisprudence in “Lectures on Jurisprudence”, Smith asserts that allegiance to the civil magistrate is not accomplished through contract and provides several examples to support this claim (par. 15). Earlier, in Of Justice , Smith defines a contract as “the reasonable expectation which the person who promises raises in the person to whom he binds himself; of which the satisfaction may be extorted by force,” (par. 10). While Smith’s definition of “contract” is constrained to the realm of personal rights, these personal rights are ensured as a part of an estate, protected by the justice of the civil magistrate. Therefore, I disagree with Smith and assert that by his definition, personal rights are extended into the realm of civil magistrate and are upheld through contract, as demonstrated with the following three examples.  The first of Smith’s examples is that obedience to the civil magistrate is not commanded by an explicit contract. Obedience is...

In Chapter VII, Locke reiterates the purpose of civil government: to preserve man’s right to property and punish offenders who violate the law (Par. 87). By giving up some of their liberties to the common-wealth, men give the government the power to make and adjudicate laws (legislative power) and to enforce punishments (executive power) (Par 88). The executive(s) that are responsible for the government’s power do so with the support of the people, taking man out of the state of nature.   In Locke’s view, an “absolute monarchy… …is indeed inconsistent with civil society” because if one man holds both legislative and executive power, they are free to violate rights and property without fear of retribution (Par 90, 91). The role of the legislature must be placed in “the collective bodies of men” to ensure that no man can be exempt from the laws that govern it. Adam Smith, in contrast, does not believe that a monarchy is inherently inconsistent with the idea of civil society. Smit...

  In his explanation of paternal duty from Chapters VI-XI, John Locke undermines the extent of individual freedom. The argument that law is “not so much the limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest”, draws into the question the extent to which individual freedom can be taken given both natural and unnatural limitations (Par. 57). The line between duty and freedom becomes blurry with the introduction of paternal power, for a child under the direction of a “ruler from the beginning of infancy”, a father, lacks independence even in their later years, for much of their life is predetermined (Par. 74).   Locke argues that children ought to consent to live submissively but affectionately under their father to achieve political happiness in society (Par. 102, 112). Rather than outright refute Locke’s point of view, I question the extent of truth behind his reasoning. Is initial submission necessary to achieve long term ...

  Smith accurately criticizes Locke’s argument of tacit consent along the basis of how difficult it actually is for an individual to consent to the nation in which they grow up in. Smith notes the fact that even if “obedience” is originally founded on a contract, “their posterity have nothing to do with it, they are not conscious of it, and therefore cannot be bound by it” (Par 16 pg. 403). Smith goes on to account for the limitations provided by language barriers or lack of wealth on one’s ability to control the nation they live in once they are born into a nation.  Smith further criticizes the weight Locke places on the contract, another key aspect of Locke’s idea of the consent of the governed. Smith argues that if you observe human behavior, contracts do not tend to carry the weight of allegiance, and are not valued equally as allegiance. First, Smith claims this with an example that is easily seen today: that “if there be such a thing as an original contract, aliens who c...

  Unlike Locke, Smith does not believe in the implicit contract between the magistrate and its citizens. Instead, Smith posits that men enter into a civil society because of what he calls authority and utility.  Smith argues that the leaders of different societies are superior to the rest of the general population in some way. Age, intelligence, and power are three ways for someone to their superiority, but Smith argues that money is the most influential sign of superiority (402). A monarchy relies on this sense of authority to cement its rule. The other reason to enter a civil society is utility. What Smith calls “justice,” personal protection, is a worthy reason to live under the rule of someone else (399). A republic relies on utility to maintain its power.  Smith outlines the progression from a barbaric state to a civil society. Basically, at each stage in this progression, power is taken from the collective and given to the leader. Smith’s argument that power is cons...

    In chapter V, Locke writes how a person comes to have property through labor. He reasons on the basis that every man has property to his own person and the “labor of his body”. By putting in time and energy into taking something out of its “state in nature” a person excludes the common right other people had on the thing in nature and makes the thing his own property. He argues that labor puts a “distinction between them[property] and common[things in nature]”.  Locke claims that God has given men the world “to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience”. He seems to be claiming that it is a natural right for people to use the land to gain greater utility. He explains the idea of added value of labor in which 10 acres of land that is farmed provides 10 times more utility than 100 acres of land that is not farmed. As an example, he gives the quality of living of Native Americans. He describes a chief of a “large and fruitful territory”  as “clad ...

       In Chapter V, Locke expresses his concept of property. He does this first by introducing the idea that “it is the taking of any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in” that creates property (Par. 23). He further narrows his definition by adding that it is labor that bestows value on land (Par. 43). In addition to his idea on money, this definition lacks the necessary complexity to apply to intellectual property.  Locke’s idea that he who removes the property from the common now owns it feels inadequate when extended to intellectual property. In the current public health crisis of COVID-19, many different companies have sought to create a vaccine or cure for the virus. Would Locke extend his concept of property ownership onto something like the chemical formulation for a vaccine? How much can we assign the idea of property to something intangible? To further his concept, it seems fitting to add that Locke’s notion of...

