WEBVTT 00:01.710 --> 00:07.210 Professor Steven Smith: It's so nice to see you again on 00:07.213 --> 00:09.613 this gorgeous autumn day. 00:09.610 --> 00:11.740 And we had a wonderful, wonderful weekend, 00:11.737 --> 00:14.407 didn't we? Yes, we did. 00:14.410 --> 00:18.450 00:18.450 --> 00:23.340 Okay, today, I want us to begin… we move 00:23.344 --> 00:25.604 ahead. We're moving ahead. 00:25.600 --> 00:28.070 Today we begin with Mr. 00:28.070 --> 00:32.590 John Locke. For the next three classes, 00:32.592 --> 00:33.912 Mr. Locke. 00:33.910 --> 00:39.400 It is hard to believe that a little book like this, 00:39.399 --> 00:44.339 in this not terribly distinguished edition, 00:44.340 --> 00:49.650 mind you, but nevertheless, in this edition of just over a 00:49.650 --> 00:53.380 hundred pages, that a book of this length 00:53.377 --> 00:57.287 could have such world shaping effects. 00:57.290 --> 01:02.400 If anyone would ever doubt the importance of ideas, 01:02.396 --> 01:05.456 political ideas, in history, 01:05.459 --> 01:10.749 I would only say to you to consult the history and the 01:10.753 --> 01:13.353 influence of John Locke. 01:13.350 --> 01:19.240 Remarkable. I want to talk today a little 01:19.242 --> 01:21.172 bit about Mr. Locke. 01:21.170 --> 01:24.040 John Locke is, for our purposes today, 01:24.042 --> 01:28.312 I mean, there are many reasons why one would read him in 01:28.313 --> 01:32.983 different kinds of classes, but for our purposes, 01:32.975 --> 01:38.985 John Locke gives the modern state, the expression that is 01:38.989 --> 01:41.459 most familiar to us. 01:41.459 --> 01:46.109 His writings seem to have been so completely absorbed and 01:46.108 --> 01:51.258 adopted by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of 01:51.255 --> 01:56.145 Independence that Locke seems to have become virtually a 01:56.152 --> 01:59.392 kind of honorary founding father, 01:59.390 --> 02:01.950 as it were, of America. 02:01.950 --> 02:06.570 Among other things, John Locke advocates the 02:06.574 --> 02:11.634 natural liberty and equality of human beings, 02:11.629 --> 02:15.679 our natural rights to such things as life, 02:15.680 --> 02:20.620 liberty, and what he calls "estate" or property, 02:20.620 --> 02:24.200 the idea that government, at least legitimate government, 02:24.202 --> 02:28.862 is government by consent, that legitimate government is 02:28.861 --> 02:34.721 necessarily limited and limited government constituted by a 02:34.724 --> 02:39.054 separation of powers, and that when governments 02:39.054 --> 02:43.554 become repressive or that when governments become abusive of 02:43.548 --> 02:47.608 natural rights, that the people have a right to 02:47.609 --> 02:50.099 revolution. In addition to this, 02:50.101 --> 02:53.291 John Locke was a famous advocate of religious 02:53.294 --> 02:57.144 toleration. His name is forever linked with 02:57.140 --> 03:02.800 our ideas today of what we might call liberal or constitutional 03:02.802 --> 03:05.592 democracy. He gives the modern 03:05.587 --> 03:09.537 constitutional state, again, its definitive and, 03:09.538 --> 03:13.068 in many ways, most familiar expression. 03:13.070 --> 03:17.250 03:17.250 --> 03:24.560 Yet, Locke did not arise ex nihilo, nor did anyone. 03:24.560 --> 03:28.430 Locke's writings come from somewhere and from some source. 03:28.430 --> 03:31.590 They were prepared, in many ways, 03:31.591 --> 03:36.631 in part by Machiavelli, who had died approximately a 03:36.629 --> 03:39.889 century before Locke's birth. 03:39.889 --> 03:43.269 But more importantly, by another English writer, 03:43.270 --> 03:47.370 or by an English writer with whom we have spent some time, 03:47.369 --> 03:50.029 namely Mr. Hobbes, Thomas Hobbes. 03:50.030 --> 03:54.960 Hobbes took Machiavelli's idea of The Prince and, 03:54.961 --> 03:59.271 in effect, turned it into a theory or doctrine of 03:59.265 --> 04:02.965 sovereignty. The Hobbesian sovereign is at 04:02.965 --> 04:07.105 the basis of our ideas of impersonal, or what we might 04:07.105 --> 04:09.835 call representative, government. 04:09.840 --> 04:15.790 He transforms princely rule, Hobbes does, 04:15.793 --> 04:21.453 into an office called the sovereign. 04:21.449 --> 04:25.199 And this office is, for Hobbes, the creation of a 04:25.204 --> 04:27.634 social contract, or covenant, 04:27.629 --> 04:31.169 as he calls it, responsible to the agents or 04:31.168 --> 04:34.458 persons who have created the contract. 04:34.459 --> 04:38.629 Hobbes had taught that the sovereign is representative of 04:38.627 --> 04:42.867 the people who create his office in order to ensure peace, 04:42.868 --> 04:44.578 justice, and order. 04:44.579 --> 04:47.709 Without the power of the sovereign, we would find 04:47.708 --> 04:50.118 ourselves in a condition of nature, 04:50.120 --> 04:53.740 a state of nature, a term coined by Hobbes to 04:53.738 --> 04:58.748 indicate a world without civil authority or at least with only 04:58.754 --> 05:03.624 weak civil authority, unable to enforce common rules 05:03.615 --> 05:06.585 and laws. Hobbes gave voice to the 05:06.585 --> 05:11.755 doctrine of secular absolutism, one that invests the sovereign 05:11.757 --> 05:16.927 with absolute power to do whatever is necessary to ensure, 05:16.930 --> 05:20.400 again, the rule of law, justice, and political 05:20.403 --> 05:24.823 stability. And out of these rather harsh 05:24.820 --> 05:31.080 and formidable premises, Locke created a different, 05:31.079 --> 05:36.729 what we would think of as a more liberal constitutional 05:36.728 --> 05:40.368 theory of the state, while being still, 05:40.372 --> 05:43.582 in many ways, very dependent on the premises 05:43.580 --> 05:47.610 that Hobbes, again, modifying Machiavelli, 05:47.606 --> 05:54.156 had undertaken. Locke set out a process of 05:54.162 --> 05:59.722 domestication. He set out to tame or to 05:59.724 --> 06:05.814 domesticate Hobbes's fierce or harsh theory of absolute 06:05.809 --> 06:12.569 government, which had found few defenders in his own day. 06:12.569 --> 06:17.129 Locke's most important work of political theory, 06:17.131 --> 06:21.981 of political philosophy, is his Two Treatises of 06:21.983 --> 06:26.553 Civil Government, of which we are only reading 06:26.552 --> 06:29.492 the second. The book we have before us is 06:29.493 --> 06:33.403 often simply referred to as the Second Treatise, 06:33.399 --> 06:37.669 but you will probably have suspected, I think, 06:37.670 --> 06:42.800 that the Second Treatise was preceded by a first 06:42.796 --> 06:45.806 treatise. The First Treatise is 06:45.805 --> 06:48.525 much longer than the Second Treatise, 06:48.532 --> 06:51.262 and it was an elaborate and painstaking, 06:51.259 --> 06:54.299 one could almost say deconstruction, 06:54.296 --> 06:58.196 of the theory of the divine right of kings, 06:58.199 --> 07:02.729 which in his era, had received expression by a 07:02.734 --> 07:07.374 man named Robert Filmer, whose name appears, 07:07.370 --> 07:10.020 I think occasionally, in the Second Treatise. 07:10.019 --> 07:14.679 Filmer had written a book called Patriarcha, 07:14.680 --> 07:19.710 and the Patriarcha had argued that all political 07:19.713 --> 07:25.593 authority derives from the grant of authority that God had given 07:25.585 --> 07:27.975 to Adam, and therefore, 07:27.982 --> 07:32.512 that all legitimate authority has divine right behind it. 07:32.509 --> 07:36.559 Locke's First Treatise is a very important, 07:36.563 --> 07:40.703 but also, I have to say, extremely tedious work, 07:40.699 --> 07:46.309 and you should be grateful that I am not assigning it to you. 07:46.310 --> 07:49.600 But it's a very interesting book, in its own right, 07:49.601 --> 07:52.101 of in many ways, biblical criticism and 07:52.102 --> 07:55.332 exposition. But it's only in the Second 07:55.332 --> 07:59.672 Treatise that Locke set out to set out his own positive 07:59.668 --> 08:02.358 theory of government, as it were. 08:02.360 --> 08:06.300 This book was written, we now believe, 08:06.296 --> 08:11.826 shortly before the famous Whig Revolution of 1688, 08:11.829 --> 08:16.959 and in it, Locke sets out his theory of parliamentary 08:16.955 --> 08:21.945 supremacy, rule of law, and constitutional government. 08:21.949 --> 08:28.609 To put it maybe slightly oddly, Locke was in his day, 08:28.607 --> 08:34.237 to some degree, what Aristotle was to his. 08:34.240 --> 08:38.770 The Second Treatise is intended as a practical book. 08:38.769 --> 08:45.199 It was a book addressed not so much to the philosophers of his 08:45.196 --> 08:50.886 age, but to Englishmen, written to them in the everyday 08:50.885 --> 08:53.725 language of their time. 08:53.730 --> 08:57.970 He wrote to capture, in a way, the common sense of 08:57.973 --> 09:02.653 his time, although this is not to say Locke was not, 09:02.649 --> 09:06.269 at the same time, a deeply controversial figure. 09:06.269 --> 09:10.859 Locke had the ability, and it's a very desirable 09:10.864 --> 09:14.094 ability, to take, in many ways, 09:14.090 --> 09:18.740 radical or even revolutionary ideas and express them in a kind 09:18.740 --> 09:23.240 of language that makes people believe that this is what they 09:23.237 --> 09:25.217 had thought all along. 09:25.220 --> 09:27.010 And that is, to some degree, 09:27.009 --> 09:29.859 the genius of the Second Treatise. 09:29.860 --> 09:33.270 In many ways, that is easier for us, 09:33.269 --> 09:37.749 because Locke's language has become, for us, 09:37.750 --> 09:41.140 the kind of I would almost say common sense, 09:41.136 --> 09:44.916 or shorthand language, for the way we think about 09:44.916 --> 09:47.166 politics. And it was, again, 09:47.173 --> 09:51.493 a mark of his genius to be able to create that language and give 09:51.489 --> 09:55.739 it a stamp that seemed to make people believe that this is what 09:55.737 --> 09:58.817 they had simply been thinking all along. 09:58.820 --> 10:02.030 Locke was himself a deeply political man, 10:02.029 --> 10:04.679 but he was also, at the same time, 10:04.676 --> 10:09.486 as I've just been hinting, perhaps, a very reticent one. 10:09.490 --> 10:15.480 He lived in a period of intense religious and political 10:15.479 --> 10:19.449 conflict. He was just a boy in school 10:19.452 --> 10:24.452 when a king, Charles I, was executed and he was an 10:24.447 --> 10:31.037 adult when another king, James II, was overthrown and 10:31.042 --> 10:33.652 forced into exile. 10:33.649 --> 10:38.989 He was a younger contemporary of Hobbes, but he lived in a 10:38.990 --> 10:43.020 period of immense civil conflict and war. 10:43.019 --> 10:47.019 Locke spent many years at Oxford, where he was both a 10:47.019 --> 10:50.479 student and a fellow, and he was suspected, 10:50.480 --> 10:54.530 throughout much of his time there, of harboring radical 10:54.526 --> 10:57.926 political sympathies, but he was so cautious and 10:57.926 --> 11:01.146 careful in expressing them that after many years, 11:01.149 --> 11:06.869 even those closest to him were unclear as to what his opinions 11:06.873 --> 11:09.663 were. The master of Locke's own 11:09.663 --> 11:13.593 residential college at Oxford, Balliol College, 11:13.588 --> 11:16.658 described Mr. Locke as the "master of 11:16.660 --> 11:21.520 taciturnity," a master of taciturnity because he could not 11:21.524 --> 11:26.224 discover, through questioning and so on, 11:26.222 --> 11:32.112 Locke's opinions on religious and political matters. 