John Locke was a British philosopher who was very involved with the governance of the colonies and the political conflicts of England. In 1689, Locke published The Two Treaties of Government in which he discusses political philosophy. Furthermore, Locke describes his theories of the natural rights of humans in a civil society. The fourth chapter of this text is dedicated to his theory of the existence of slavery.
In this chapter Locke states that one’s “natural liberty” allows for one to be free from any worldly power. It is the right of the individual to only be ruled by the law of nature. Moreover, an individual cannot be ruled by the will or legislative power of man. Therefore, slavery should not exist in a civil society. One can only be controlled by a societal legislative power if the individual gives their consent. Locke further claims that individuals are so concerned with self-preservation that they cannot voluntarily give up their freedom to any form of an absolute power.
Locke declares that the only state of slavery exists in a “state of war”. He defines a “state of war” as hostility that is brought about by an individual’s attempt to destroy another’s life. The relationship between the conqueror and the captive involves slavery because the captive has been overtaken forcefully by the conqueror.
In the eighth chapter Locke emphasizes that one of the basic characteristics of a civil society is being governed by the majority of that society. “The only way, whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community…”. By joining a society, an individual gives their consent to be governed. Therefore, one has to accept and obey the decisions of the majority. Is it not possible that slavery can exist in a civil society in which slavery is in favor of the majority?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I don't think it does because for the majority to try and enslave someone would be for it to enter a state of war. But presumably whomever the majority is attempting to enslave is a member of that very majority. So in trying to enslave someone the majority is in fact making war on itself, which is...problematic. Also Locke says that an individual cannot give up his freedom to any absolute power, which would imply that the majority is not absolute. So perhaps the parts are in fact greater than the whole when it comes to the majority, insofar as it does not have the same powers or liberties that an individual might.
Ah, but who would the majority enslave? Would the enslaved people still be part of the society? Would the slaves still have the power to help make decisions in government?
Locke argues that it's impossible to consent to slavery, basically - after all, if you consent, it's not slavery, merely service or indentured servitude, right?
There is an obvious loophole to allow for slavery; denying the natural rights of people by considering them lesser or subhuman. In Locke's mind, it seems like denying "natural liberty" denies humanity - so many people have simply restricted the definition of humanity to upper class individuals, males, whites, intelligent people, Christians, etc.
I don't know if Locke would argue that such a society (like the US for a very long time, for one) is still a civil one according to his political philosophy or not.
To take someone as a slave is to take there ability to consent to be governed. From this we see that when a slave is taken they are no longer a part of this society because they aren't "agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community..." The act of the taking a slave is entering a state of war with that person because it takes away their ability to make their own choices and choices with others.
going off what EJ posted, i think that slavery can exist within a civil society in that the majority can agree to impose their authority on another individual or group of individuals. In this capacity there is no implosion as stated by Richard, in that those who opt for imposing their rule over the other are not looking to themselves; rather, they are closing rank and taking names, if you follow me.
Locke writes that an individual cannot give his freedom up to any absolute power, but he also writes that in a "state of war," an oppressor may forcefully deprive an individual of their rights to act freely.
However, i don't necessarily agree that to enslave somebody is to deprive them of their ability to consent to be governed. The slave is never deprived of rescinding their consent-- disobedience is perhaps one of the most fundamental forms of insubordination. If a slave complies with his masters commands, then the slave has in fact consented to being a slave. This raises a particularly interesting question: does an enslaved person satisfy the relationship of his master in the way of his own self-preservation?
Going off of Omair: If the slave does not fight against the bonds of his master, he is a slave regardless of his intentions. If he follows out of self-preservation, he is a slave to his fears of death.
Post a Comment