An old Latin proverb says “Dura lex sed lex suus” (“The law is harsh, but it is the law”), and that is the ground for all the restrictions humanity has ever had. Those laws can be subdivided into the civil ones and the spiritual ones. One question is which of those is of more importance. The other question is whether they can be separated. And it was Locke who tried to answer the both.
The first thing I would like to discuss is Locke’s point about the state of nature. According to his claim (1980, p. 101), each person has the state of perfect freedom, which is not the privilege of the few but the opportunity for everyone. The question that comes to my mind is the following: “The opportunity for what? Or to do what? To live and die? To strive and then perish?” And, speaking of the mutual love amongst men (Locke, 1980), I dare say that it is considerable in nature but hardly possible in society. Then what Locke (1980, p.8) was driving at was that the perfect development of a human being could only be possible in the natural environment only, aside from the society. It is a sad but true point. However, that is what we have on the one hand. Meanwhile, on the other hand, an individual’s development is impossible outside the other people’s influence. At this point Lock comes close to the definition of a person and personality, one of them an integral part of the social environment.
Locke’s concept of God (1980, p.) is referred to Deism, the key point of which is the observation of nature and not intruding into it. The idea is very close to Buddhism, though the origins take roots from European philosophy. It seems to me it is well understood that the rude interference in the creations of God must not take place. Yet sometimes such a position may take over the common sense and drive to passive life observation, and a man can lose the will to fight, finding a philosophic reason for that.
Locke’s concept of virtue and reason is the consequence of the religious beliefs he had. He was determined to nurse the best of human’s qualities in ordinary men, and this point drove him to the idea of self-denial and rationality that must be the main character features of an ideal man of the new era (Locke 1980). How does that sound nowadays? I am afraid that today ‘s egocentric world will not find self-denial very attractive. Still I wonder if those two qualities Lock was talking about could ever come together. They can be hardly found mixed in a single person. In fat, what we can observe nowadays can be hardly called a rational mankind. It seems to me that rationality as it is, bare and simple, is a dangerous quality. However, Locke argued that “slavish discipline makes a slavish temper” (Locke 1980). It is notable that he argued against beating children, giving the same reason. Indeed, a man raised in fear makes no good human. What he can make then is a good servant.
Coming to the point of the natural rights of a man, I would like to say that Locke’s point was very idealistic. Indeed, society would be perfect if everyone were entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn’t conflict with the first right (to live once they are created)… It sounds far too heaven-like. Of course, there are people who live to shed light on the other people’s lives, to give birth to wonderful people and ideas, to create something outstanding and to stop wars and misery. But there are other people who were born to kill, to hurt and to bring sorrow. That is the law of compensation, which was discovered a bit later. And saying to those people that they are entitled to do everything they want as long as it is not harmful for the other people’s lives and for their own one would be equal to a suicide. This kind of law presumes that people are the only creatures to mange their own lives completely, and that they are able to do literally everything. Still there are some doubts about that. Are we powerful enough to see the future, at least the consequences of our own deeds? As long as the answer is “no”, we remain not good enough to live according to Locke’s rule.
Then comes the natural law, or the right of rebellion. Do people have the right to raise their voice and say that they have been treated unfairly?
The right to stand you and fight is the natural law of evolution, and if it were not for it, mankind would have been extinct long before Locke produced his theory. Yet I wonder what would happen if people took this law literally and stood up to fight each time a conflict would inflame?
Unfortunately, it is far not that simple as well. The government may prove right for their actions further on, but how come would it do that if people have already started the mutiny? Again, this is the case when a slight misunderstanding can lead to tragic events. In the time of crisis or war it is hard to hold back the emotions, to forget about the misery and troubles and come to a cool discussion. This is when a super power is needed, when a special strength of character is obligatory.
Raised according to the Locke’s concept of an ideal man, people might act accordingly and take these laws as something natural and understood, but with the people brought up by the existing “the-strongest-is-he-who-is-the-most-cunning society system”, this idea is doomed to be trimmed according to the situation.
This is what comes for Locke’s next idea, the social contract (Locke, 1980). Again, if not signed forcefully, the contract is legal and its paragraphs are fulfilled by both parties with pleasure and feeling of duty. Still we are too far from being perfect to sign this contract. Since we are all human beings, we are doomed to make mistakes, and the government is not an exception. Again, not to be confused, I will repeat myself, saying that this will only be possible with people brought up by Locke’s concept of an ideal man. The question is who is going to bring up a perfect mankind. Until then, even altering the government will bring nothing.
One of the problems that Locke was constantly dwelling upon was the one of an individual (1980, p.8). With the system he suggested, was it possible to bring up an individual, not a dummy, to follow the rules and bow to the judgment of the rest? As Locke figured it, it was. According to the first law, which guaranteed the natural equality of all people (1980, p.131), one was to develop their personality in its natural ways and according to the inborn qualities and abilities. However, that is a two-sided sword. With all people’s diversity and various temperaments, it is impossible to both make them go the way they want and provide them with well-being and prosperity. The system suggesting only certain types of work and demanding only certain types of character is the crash to Locke’s ideas. It is either you develop yourself the way you wish and stay poor, or you go against your natural aptitudes and crush all your dreams, or you get lucky and stay the way you wanted to be, but that is a case of a two-headed monkey.
Locke’s idea of community reminds me much of communistic ideas – at least, they are just as dreamy and idealistic. It goes back to the notion of the trustworthy government and people living together a happy family life. Can that be true? It is very hard to answer. I still cannot shake off the feeling that even two people take great pains to put up and live peacefully, not to mention a whole community marching together the entire life. Maybe, that is what only Locke’s ideal human can do (1980, p. 17).
The same goes for the common good. One must be an angel in disguise not to be tempted to bribe, or steal, or smuggle.
It is interesting to trace how the notions of an individual and majority are interwoven in Locke’s theory. The rule of the majority might prove to be another piece of fiction. The problem is what underlies Locke’s concept of majority. Of course, that was not something like “Oh my goodness, what will people say?” The thing was that majority, the very one raised with the concepts of Locke’s laws, must be the only and the most fair judge. Its needs are the most important ones, and its problems are the first to be solved. But still I am confused about the voice of those who disagree. Though a minority, they still can have the point. That is a doubtful concept, to my mind.
Speaking of money-and-property relations according to Locke (1980, p.208), would say that, like two times two does not always make four, the government does not always act so that the unlimited accumulation of property would stop and the distribution of goods and wares would be equal. At present it is more concerned with solving the problems of interacting with the other states, and it does not seem to end someday.
Drawing a conclusion, I want to say that the laws for an ideal country and ideal people would not work in the present country and with its present population. It is a very confusing situation when dreams mix with the reality and kill the optimism about the future I its core. The more people think about what it could be like if they were perfect and if the world could be perfect, the less they do to make their life better. And though the acknowledgement of people’s equal rights was a turning point of the history of mankind, it is already a history and there must be some new ideas to push it further.
As Orwell put it, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Reference
Locke, J. (1690), C. B. Macpherson (eds) (1980). Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis IA, Hackett Publishing Company.