11:32.110 --> 11:32.800 Just think of it. 11:32.799 --> 11:37.609 There used to be a very wonderful bust of Locke in the 11:37.608 --> 11:42.868 lobby of the British Arts Centre and I used to recommend to 11:42.870 --> 11:46.000 students, when they were down in that 11:45.996 --> 11:48.946 part of campus, to stop in and look at his 11:48.953 --> 11:51.823 face, because as with Machiavelli and 11:51.815 --> 11:54.465 others, the face is very revealing. 11:54.470 --> 12:01.610 And I used to ask people to see do you detect in here the sense 12:01.607 --> 12:07.937 of the master of taciturnity that his college master had 12:07.938 --> 12:12.588 discussed? Locke was a private secretary 12:12.585 --> 12:18.025 and a physician to a man named Anthony Ashley Cooper, 12:18.027 --> 12:21.687 later known as Lord Shaftesbury. 12:21.690 --> 12:26.440 Shaftesbury had a circle, the Shaftesbury Circle, 12:26.437 --> 12:32.367 of political followers who were opponents of the monarchy and 12:32.372 --> 12:36.232 who were forced into exile in 1683. 12:36.230 --> 12:38.770 Locke followed them into exile. 12:38.769 --> 12:44.159 He spent several years in Holland in 1683 before returning 12:44.159 --> 12:47.409 to England, again, shortly before the Whig 12:47.408 --> 12:50.478 Revolution, where his book, the Second Treatise, 12:50.480 --> 12:57.750 was published and where he lived until his death in 1704. 12:57.750 --> 13:00.790 Just two years ago, in fact, Yale, 13:00.785 --> 13:05.375 at the Beinecke Library, held a major conference in 13:05.383 --> 13:10.633 commemoration of the 300th anniversary of the death of Mr. 13:10.626 --> 13:14.256 Locke. So those are a few things about 13:14.261 --> 13:17.121 his contributions and his context. 13:17.120 --> 13:21.790 I want to begin today the substantive part of this talk by 13:21.786 --> 13:25.316 focusing on the theme that, in many ways, 13:25.321 --> 13:29.971 forms the central core of Locke's political doctrine, 13:29.968 --> 13:32.558 his Theory of Natural Law. 13:32.559 --> 13:35.679 This is a term that has come up from time to time. 13:35.679 --> 13:41.989 There is no modern thinker that I'm aware of who makes natural 13:41.990 --> 13:47.060 law as important to his doctrine as does Locke. 13:47.059 --> 13:52.049 The best way to observe the working, or to reconstruct the 13:52.048 --> 13:57.298 working, of natural law is to follow a procedure that we have 13:57.299 --> 14:01.089 seen before; to think about what is the 14:01.088 --> 14:04.758 condition of nature, the state of nature, 14:04.762 --> 14:10.092 where we can see the natural law in its operative form. 14:10.090 --> 14:14.160 The state of nature, for Locke, in many ways, 14:14.161 --> 14:18.051 as for Hobbes, is not a condition of ruling 14:18.048 --> 14:22.118 and being ruled, as it is for Aristotle. 14:22.120 --> 14:25.950 The state of nature is not a political condition. 14:25.950 --> 14:31.150 Locke describes the state of nature as a condition of perfect 14:31.152 --> 14:33.852 freedom. While Aristotle said that we 14:33.850 --> 14:36.200 were, by nature, members of a family, 14:36.203 --> 14:40.413 a polis, a moral community of some kind, 14:40.406 --> 14:44.796 bound by ties of civic or family obligation, 14:44.799 --> 14:48.629 Locke understands, by the state of nature, 14:48.629 --> 14:54.139 a condition without civil authority or civil obligations. 14:54.139 --> 14:59.199 The state of nature is not, for him, an historical 14:59.195 --> 15:05.075 condition, although he does occasionally refer to the vast 15:05.076 --> 15:10.336 tracts of North America as suggesting a condition of 15:10.338 --> 15:13.258 nature, but the state of nature is a 15:13.259 --> 15:14.839 kind of thought experiment. 15:14.840 --> 15:19.850 What does human nature like in the absence of authority? 15:19.850 --> 15:25.330 15:25.330 --> 15:28.740 The state of nature, Locke suggests to us, 15:28.739 --> 15:32.979 is not an amoral condition, as it was for Hobbes. 15:32.980 --> 15:37.100 It is not simply a condition of war, of all against all. 15:37.100 --> 15:38.930 The state of nature, he tells us, 15:38.933 --> 15:40.713 is in fact a moral condition. 15:40.710 --> 15:45.730 It is governed by a moral law, or a natural law, 15:45.730 --> 15:49.790 that dictates peace and sociability. 15:49.789 --> 15:53.679 There is a moral law of nature that determines that no one 15:53.675 --> 15:57.005 should harm another person in their life, liberty, 15:57.014 --> 16:00.184 or possessions. This natural law, 16:00.183 --> 16:04.153 Locke affirms, "willeth the peace and 16:04.152 --> 16:07.682 preservation of all mankind." 16:07.679 --> 16:11.919 So the natural condition, for Locke, is a moral state, 16:11.919 --> 16:16.399 one in which a natural law, again, dictates the peace and 16:16.399 --> 16:20.989 preservation. It is not a war of all against 16:20.991 --> 16:23.291 all. Locke's natural law, 16:23.293 --> 16:27.003 in some ways, seems like a very traditional 16:26.997 --> 16:30.877 form of moral law, familiar to readers of his 16:30.878 --> 16:33.988 time; readers who would have been 16:33.992 --> 16:39.042 familiar with the natural law tradition, going back to Cicero, 16:39.036 --> 16:40.686 the Roman Stoics, St. 16:40.690 --> 16:43.830 Thomas Aquinas, and in Locke's own day, 16:43.832 --> 16:49.292 an important Anglican divine by the name of Richard Hooker. 16:49.289 --> 16:52.869 Locke's theory of moral law, or natural law, 16:52.871 --> 16:57.291 sounds comforting and traditional, and to some degree, 16:57.286 --> 17:00.446 it is. All civil authority has its 17:00.447 --> 17:04.407 foundation in a law of reason that is knowable, 17:04.413 --> 17:08.383 by virtue of our rational capacities alone. 