  January 27th, 2021 In the section, “Of Public Jurisprudence,” Smith speaks about why people enter civil society. He asserts that there are two principles that are responsible, authority and utility. Speaking first on the principle of authority, Smith claims that “At the head of every small society or association of men, we find a person of superior abilities” (Par. 12), and that this “superiority” gives a person authority over the other members of their society.  Smith also describes the second principle that draws people to enter civil society, which is utility. In Par. 14, He claims that people agree to obey the civil magistrate because they know that justice and peace are necessary aims and that the poor are willing to be under the authority of the rich and powerful because civil institutions allow them to get redress when they are wronged. It is interesting to compare Smith’s logic to Locke’s reasoning for why people leave the state of nature. In Chapter IX, Locke assert...

  In Chapter VIII, Locke argues that consent given from free individuals legitimizes political society. In making this argument, Locke asserts that individuals born into a certain society give “tacit consent” to be governed by it.  Specifically, Locke notes that when a child “comes to age of discretion . . . he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under” (Par 118). Furthermore, while the consent from the freeman may not be express, Locke argues that “every man, that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions or any state government, doth thereby give his tacit consent ” (Par 119). To Locke, this tacit consent suffices to legitimize the political society.  In making the argument about tacit consent, Locke fails to acknowledge the factors that compel individuals to remain within the society they were born into. The“freeman” that Locke describes is someone who’s choices of government are not constrained. Locke paints a portrait o...

January 27, 2021 In Chapter V, Locke explains exactly why property is so important to civil society, and how members come to legitimate their property through labor. Locke’s central focus looks to how members can come to legitimate their private property through labor or, later, money, and makes the claim that with private property earned through labor, there is “no room for quarrel” (Par. 39).   Locke finds that property is earned through work (Par. 38). In Par. 27, Locke explains how, before a man performs any act of labor, the land is just common. But, when a man “mixes” labor with common land, it becomes his property. So long as he uses it before it is spoiled, it is his.  The central flaw of Locke’s analysis comes with the fact that he views the introduction of private property as the end of quarrels (Par. 39). Locke overstates the role and power of law in a civil society. In Par. 57, Locke states that law, the functioning authority in civil society, is simply meant ...

 The fundamental challenge for Locke in Chapter V is to explain how, if land and many other resources are originally held in common, such that each of us has a right to use any of it, we can come legitimately to be excluded from much of it.  Private property increases the rights of the property owner, but by limiting rights previously held by everyone else.  What could render this limitation on every other person's rights legitimate? Locke's answer is provided by his "mixing argument," e.g. in Par. 27, which comes in a package with his provisos -- conditions -- on what mixing your labor entitles you to, the spoilage proviso, e.g. Par. 31, and the "enough and as good" proviso, Par. 33.  These rules governing legitimate acquisition of property are dictates of the law of nature, and we can legitimately acquire property in land in the state of nature. These terms of appropriation, Locke himself agrees, would "confine every man's possession to a very mod...

 Sample Blog Post: In Locke's chapter on paternal power, he outlines how children are essentially not free beings because they are born without reason and therefore cannot be granted the same freedoms as reasonable beings. Because of this children are to submit to the wills of their parents until they are of age to "gain reason". During this period of childhood, Locke says the parents have an obligation to educate their children, protect them from society, and to protect society from their children. In turn, children have a "perpetual obligation of honoring their parents, which containing in it an inward esteem and reverence to be shewn by all outward expressions, ties up the child from anything that may ever injure or affront, disturb or endanger the happiness or life of those from whom he received his... from this obligation no state, no freedom can absolve children" (37). Locke only exemplifies best-case scenario parents who love their childre...

  1)Hobbes and Locke The two philosophers appear to be talking about the same things: Natural Rights and Natural Laws Reason Liberty The State of Nature A State of War Contract The Sovereign Property (for Hobbes propriety) Justice But these appearances are profoundly misleading.   In each case they are talking about completely different things .   Reason, for Hobbes, is a tool for effectively satisfying our appetites and passions, in particular our desire for self-preservation; reason, for Locke, tells us which appetites we are justified in satisfying, just as reason tells us which beliefs we are justified in holding. Liberty, for Hobbes, is what Locke calls license; Locke contrasts liberty with license. The state of nature, for Hobbes, is not a political state, only a natural condition, and that condition is perpetual war; what is the state of nature for Locke? For Hobbes, the contract creates justice; what is the relationship between the ...

    SYLLABUS   Courses: PPE Philosophy Seminar and Philosophy Tutorial Seminar Time: Thursday (and sometimes on Tuesday) 2:30-5:30 Tutorial Time: Tuesday, by appointment Professor: Paul Hurley Contact Info: #77140; paul.hurley@cmc.edu Office Hours: W 3:00-5:00, F 4:00-6:00, ABA     INTRODUCTION   This is the syllabus for both the PPE Philosophy Tutorial and the PPE Philosophy Seminar.   Our focus will be on areas of philosophy of particular relevance to economics and politics – ethics, political philosophy, the philosophy of social science, and the philosophy of law.   I urge you to to keep in view throughout the course the distinctive contribution of philosophy to the PPE triad.   Economics and political science are disciplines that are by their own methodological assumptions descriptive rather than prescriptive (political theory and jurisprudence are outliers here).   They are inquiries into what is the cas...