locke 3 - April 14, 2008 Locke 3 phil 104 2-12 page 1 Locke...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Locke on the foundations of the State Outline: I The Basic Difficulty in Justifying Government and Political obligation II Analysis by Chapters: III Problems: (a selection) A) Majority Rule B) the reality and permanence of "CONSENT" C) keeping control of representatives I Basic Problem of Justifying Government: Why should I do what my government says? Is there any reason to obey the laws beyond the practical one of the consequences of getting caught? Why should I pay taxes? Suppose Darth Vader decided to retire to Storrs, and lands his spaceship on Horsebarn Hill and buys a house on North Eagleville Road, paying with the bars of gold he has. He has his stuff, including death rays, force fields, and those aerial jet-skis. Suippose the cops, or maybe the mayor of Mansfield tells him not to to ride those jet-skis without a license, and to pay his property taxes. Does he have any reason to do what the mayor says? Is he obliged even though he can effect9ively repel any coercion the government brings to bear? Another perspective on this: A lot of people pay “protection money” to thugs, in order that their stores not get burnt down. This behavior is clearly rational, but is the coercion of the thugs legiytimate? Obviously not. So what is the difference between legitimate government and our obligations to it, and a bunch of thugs to whom it is reasonable to pay protect5ion? [Given the theory of the origins of the state as raiders realizing that they have to protect their “resources,” this suspici9on might seem not to be crazy.] That is, does government have an authority beyond the “authority” of superior force? Does it have “mopral authority”? Am I being immoral or just imprudent if I break the law? What, if anything, justifies political coercion? [We have seen two answers, from Hobbes and from Axelrod: Hobbes justifies government as a requirement of the law of nature about people that they seek peace, and can only do so by giving up all their rights to a sovereign. Axelrod justifies government pragmatically by pointing out some benefits of cooperation that only a government can provide. Locke’s question is framed in terms of moral rights, primarily, not in terms of benefits or natural compulsion.] Locke's answer: you've signed a contract with the country, so you are obliged in the moral way promises oblige. The reasons you sign up are roughly the same as Hobbes’ reasons: personal security, avoidance of chaos. Locke has a few more reasons, which Hobbes would discount: protection of natural rights, protection of property. For Hobbes, there are no rights, in the moral sense, prior to government. Every organism has an imperative to do what it deems necessary for survival, so every organism has a right to everything. II Details of his answer:
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 6

locke 3 - April 14, 2008 Locke 3 phil 104 2-12 page 1 Locke...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online