17:08.380 --> 17:12.150 The law of nature declares, according to Locke, 17:12.153 --> 17:14.703 that we are, in his famous term, 17:14.696 --> 17:19.036 the "workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise 17:19.043 --> 17:22.093 maker." And as products of divine 17:22.089 --> 17:26.599 workmanship, we ought never to harm anyone in their lives, 17:26.603 --> 17:28.903 liberties, or possessions. 17:28.900 --> 17:32.030 Locke, again, seems to effortlessly weave 17:32.034 --> 17:36.974 together the Stoic tradition of natural law with these Christian 17:36.971 --> 17:41.361 ideas of divine workmanship into one seamless whole. 17:41.359 --> 17:45.189 You can see the way in which Locke's rhetoric here, 17:45.192 --> 17:48.262 in his writing, brings together different 17:48.257 --> 17:52.777 strands of the philosophical and theological tradition, 17:52.779 --> 17:56.959 weaving them together in a kind of effortless whole almost. 17:56.960 --> 18:00.030 18:00.029 --> 18:03.959 Do not be simply seduced by this. 18:03.960 --> 18:07.020 Why do I say that? 18:07.019 --> 18:11.819 Because even within the same paragraphs, Locke's natural law, 18:11.819 --> 18:13.579 the law that, again, 18:13.579 --> 18:19.639 mandates or dictates "peace and preservation of all mankind," 18:19.638 --> 18:23.878 turns into a right of self-preservation. 18:23.880 --> 18:26.680 From the beginning, you have to say, 18:26.677 --> 18:31.387 it is not altogether clear even whether the natural law is a 18:31.392 --> 18:35.782 theory of moral duty, duties that we have to preserve 18:35.777 --> 18:40.317 other's duties and obligations, or whether it is a theory of 18:40.321 --> 18:44.631 natural rights that mandates that the highest priority be 18:44.633 --> 18:48.413 given to individual self-preservation and whatever 18:48.407 --> 18:53.487 is necessary to achieve the preservation of the individual. 18:53.490 --> 18:56.720 The state of nature is a condition without civil 18:56.724 --> 18:59.154 authority. The law of nature, 18:59.149 --> 19:02.789 in other words, has no person or office to 19:02.792 --> 19:06.882 oversee its enforcement or its application. 19:06.880 --> 19:09.880 So this state of nature that he once describes, 19:09.875 --> 19:13.585 or early describes in the book is a condition of peace and 19:13.587 --> 19:16.807 mutual distrust, quickly degenerates into a 19:16.814 --> 19:20.144 condition of civil war, or of war, where every 19:20.144 --> 19:25.644 individual serves as the judge, jury, and executioner of the 19:25.637 --> 19:29.897 natural law. The state of nature quickly 19:29.904 --> 19:35.994 becomes a Hobbesian condition of essentially every man for 19:35.994 --> 19:38.754 himself. Consider the following passage 19:38.753 --> 19:41.133 in section 11 of the Second Treatise. 19:41.130 --> 19:45.100 "The damnified person," Locke writes--someone who has been 19:45.096 --> 19:49.546 mistreated in the condition of nature--the "damnified person," 19:49.549 --> 19:53.089 who has been injured or mistreated, "has this power of 19:53.085 --> 19:56.545 appropriating to himself the goods or services of the 19:56.554 --> 19:59.694 offender by the right of self-preservation, 19:59.690 --> 20:03.750 as every man has a power to punish the crime to prevent it 20:03.750 --> 20:06.810 being committed again, by the right he has of 20:06.808 --> 20:10.118 preserving all mankind, and doing all reasonable things 20:10.118 --> 20:12.078 he can in order to that end." 20:12.079 --> 20:15.359 In other words, if you have been wronged, 20:15.363 --> 20:19.963 or feel you have been wronged, in the state of nature, 20:19.960 --> 20:23.860 you have, according to the natural law, for Locke, 20:23.861 --> 20:26.251 the right to, as he puts it, 20:26.250 --> 20:30.170 appropriate to yourself the goods or services of the 20:30.173 --> 20:33.523 offender. And you have that--to take from 20:33.516 --> 20:36.086 them their goods, their property, 20:36.093 --> 20:41.633 their services in some way, whatever you feel appropriate 20:41.627 --> 20:47.967 as, again, the person who has suffered some kind of wrong. 20:47.970 --> 20:51.320 Every person becomes, as it were, judge and 20:51.319 --> 20:54.109 executioner of the law of nature. 20:54.109 --> 20:57.529 The fundamental law of nature, Locke says here, 20:57.531 --> 21:00.211 is the right of self-preservation. 21:00.210 --> 21:04.790 And this states that each person is empowered to do, 21:04.790 --> 21:09.280 again, whatever is in his power, to preserve him or 21:09.282 --> 21:13.132 herself. Again, consider the following 21:13.127 --> 21:17.327 in section 16: "And one may destroy a man who 21:17.325 --> 21:19.515 makes war upon him." 21:19.519 --> 21:22.419 May destroy another who makes war upon you. 21:22.420 --> 21:26.840 "Or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason 21:26.839 --> 21:29.519 that he may kill a wolf or a lion," 21:29.519 --> 21:33.669 because such men "are not under the ties of the common law of 21:33.668 --> 21:36.458 reason." They "have no other rule but 21:36.458 --> 21:40.878 that of force and violence," so also, they may be treated as 21:40.880 --> 21:44.130 beasts of prey, "those dangerous or noxious 21:44.127 --> 21:48.267 creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls 21:48.274 --> 21:49.754 into their power." 21:49.750 --> 21:52.840 Listen to that language. 21:52.839 --> 21:56.859 From an original moral condition, where we are under a 21:56.864 --> 22:02.164 natural law not to harm others, a law to preserve and protect 22:02.160 --> 22:08.130 the well-being of others of our kind, we have become like lions 22:08.125 --> 22:12.205 and wolves to each other, beasts of prey and other 22:12.209 --> 22:13.309 noxious creatures. 