John Locke approached the idea of the law of nature in a markedly different manner than that of the Catholic Church. He tended to agree with St. Thomas’ view of Natural law as a link between man and the Eternal Law of God,[1] and, in addition, saw it as the basis for all social interaction among people.[2] But while Catholic philosophers had adopted the idea of Natural Law as that by which a created being interacts and participates in the Divine Law, Locke looked at it from a voluntaristic perspective:
“’The obligation of dutiful obedience… appears to flow purely from the divine wisdom of the Legislator…, partly from that right… which the creator has over his creature. For ultimately all obligation is resolved in God. We are held to answer for our compliance to the rule… of his will, since we have received both being and activity from that, and both depend upon his will.’”[3]
This stance is rooted in Locke’s understanding of the relationships between Natural Law and reason. Whereas earlier Western thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas portrayed reason as the basis of Natural Law, Locke saw reason as merely a part of the process of knowing what natural law consisted of, while making the will, namely God’s Will, as the basis of law.[4] He made his view clear in one of his lectures given at Oxford:
“It appears to me… much less accurate for some people to call [natural law] … the dictate of reason. For reason does not so much establish and utter this law of nature as search for and uncover it as decreed by a superior power and set in our hearts. Nor is reason the author of that law, by the interpreter. Otherwise, diminishing the dignity of the supreme legislator, we would be wishing to assign to reason that received law which reason only seeks. Nor indeed can reason give us laws when it is only a capacity of the mind and a part of us.”[5]
This left Locke with the problem of understanding where and how the law of nature came to be known. In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke sought to display a satisfactory answer by describing the state of nature for man. According to Locke, for man to exist in a true state of nature, he must have the freedom to order his own actions and possessions without interference. He is not bound to other men by artificial governmental authority, but is completely equal in every internal respect to people of any demographic. This can only change if God’s will confers authority over the individual to another.[6]
Because one man is equal to all other men, he has a natural inclination toward universal respect. In fact, Locke sees it as an “obligation to mutual love amongst men” and a “dut[y] they owe to one another.”[7] Since all men equally share in the law of nature, each person is naturally obliged to do like to like. This does not, however, allow for “license” because man does not have the right to harm himself, as prescribed by reason, which, for Locke embodies the law of nature.[8] This law requires that we preserve ourselves and, as long as it doesn’t get in the way of our own preservation, help those who share in our nature. The things that are most worthy of preservation are: “life … liberty … and goods [property].”[9]
Regarding the property, specifically, John Locke described it as “God given” right that allowed humanity to subdue the world and take advantage of what was originally held in common by all.[10] Locke went on to explain the right of property. According to Locke, whatever is taken to the body, be it physical or otherwise, becomes a part of the person. [11] Since the utilization of labor is a personal act, it is initially found to be a part of the person, because it distinguishes common things in the natural state from properly individual activity. By taking a part of what is common, one removes it from the use of others in order to change its natural state, and make it property.[12]
The way in which the fruit of labor is best measured is principally in two ways: land and money.[13] These things are properly considered property, because they are utilized to benefit the individual who has control of them. Both land and money are themselves not prone to perishing, but their utilization brings about perishable wealth. What must be avoided by those with wealth is waste, otherwise a person “invades” the right of others to property that could have been used to the benefit of that other.[14] Since non-perishable wealth in the form of money does not necessarily take away from another’s ability to amass personal wealth, its disproportionate amassment does not constitute “waste.”[15]
This shift in ideology was a change in the way an individual related to community in Western culture. By moving away from the St. Thomas’ position on Natural Law, there began to be a separation between humanity and law. This happened primarily because of a change in vocabulary. As Dr. Jude Dougherty, Dean Emeritus of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America stated in an article entitled Keeping the Common Good in Mind:
“The vocabulary employed in talking about the individual and the common good shifted in the 17th century from ‘liberty’ and ‘obligation’ to ‘rights’ and due.’ On the [Catholic] side of the watershed, emphasis is placed on freedoms and benefits essential for the maintenance of life, and on the security, development, and dignity of the individual; whereas, on the modern side, the vocabulary of ‘rights’ introduces a way of talking about the just from the viewpoint of the individual, from the viewpoint of him to whom something is due and who would be wronged if denied that due. The shift in meaning is drastic…, because it carries the right-holder and the right altogether outside the juridical relationship which is fixed by law.”[16]
When looked at in this context, laws begin to be considered as limits to freedom of the individual rather than an ordering of that freedom. Further, they begin to place irrational emphasis on the notion of independence. Dr. Dougherty continued:
“The danger of individualism is that it can become too deep by focusing only on the narrow interests of self or family. Complete individualism tends to create ‘mass man,’ the atomized individual, whose self-absorption renders him vulnerable to totalitarian control.”[17]
From all of this, one can see the change in ideology from an understanding of Law prescribed in order to help facilitate the perfection of the human person, to law that preserved man from one another. The driving force became introverted, with more consideration given the individual than the community, unless obliged by Divine (and arbitrary) Mandate. From this shift in understanding came the unintended consequence of creating man into an island of personal rights and a negative approach to law.
Bibliography
· Gregory Bach, Thomas Aquinas and John Lock on Natural Law. St. Meinrad: St. Meinrad, 1995.
· Locke, John, and C.F. Macpherson, Editor. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Reprint. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1980.
· McInerny, Ralph, and Jude Dougherty. The Ethics of St. Thomas Aquinas. Vatican City: Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 1984.
· Merwyn Johnson, Locke on Freedom: An Incisive Study of the Thought of John Locke. Boulder: Merwyn, 1978.
No comments:
Post a Comment