Adapting Locke
Locke – initial response
While reading Locke, I kept reminding myself of the advice Professor Jackson gave in class, that we must distance ourselves from the text, and remember that Locke is making an argument.
This reminds me of an earlier post I made about Hobbes’ use of language in comparison to Machiavelli <http://masterworktheory.blogspot.com/2005/09/hobbes-interpretation-of-language.html>. The reason this text is so commonsensical is because the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States is flooded in Lockean references. The Second Treatise is not one of these documents. Locke did not sit down with the founders of our nation and discuss how to “form a more perfect union.” Instead, the founders applied a lot of Locke’s ideas to their own works. And not every word or intention of the Founders is exactly that of Locke. Changes and adaptations have been made. In addition to Hobbes not agreeing with Locke’s perspectives on the sovereign among other things, Hobbes would not agree that a document should be interpreted and have its meaning changed to serve the purpose of another. Going back to my initial discussion about the relevance of ambiguity and interpretation, in the previous comment, does the original document lose all relevance and importance if interpreted? To this I will reaffirm that interpretation and reinterpretation remain important in the place of a dynamic society.
Locke speaks at length about how the exercise of arbitrary power over man is a continuation of the state of war, which is slavery (24). I will note that this does not apply to slaves in the context of slaves, as we know. In the chapter on political society Locke talks about slaves in the sense that we are familiar with.
But there is another sort of Servants, which by a peculiar Name we call Slaves, who being Captives taken in a just War, are by the right of Nature subjected to the Absolute Dominion and Arbitrary Power of their Masters. These Men having, as I say, forfeited their Lives, and with it their Liberties, and lost their Estates; and being in the State of Slavery, not capable of any Property, cannot in that state be considered as any part of Civil Society; the chief end whereof is the preservation of Property (323).
Although Locke does serve to outline many principles that have served for the creation of the United States, this point is completely outrageous and was fostered in the minds of many of our Founding Fathers. My point is that the Constitution written in the 18th century should adapt to changing times. Slavery should not continue to exist even though men thought it justified in the 18th century.
While reading Locke, I kept reminding myself of the advice Professor Jackson gave in class, that we must distance ourselves from the text, and remember that Locke is making an argument.
This reminds me of an earlier post I made about Hobbes’ use of language in comparison to Machiavelli <http://masterworktheory.blogspot.com/2005/09/hobbes-interpretation-of-language.html>. The reason this text is so commonsensical is because the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States is flooded in Lockean references. The Second Treatise is not one of these documents. Locke did not sit down with the founders of our nation and discuss how to “form a more perfect union.” Instead, the founders applied a lot of Locke’s ideas to their own works. And not every word or intention of the Founders is exactly that of Locke. Changes and adaptations have been made. In addition to Hobbes not agreeing with Locke’s perspectives on the sovereign among other things, Hobbes would not agree that a document should be interpreted and have its meaning changed to serve the purpose of another. Going back to my initial discussion about the relevance of ambiguity and interpretation, in the previous comment, does the original document lose all relevance and importance if interpreted? To this I will reaffirm that interpretation and reinterpretation remain important in the place of a dynamic society.
Locke speaks at length about how the exercise of arbitrary power over man is a continuation of the state of war, which is slavery (24). I will note that this does not apply to slaves in the context of slaves, as we know. In the chapter on political society Locke talks about slaves in the sense that we are familiar with.
But there is another sort of Servants, which by a peculiar Name we call Slaves, who being Captives taken in a just War, are by the right of Nature subjected to the Absolute Dominion and Arbitrary Power of their Masters. These Men having, as I say, forfeited their Lives, and with it their Liberties, and lost their Estates; and being in the State of Slavery, not capable of any Property, cannot in that state be considered as any part of Civil Society; the chief end whereof is the preservation of Property (323).
Although Locke does serve to outline many principles that have served for the creation of the United States, this point is completely outrageous and was fostered in the minds of many of our Founding Fathers. My point is that the Constitution written in the 18th century should adapt to changing times. Slavery should not continue to exist even though men thought it justified in the 18th century.
posted by Holly at 2:52 PM
<< Home