22:13.309 --> 22:19.119 What is the state of nature, but, in the words of Dorothy 22:19.115 --> 22:22.325 Gale, "lions, tigers, and bears, 22:22.329 --> 22:25.959 oh my!" This is what we are to one 22:25.958 --> 22:29.208 another. This is what I've come to think 22:29.209 --> 22:31.909 of as Locke's bestiary, and in fact, 22:31.908 --> 22:36.528 the Second Treatise is rife with language of comparing 22:36.533 --> 22:40.083 human beings and our behavior to animals. 22:40.079 --> 22:41.979 He speaks about lions and wolves. 22:41.980 --> 22:48.230 Elsewhere he speaks about polecats and skunks and foxes. 22:48.230 --> 22:50.960 If, in fact, we are all beings, 22:50.959 --> 22:56.239 as he says, created under a natural law, we seem to quickly 22:56.236 --> 23:00.236 degenerate into almost bestial behavior. 23:00.240 --> 23:04.090 Beasts of prey, far from being cooperative and 23:04.087 --> 23:06.307 peace seeking creatures. 23:06.309 --> 23:12.169 The very freedom that such beings as ourselves enjoy in a 23:12.172 --> 23:17.722 state of nature leads us to abuse that freedom and, 23:17.720 --> 23:21.620 in turn, requires or is at the basis of the need for civil 23:21.620 --> 23:22.510 government. 23:22.510 --> 23:26.130 23:26.130 --> 23:29.700 However, in the meantime, the question that any reader of 23:29.698 --> 23:33.648 the Second Treatise has to ask of themselves--and I hope 23:33.649 --> 23:37.349 you've put this forward in your sections to one another--is 23:37.345 --> 23:41.745 whether the natural condition, as Locke understands it, 23:41.751 --> 23:46.851 is one overseen by a moral law of justifying or sanctifying 23:46.854 --> 23:51.594 peace and security, or whether Locke's state of 23:51.585 --> 23:57.065 nature is simply a thinly veiled description, a thinly 23:57.071 --> 24:02.241 papered-over description, of the Hobbesian war of all 24:02.244 --> 24:06.494 against all. Was Locke simply Hobbes, 24:06.488 --> 24:10.948 in some way, in sheep's clothing? 24:10.950 --> 24:15.210 24:15.210 --> 24:18.760 Remember his famous taciturnity. 24:18.759 --> 24:22.999 Locke seems to be speaking two very different languages, 24:23.002 --> 24:26.472 in other words, one of traditional natural law 24:26.474 --> 24:31.184 that holds out duties to others as primary and the other, 24:31.180 --> 24:34.810 in some ways, a modern Hobbesian conception 24:34.812 --> 24:40.172 of natural rights that maintains the priority of right and each 24:40.174 --> 24:43.984 individual's right to self-preservation. 24:43.980 --> 24:47.540 Is Locke, in other words--and this is perhaps more of an 24:47.542 --> 24:51.362 historical than a theoretical question--is Locke a member of 24:51.363 --> 24:53.333 the ancient, in some ways, 24:53.326 --> 24:57.096 Ciceronian and Thomistic tradition of natural law or a 24:57.104 --> 24:58.534 modern Hobbesian? 24:58.529 --> 25:03.849 Do his politics derive from a theological conception of divine 25:03.847 --> 25:07.577 workmanship or an ultimately, you might say, 25:07.578 --> 25:11.618 naturalistic conception or account of the human passions 25:11.616 --> 25:14.036 and the struggle for survival? 25:14.039 --> 25:18.459 Do his priorities go to duties or to rights? 25:18.460 --> 25:21.140 Or is Locke simply confused? 25:21.140 --> 25:26.140 Is he confusing two different languages or is he being 25:26.141 --> 25:30.011 intentionally ambiguous in his account? 25:30.009 --> 25:33.479 A recent book, by a well-known scholar of 25:33.475 --> 25:37.285 Locke has argued, I think quite powerfully in 25:37.287 --> 25:41.327 some ways, that Locke's idea of equality 25:41.328 --> 25:46.008 in the state of nature specifically relies upon a 25:46.010 --> 25:51.960 certain kind of Christian theological context of argument. 25:51.960 --> 25:55.770 Locke's statement in paragraph four of the Second 25:55.768 --> 25:59.048 Treatise, his statement that "there being 25:59.054 --> 26:03.464 nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species 26:03.459 --> 26:06.619 and rank, promiscuously born to all the 26:06.619 --> 26:10.349 same advantages of Nature, should also be equal to one 26:10.346 --> 26:12.976 another." That Locke's statement that 26:12.978 --> 26:16.948 creatures of the same species and rank should be equal to one 26:16.951 --> 26:19.891 another, this is said to rely upon and 26:19.887 --> 26:23.537 depend upon a very specific religious argument. 26:23.539 --> 26:28.389 What it means to belong to a species and why belonging to the 26:28.392 --> 26:33.242 same species confers a special rank or dignity on each of its 26:33.244 --> 26:37.234 members only makes sense, according to this recent 26:37.229 --> 26:40.029 interpretation, if you believe or if it is 26:40.029 --> 26:43.789 believed that the species in question has a specifically 26:43.785 --> 26:45.625 moral relation to God. 26:45.630 --> 26:50.950 The question, I think, is whether Locke's 26:50.947 --> 26:56.527 idea of equality in the state of nature, 26:56.529 --> 27:00.029 or his idea of the moral law in the state of nature, 27:00.027 --> 27:04.457 relies upon this belief, or whether it can be inferred 27:04.462 --> 27:09.312 from such things as the basic principles of freedom, 27:09.309 --> 27:14.589 whether this can be inferred, as it were, from purely non 27:14.592 --> 27:19.122 theological, naturalistic premises or grounds. 27:19.119 --> 27:23.659 Locke, to be short, is silent in the Second 27:23.664 --> 27:28.924 Treatise about the theological foundations of his 27:28.916 --> 27:31.956 position. There are no discussions of 27:31.956 --> 27:35.146 important theological figures, such as Jesus or St. 27:35.153 --> 27:38.413 Paul or the New Testament, at least in the Second 27:38.414 --> 27:42.574 Treatise; he discusses these issues at length elsewhere. 