Spangler - Blog Post 1

 

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 religious fanatic. This can also be seen Par 77. Smith interestingly parallels this in his use of the shepherd’s analogy, however they vastly different conclusions from it.

 

Where I see the most major philosophical difference between Locke and Smith (on property) is in their views on equality. Locke does not seem to believe Man should exist undemocratically, whereas Smith seems convinced government is a result and continuation of the inequality of man. In Paragraph 14, Smith lays out a very similar argument to Hobbes of how Man in making a decision for themselves is able to make a more intelligent decision for the betterment of society.

 

I believe that this idea of inherent inequality is what makes it much more difficult for Smith to lay out his views on property and the nominal form of government, as the existence of greater men almost necessitates that those men are given superiority. Locke’s steadfast focus on equality allows him to present democracy as the solution to many issues that are rooted in this inherent inequality.

Comments

Paul Hurley said…
Two interesting questions. First, does his presentation of bible backed arguments entail that there are not other independent grounds? At the beginning of V he suggests that revelation is one ground for his argument, but that, seemingly independently, reason is another. It is interesting that Rousseau defends similar constraints as parts of natural law.

Second, the point about inequality and equality is really interesting. But I wonder if Locke has an opposite problem that the invention of money is an attempt to solve, i.e. how to get unequal holdings from equal status.
January 28, 2021 at 1:19 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gero - Final Farewell Blog Post Fifteen

        The concept of the private government of the modern workplace as described by Anderson in Chapter 2 of   Private Government   enforces a double jeopardy on women in particular. In her paper “Unstrapping the Straitjacket of Preference” Anderson asserts that “bargaining theory recommends that, if women are to improve their situation, they ought to seek employment outside of the home” (page 35). Women’s situation is also improved as work allows women to create an identity outside of the home through joining larger group identities (page 36). Putting this dilemma in the language of   Private Government , women suffer under the patriarchal private governments of the home, where fathers and husbands exert arbitrary and unaccountable power over them. To create identity, they must then join additional private government outside of the home and in the workplace.             While many...
Read more

Mehra - Blog Post "Lucky Number 13"

  In “Unstrapping the Straightjacket of ‘Preference;’ a Comment on Amartya Sen’s Contributions to Philosophy and Economics”, Elizabeth Anderson expands Sen’s suspicion of ‘preference’ as the function of rational decision making. In attempting to fill Sen’s lacuna regarding rational judgments and building off his prior work, Anderson puts forth “ The Priority of Identity to Rational Principle : what principle of choice it is rational to act on depends on a prior determination of personal identity, of who one is” (30). Identity advances the force of collective agency. According to Anderson, “In taking up the perspective of collective agency, the parties to an n-person prisoner’s dilemma can see their actions as jointly advancing a desirable goal even though none of their actions taken in isolation has a positive marginal impact on that goal” (30). Identity with part of a group compels them to take membership in collective action and advance shared goals. Identity is messy, nuanced, a...
Read more

Discussion Leader Sign Up

  Discussion Leader Sign Up (“bb” = before break; “ab” = after break)   March 25: Brettschneider   When the State … (bb): Wills March 25: Brettschneider When the State … (ab): Josh   April 1: Brettschneider (bb): Brettschneider April 1: Brettschneider (ab): Tara   April 8: Scalia et al (bb): Olivia April 8: Scalia et al (ab): Jess   April 15: Adam Smith (bb):Cam April 15: Adam Smith (ab):Daniel K   April 22: Sen (bb): Amari April 22: Sen (ab): Daniel H   April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (bb): April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (ab):   May 4: Anderson Private Government (bb): Alexis May 4: Anderson Private Government (ab): Sarah   May 6: Anderson (bb): Anderson
Read more