-
1.
- In the Essay concerning Human Understanding, Locke writes that, “since
it would be utterly in vain to suppose a rule set to the free actions of man,
without annexing to it some enforcement of good and evil to determine
his will, we must wherever we suppose a law, suppose also some reward or
punishment annexed to that law” (Book II, ch. XXVIII, §6). Why would it be
“vain” to suppose a law without rewards or punishments? Explain why this
means that, wherever there is a law, someone must be authorized to execute
that law. In a state of nature, who is the executive of the law of nature,
according to the Essay? According to the Second Treatise of Government?
Explain how the existence of this executive (in either version) implies the
following agreement and disagreement between Locke and Hobbes over the
right of nature. Agreement: the right of nature is equal in all human beings.
Disagreement: according to Hobbes, one human being’s right of nature always
conflicts with everyone else’s; according to Locke, there is never such a
conflict.
-
2.
- According to Locke, what property always belongs to any individual
human being (unless they are lawfully enslaved)? How is this original
property supposed to explain our ability to acquire “property” in the usual
sense (possessions, including land), even in a state of nature? Explain why,
according to Locke, the property so acquired will initially be (a) quite limited
and (b) more or less equally distributed to everyone. How does the invention
of money, according to Locke, change both (a) and (b)? That is: why does
the existence of money (a) remove the limit on how much property someone
can acquire and (b) eventually result in some people’s having much more
property than others?
-
3.
- Why, according to Locke, does the establishment of a commonwealth (civil
society) essentially consist in setting up a legislative power? To answer this,
you should explain what Locke thinks is the main problem in the state of
nature that a commonwealth is supposed to solve. (See especially Second
Treatise, ch. IX, §§124–6.) Explain why this act of setting up the legislative
is a two-step process, in which the first step requires unanimity among the
prospective citizens of the new commonwealth, whereas the second step is by
majority rule. Why is the resulting legislative limited to making laws that
apply to everyone in common (as opposed to giving special commands to, or
about, particular individuals)?
-
4.
- Suppose a war in which commonwealth A unjustly attacks commonwealth
B, and in which B counterattacks and wins. B, in other words, is the victor
in a just war against A. According to Locke, what rights does B gain over the
soldiers of A who fought against it? Why does this power not extend to: (1)
noncombatant citizens of A; (2) any possessions of the soldiers of A? Why
do (1) and (2), put together, imply that B has gained no political dominion
over any current or future citizens of A? Under what circumstances can B,
nevertheless, according to Locke, have a right to seize some of the possessions
of the citizens of A? What are the limits to this right, according to Locke, and
why does he say that, taking these limits into account, B cannot normally
claim the right to any new territory as a result of this war?
-
5.
- According to Locke in the Essay, what do we normally mean by the word
“man”? (For the purposes of this answer, treat “man” as synonymous with
“human being,” i.e. as not excluding members of any gender.) How does
our use of “man” to include “idiots” (or “changelings”) — that is, creatures
who have the shape and general appearance of human beings, but who never
show signs of using reason — help him prove his case? How does the story
about Prince Maurice and the (allegedly) rational parrot help? (Why does it
not matter whether the story is true of not?) Explain why this means that,
according to Locke, the question of whether the law of nature applies or does
not apply to some given creature is not the same as the question, whether
that creature is or is not a “man.”