27:42.569 --> 27:44.039 These may be, in some way, 27:44.043 --> 27:46.343 thought of as background considerations, 27:46.341 --> 27:50.491 but the question remains, I think, for us whether these 27:50.490 --> 27:54.870 are deeply embedded in Locke's arguments about divine 27:54.865 --> 27:59.235 workmanship or whether or not that language of divine 27:59.241 --> 28:04.291 workmanship simply serves as a kind of window dressing, 28:04.289 --> 28:11.879 again, for a purely secular naturalistic theory of human 28:11.877 --> 28:16.427 nature and political authority. 28:16.430 --> 28:19.500 28:19.500 --> 28:23.200 Very important issue, I think, in coming to 28:23.197 --> 28:28.337 understand Locke and indirectly, very important for how we come 28:28.338 --> 28:32.348 to think of the American regime because--I'll just say, 28:32.349 --> 28:37.249 simply as a kind of footnote to what I've been saying--if Locke 28:37.248 --> 28:41.738 is thought of in some ways, as his doctrine as being, 28:41.742 --> 28:45.442 in some ways, at the founding principles of 28:45.443 --> 28:48.663 the American regime, the Declaration of 28:48.663 --> 28:51.963 Independence most notably, it becomes very important. 28:51.960 --> 28:56.280 It becomes part of a contemporary public argument 28:56.283 --> 29:01.693 whether those foundations owe their authority to some kind of 29:01.688 --> 29:05.618 theological doctrine, as Jefferson calls it in the 29:05.619 --> 29:07.599 opening of the Declaration, 29:07.599 --> 29:10.059 "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," 29:10.059 --> 29:15.829 seems in some way to have Lockean overtones to it. 29:15.829 --> 29:20.809 Do our founding documents imply a theology of some kind, 29:20.808 --> 29:24.428 "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," 29:24.430 --> 29:29.200 or are those principles, again, purely of a naturalistic 29:29.204 --> 29:33.984 secular kind that can do without theology altogether? 29:33.980 --> 29:37.910 That is an argument, a kind of scholarly and 29:37.913 --> 29:42.303 academic argument, to be sure, but it spills over 29:42.303 --> 29:47.433 into many of our public debates over the role or place of 29:47.425 --> 29:52.945 religion in public life, whenever we talk about issues 29:52.948 --> 29:59.078 of the appropriateness of issues like school prayer or should the 29:59.078 --> 30:04.638 Ten Commandments be publicly displayed in courthouses or in 30:04.635 --> 30:07.025 other public places? 30:07.029 --> 30:11.339 Or if you want to take another famous Jeffersonian position, 30:11.340 --> 30:14.190 is there a kind of absolute firewall, 30:14.190 --> 30:19.810 a wall of separation, between religion and the state? 30:19.809 --> 30:25.229 These issues that we very much work on today and think about 30:25.233 --> 30:29.733 are, you can see, deeply embedded in how we think 30:29.730 --> 30:34.520 about Locke and those opening sections of the Second 30:34.522 --> 30:39.232 Treatise dealing with natural law and the state of 30:39.225 --> 30:41.715 nature. So you can see, 30:41.722 --> 30:46.882 again, how these ideas penetrate deeply into the marrow 30:46.880 --> 30:50.510 of our public or political culture. 30:50.510 --> 30:55.150 30:55.150 --> 30:56.600 Are we so different? 30:56.600 --> 30:57.920 Have we become so different? 30:57.920 --> 31:01.390 Will people living three-hundred years from now 31:01.394 --> 31:05.524 think of us as so different, and our public debates so 31:05.518 --> 31:09.608 different, from those that animated the public issues in 31:09.607 --> 31:11.537 the time of John Locke? 31:11.540 --> 31:14.650 Maybe not. Maybe we aren't that different. 31:14.650 --> 31:20.030 So enough for contemporary. 31:20.030 --> 31:28.020 Let me go back to Mr. Locke. 31:28.019 --> 31:35.169 The core of Locke's theory of natural law in the state of 31:35.173 --> 31:42.203 nature is arguably lodged in his account of property, 31:42.200 --> 31:47.460 chapter 5 of the Second Treatise. 31:47.460 --> 31:51.220 If you remember anything about Locke after this class, 31:51.220 --> 31:52.710 remember chapter 5. 31:52.710 --> 31:56.880 It is, by all accounts--maybe chapter 19 as well, 31:56.881 --> 32:02.531 "The Theory of Revolution," but chapter 5, account of property; 32:02.529 --> 32:06.309 certainly, in many ways, one of the most characteristic 32:06.309 --> 32:09.179 doctrines of Lockean political thought. 32:09.180 --> 32:12.520 32:12.519 --> 32:19.609 Locke's view of human nature is that we are very much the 32:19.606 --> 32:23.146 property-acquiring animal. 32:23.150 --> 32:26.950 Aristotle had said we were political by nature; 32:26.950 --> 32:30.130 Locke says we are property-acquiring beings. 32:30.130 --> 32:34.380 Our claims to property derive from our work. 32:34.380 --> 32:38.790 The fact that we have expended our labor, our work, 32:38.789 --> 32:42.139 on something gives us a title to it. 32:42.140 --> 32:48.020 Labor confers value and is the source of all values. 32:48.019 --> 32:51.059 The state of nature is a condition, he tells us, 32:51.062 --> 32:54.102 of communal ownership, what Karl Marx would have 32:54.104 --> 32:56.244 called "primitive communism." 32:56.240 --> 33:00.060 The state of nature is given to all men in common, 33:00.057 --> 33:04.557 Locke says. Parts of it become private 33:04.562 --> 33:11.282 property only when we add our labor to something. 33:11.279 --> 33:17.759 Let me read a famous formula from sections 27 and 28. 33:17.759 --> 33:22.559 "Every man," Locke says, "has property in his person: 33:22.563 --> 33:26.723 this no body has any right to but himself." 33:26.720 --> 33:30.820 We all, in other words, come into the world with a 33:30.821 --> 33:35.091 certain private property, property in our person. 