The AskPhilosophers logo.

Philosophers

I would just like t to ask you a few questions. Locke speaks of Reason being the Law of Nature if I am correct but then sees that we need certain minimal authority within society to provide correctly measured punishment for those who go against another's natural rights. If Reason is the said Law of Nature then why can not most of us, according to Locke, decide these measurements of justice individually? I understand that he says 'those who will consult it' but if he sees that we naturally as a majority can live within equality and freedom due to Reason, why is this area of justice, in theory, any different? Furthermore I have a problem with his assumption that the moralities he defines would and should be the morality of everyone because many can and do Reason differently. I may not understand Locke completely though.
Accepted:
August 10, 2015

Comments

I shall address your question

Eugene Marshall
September 10, 2015 (changed September 10, 2015) Permalink

I shall address your question concerning reason and the law of nature and shall leave aside the last two sentences concerning morality.

It is true that Locke believes that reason allows those even in a state of nature to know the laws of nature and, therefore, to follow them. Thus, in principle, one might think that people could live in harmony in a state of nature, guided by reason alone.

Unfortunately, when people live together or interact with other, which we must necessarily do, disagreements will sometimes arise. What's more, when someone is a party to a dispute, they are not always able to reason properly concerning the dispute. This is a fact of human nature; we are not always good reasoners when our interests are involved.

In order to adjudicate such disputes, we need a third party to help us. Thus, because people will inevitably come into contract or property disputes, and because they cannot always adjudicate their own or their neighbors' and friends' disputes rationally, we must establish an independent judiciary, so to speak. In other words, we must agree to give up our natural rights in exchange for civil rights, which will make an independent system of justice possible.

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/24613
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org