33:35.090 --> 33:36.760 No one else has a right to that. 33:36.759 --> 33:40.929 "The labour of his body," Locke continues, "and the work of his 33:40.933 --> 33:44.783 hands, we may say, are properly his for labour 33:44.775 --> 33:49.485 being the unquestionable property of the labourer, 33:49.490 --> 33:53.300 no man but he can have a right to what is once joined to, 33:53.296 --> 33:56.986 at least where there is enough, as good left in common for 33:56.988 --> 33:59.738 others." "That labour," Locke says, 33:59.739 --> 34:03.719 "puts a distinction between him and the common: 34:03.720 --> 34:07.960 that added something to them more than nature, 34:07.960 --> 34:10.400 the common mother of all, had done; 34:10.400 --> 34:14.180 and so they become his private right." 34:14.179 --> 34:18.079 So we have moved here, in this one paragraph, 34:18.084 --> 34:23.324 from the state of nature, which he says is common to all, 34:23.320 --> 34:28.240 to a condition of rudimentary private property, 34:28.240 --> 34:32.520 which we have in our body, our person, 34:32.519 --> 34:36.499 which he says also includes the labor of the body and the work 34:36.501 --> 34:39.421 of the hands, how we expend our activity. 34:39.420 --> 34:43.970 That labor, he says, which puts something between us 34:43.972 --> 34:48.082 and the common, becomes the source of ownership 34:48.077 --> 34:52.607 of things around us, and that ownership then, 34:52.610 --> 34:55.200 in turn, becomes a right. 34:55.199 --> 34:57.859 So they become, he concludes there, 34:57.858 --> 35:01.138 his private right, the source of a right to 35:01.143 --> 35:03.853 property. The natural law, 35:03.849 --> 35:09.659 as Locke seems to be saying, dictates a right to private 35:09.655 --> 35:15.875 property and it is to secure that right that governments are 35:15.884 --> 35:18.844 ultimately established. 35:18.840 --> 35:23.920 In a striking formulation, Locke tells us that the world 35:23.917 --> 35:28.807 was created in order to be cultivated and improved. 35:28.809 --> 35:32.229 Those who work to improve and develop nature, 35:32.230 --> 35:36.970 who add to nature through the labor of their body and the work 35:36.972 --> 35:40.802 of their hands, those who develop and improve 35:40.799 --> 35:45.579 nature are the true benefactors of humanity, of humankind. 35:45.579 --> 35:49.779 "God gave the world to men in common," he says, 35:49.776 --> 35:54.426 section 34, "God gave the world to men in common, 35:54.429 --> 35:57.979 but since He gave it to them for their benefit and the 35:57.976 --> 36:01.916 greatest conveniences of life that they were capable to draw 36:01.924 --> 36:05.564 from it," he writes; the world was given for our 36:05.559 --> 36:08.419 convenience, he says, to be drawn from, 36:08.415 --> 36:12.995 "it cannot be supposed He meant it should always remain common 36:13.001 --> 36:14.731 and uncultivated." 36:14.730 --> 36:18.680 And then he adds, "He gave it to the use of the 36:18.682 --> 36:24.182 industrious and the rational and not to the fancy or covetousness 36:24.182 --> 36:27.622 of the quarrelsome and contentious." 36:27.619 --> 36:33.389 God gave the world for our improvement of it and therefore, 36:33.392 --> 36:38.272 He gave it to the industrious and the rational. 36:38.269 --> 36:44.579 Locke seems to suggest in that very phrase that the state will 36:44.578 --> 36:49.208 be a commercial state, that the Lockean republic or 36:49.209 --> 36:52.969 the Lockean state will be a commercial republic. 36:52.970 --> 36:56.110 Think of that. Ancient political theory, 36:56.105 --> 36:58.935 Plato, Aristotle, regarded commerce, 36:58.942 --> 37:02.832 regarded property, as in many ways subordinate to 37:02.831 --> 37:05.021 the life of a citizen. 37:05.019 --> 37:10.319 Plato would have instituted a kind of communism of property 37:10.317 --> 37:13.877 among the guardians of his Kalipolis. 37:13.880 --> 37:19.520 Aristotle thought of the necessity of private property, 37:19.519 --> 37:25.159 but simply as a means to allow a few of those citizens, 37:25.158 --> 37:28.498 to engage in political life. 37:28.500 --> 37:33.860 Economy, you might say, was always subordinate to the 37:33.861 --> 37:37.761 polity. Locke turns this ancient and 37:37.757 --> 37:42.627 medieval doctrine, as well, on its head in many 37:42.632 --> 37:45.082 ways. The world belongs to the 37:45.079 --> 37:48.879 industrious and the rational, those who, through their own 37:48.877 --> 37:52.007 efforts, through their labor and work, 37:52.009 --> 37:55.319 increase and enhance the plenty of all. 37:55.320 --> 38:00.390 It is only a relatively short step from John Locke to Adam 38:00.387 --> 38:04.587 Smith, in that respect, the great author of The 38:04.590 --> 38:08.320 Wealth of Nations, again, just under a century 38:08.322 --> 38:12.512 after Locke's Second Treatise. For Locke--and let 38:12.511 --> 38:17.011 me just go on a little more about this--there are no natural 38:17.005 --> 38:19.895 limits to property acquisition. 38:19.900 --> 38:23.670 And this is, in a way, the essential point. 38:23.670 --> 38:27.970 The introduction of money or coinage into the state of 38:27.972 --> 38:32.602 nature, an issue I'm not going to talk much about here, 38:32.599 --> 38:36.149 but that becomes an important moment in his chapter 5 in his 38:36.146 --> 38:40.876 account of the state of nature, the introduction of money makes 38:40.881 --> 38:45.321 unlimited capital accumulation not only possible, 38:45.320 --> 38:47.920 but even a kind of moral duty. 38:47.920 --> 38:52.510 It becomes our duty to enhance and work upon the raw materials 38:52.514 --> 38:55.004 of the natural world around us. 38:55.000 --> 38:59.730 By enriching ourselves, we unintentionally work for the 38:59.728 --> 39:01.478 benefit of others. 39:01.480 --> 39:05.050 Consider the following remarkable sentence: 39:05.054 --> 39:09.824 "A king of a large and fruitful territory in America," 39:09.820 --> 39:14.700 he says, "feeds, lodges, and is clad worse than 39:14.702 --> 39:17.782 a day labourer in England." 39:17.780 --> 39:22.110 Because, of course, our work, Locke thinks, 39:22.105 --> 39:26.735 has enhanced the plenty of all in some way. 39:26.739 --> 39:30.679 The creation of a general plenty, the common wealth--and 39:30.678 --> 39:34.618 think of the way in which the revealing use of that term 39:34.617 --> 39:38.287 "common wealth," the wealth of all--is due, 39:38.287 --> 39:41.817 in many ways, to the emancipation of labor 39:41.815 --> 39:46.805 from the previous kinds of moral and political restrictions 39:46.807 --> 39:51.107 imposed upon it by the ancient philosophical, 39:51.110 --> 39:53.340 as well as religious, traditions. 39:53.340 --> 39:56.690 Labor becomes, for Locke, his source of all 39:56.687 --> 40:01.307 value and our title to common ownership and in a remarkable 40:01.309 --> 40:05.769 rhetorical series of shifts, he makes not nature, 40:05.765 --> 40:10.625 but rather human labor and acquisition the source of 40:10.625 --> 40:15.385 property and of unlimited material possessions. 40:15.389 --> 40:18.999 He begins this chapter, chapter 5, with the assertion, 40:18.998 --> 40:22.058 think about it, that "God hath given the world 40:22.062 --> 40:26.922 to men in common," once again suggesting that the 40:26.921 --> 40:31.741 original state is one of common ownership. 40:31.739 --> 40:36.459 He then suggests that every person is the owner of their own 40:36.460 --> 40:41.180 bodies and that one acquires a title to things through labor 40:41.179 --> 40:44.859 that we have mixed with that common world. 40:44.860 --> 40:48.300 But what starts as a very, very modest title to the 40:48.299 --> 40:53.189 objects that we have worked on, his example is something as 40:53.194 --> 40:59.134 simple as picking apples from a tree, the act of picking gives 40:59.125 --> 41:04.355 us a title to the apple, that very simple or rudimentary 41:04.356 --> 41:09.656 form of property soon turns into a full scale explanation of the 41:09.655 --> 41:14.695 rise of property and a kind of market economy in the state of 41:14.700 --> 41:18.180 nature. "Labor accounts," he tells us, 41:18.175 --> 41:23.105 "for ten times the amount of value that is provided by nature 41:23.107 --> 41:25.817 alone," he says at section 37. 41:25.820 --> 41:30.780 Our labor enhances the value of nature ten times. 41:30.780 --> 41:35.220 But he then goes on to add very quickly, "I have here rated the 41:35.215 --> 41:39.575 improved land very low in making its product but as one to ten 41:39.580 --> 41:42.800 when it is much nearer a hundred to one." 41:42.800 --> 41:46.910 Our labor advances things a hundred-fold. 41:46.909 --> 41:49.439 Shortly later, in section 43, 41:49.443 --> 41:53.703 he says that the value of anything is improved a 41:53.695 --> 41:56.495 thousand-fold due to labor. 41:56.500 --> 42:00.290 Again, what began as a fairly rudimentary discussion of the 42:00.289 --> 42:04.209 origins of private property at the beginning of chapter 5, 42:04.210 --> 42:07.780 limited by the extent of our use and spoilage, 42:07.777 --> 42:10.867 has, by the end of that same chapter, 42:10.869 --> 42:14.489 you might say, morphed into an account of 42:14.489 --> 42:19.379 large scale ownership with considerable inequalities of 42:19.376 --> 42:21.726 wealth and possession. 42:21.730 --> 42:25.430 By the end of chapter 5, there appears to be almost a 42:25.433 --> 42:29.423 direct link between Locke's dynamic theory of property in 42:29.422 --> 42:32.842 chapter 5 and James Madison's famous statement in 42:32.841 --> 42:34.051 Federalist No. 42:34.052 --> 42:36.272 10. As Madison says, 42:36.269 --> 42:40.229 "the protection of different and unequal faculties of 42:40.234 --> 42:44.584 acquiring property is the first object of Government." 42:44.580 --> 42:48.180 42:48.179 --> 42:51.749 Seems a very Lockean proposition in The 42:51.745 --> 42:53.325 Federalist. 42:53.329 --> 42:56.089 Locke gives, in other words, 42:56.088 --> 42:58.948 to commerce, to money-making, 42:58.949 --> 43:04.059 to acquisitiveness, a kind of pride of place and a 43:04.063 --> 43:08.303 sort of moral status, you might even call it, 43:08.300 --> 43:13.260 that it never enjoyed in the ancient and medieval worlds. 43:13.260 --> 43:18.440 The new politics of the Lockean state will no longer be 43:18.442 --> 43:23.082 concerned with glory, honor, thumos, 43:23.076 --> 43:27.926 virtue, but Lockean politics will be sober, 43:27.928 --> 43:34.098 will be pedestrian, it will be hedonistic, 43:34.104 --> 43:38.404 without sublimity or joy. 43:38.400 --> 43:43.920 Locke is the author of the doctrine that commerce softens 43:43.919 --> 43:47.959 manners, that it makes us less warlike, 43:47.960 --> 43:51.880 that it makes us civilized, something that reaches its, 43:51.880 --> 43:54.710 you might say, highest expression in the 43:54.712 --> 43:58.712 twentieth chapter or the twentieth book of Montesquieu's 43:58.706 --> 44:01.026 Spirit of the Laws. 44:01.030 --> 44:05.940 Commerce does not require us, for Locke, to spill blood or 44:05.936 --> 44:08.126 risk life. It is solid, 44:08.126 --> 44:12.746 reliable, thoroughly middle class in some ways. 44:12.750 --> 44:16.040 Locke is, again, the great author of the idea 44:16.042 --> 44:20.532 that the task of government is to protect not just the rights 44:20.532 --> 44:24.542 of property, but the right to acquire and 44:24.541 --> 44:29.061 build upon the property that we already own. 44:29.059 --> 44:34.299 So I want to end on this note and begin on Wednesday talking a 44:34.299 --> 44:39.449 little bit about what we might call John Locke and the spirit 44:39.453 --> 44:41.003 of capitalism.