Unnatural Selection

A possible concern, or tremendous question, regarding Rousseau's Second Discourse on Inequality is found in the idea that natural man now occupies an unnatural state. How is it that the difference between the Savage man and the sociable man is so great that "what constitutes the supreme happiness of the one would reduce the other to despair?" (Pt. II P. 57). Considering Rousseau's obvious preference to the state of nature and distaste of modern man, we must certainly not regard modern man as more natural than the Savage. He, the sociable man, as someone who may "live only in the opinions of others" does so to the detriment of his nature, which is to "live within himself." These mutually exclusive qualities seem to deny us the possibility of defining the sociable man as natural, but then what are we left with- that is, how has nature produced something unnatural?

Unless we simply say that it is wholly 'natural' because nature is indifferent to the repugnance that causes us to call our present state unnatural, we are left in a tough position.

Earth: Worthless Materials or Natural Fertility?

When reading Locke, what most struck me was his (what I consider) irreverent (and incorrect) conception of Nature and the Earth. Locke says that the earth is furnished with "only the almost worthless Materials, as in themselves" [43]. I completely fail to understand Locke's interpretation of what the Earth naturally has to offer - after all, our ancestors lived off the earth's naturals resources for quite some time, and all the animals still do.

Rousseau holds a position entirely opposite of Locke. He says the earth is entirely sufficient for man, "abandoned to its natural fertility, and covered by immense forests which no Axe ever mutilated, at every step offers Storage an shelter to the animals of every species" [3].

What is the root cause of the divergence between these two accounts? Taking a look at both Locke and Rousseau's account of the state of nature may help shed some light on the matter.

Locke says that the state of nature is comprised of the states of liberty and equality [4], with the law of nature (reason) governing it [6]. This means that man is in a state of relative peace and that he defends the liberty of everyone equally. He is bound to preserve himself, and along with himself, the rest of mankind.

Rousseau's account of the state of nature is not as rigid and textbook as that of Locke (or Hobbes). Nature is, well, nature, and if we imagine mankind in a rain forest never having come into contact with civil society - we are on the right track. This results in man being timid and fearful: "forever trembling, and ready to flee at the least noise that strikes him, and at the least movement he notices [6]. No mention of hostile Hobbesean attacks on his neighbors, nor any mention of reason as an integral part of the Savage world. He is almost solely concerned with self-preservation against an unsure (and possibly language-less) world.

So far both accounts seem to be very similar. But the split happens before either system gets completely off the ground, for we can see in Locke's very conception of the state of nature that we are not conceiving of savages, but with civil men like ourselves. The law of nature, reason, seems not to be a cold, calculating reason found in animals (or in Rousseau's Savages), but an advanced way of reasoning that pre-civil man should not possess. Of course the earth is useless for civilians, for we are not used to going naked or being without habitation, not to mention using our own two hands to hunt and fight off predators.

Rousseau's account of pre-civil man is more accurate, for assuming that this man is more like the animals, he lives in the open and takes part of a rugged lifestyle, making the earth in its natural form perfectly fitted for his use. Rousseau warns against the error that Locke made: "Let us therefore beware of confusing Savage man with the men we have before our eyes" [11]. This is Locke's fatal mistake in his characterization of the earth and what it has to offer, and stems from the misconception of savage man he formed in the beginning.

The State of Nature and War for Locke

Locke's description of the state of nature of man differs from Hobbes in that it is not necessarily a state of war. Locke distinguished between the two by designating the state of nature as that community of "men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth," and the state of war as "the declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief." [Ch. 3 P. 19] Locke avoids an inevitable state of war by defining reason as "that law which teaches all mankind that no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." [Ch. 2 P. 6] Everyone is obliged to follow reason in the state of nature, and therefore the state of war only emerges when an offender "declares himself to live by another rule than that or reason" by harming another, but not necessarily, because the first state of humanity is one of peace under the right rule of reason. [Ch. 2 P. 8]

So then, how does the state of war appear at all? Locke avoids the supposition that all uncivilized communities will probably be in a state of war by explaining that "it is impossible for any man to entrench upon the right of another, or acquire, to himself, a property, to the prejudice of his neighbor, who would still have room, for as good, and as large a possession (after the other had taken out his) as before it was appropriated." [Ch. 5 P. 36] This so-called 'Land of Plenty' eliminates any reason for one person to by force take something from another. The only possible explanation given by Locke for why someone would exert force on another is found briefly in paragraph 37 of Ch. 5, where he says "the desire of having more than men needed altered the intrinsic value of things." Therefore someone suffering under excessive desire would, against reason, employ force against another to obtain more than needed, and thereby enter into a state of war with that person. This is expressly against reason because reason would dictate first that one should never harm another, and second that resources are plentiful and can always be obtained by one's own labor, yet in both instances the desire overrules reason. It seems then that the state of war is due to a heedless observance of reason in that which we desire, and desire is the "other rule" that offenders live by.

The Virtuous Savage

Yea, yea, I'm double posting. But an idea occured to me when reading Rousseau that I felt I should share. Admittedly, I have only read half of part 1 of the Discourse on Inequailty so far, so this may be premature. However, what follows seems fairly straightforward.

Rousseau explains that the difference between man and animal is that man acts by freedom. He chooses, while the animal acts by instinct. It is nature which guides the animal’s actions. This capacity to choose freely may become detrimental to man if he gives into desires excessively. For example, he may weaken himself by becoming fat. This of course is part of the bastardization of the domesticated man. But only a civil man can abuse this faculty—that is, a man outside the state of nature and inside a civil society. The savage can’t abuse his freedom. He would never desire to. He is only concerned with those things directly related to his subsistence. In a sense, he is naturally temperate. Such a virtue as temperance becomes something to be attained after a man becomes civil.

In short, once man becomes civil, he has the freedom to choose to give into his excesses, a choice that never crosses the mind of the savage. The civil man becomes susceptible to excessive indulgence. This is to say that only the civil man has the choice to become decadent. Aristotle’s ethics thus becomes necessary for the civil man—that is, the subjugation of the body to the mind becomes necessary. But only because the civil man's mind has been freed to think of things higher than himself. The savage has no need for Aristotle. His mind is not capable of thinking abstractly and thus need not aspire to become wise. In short, there are no intellectual virtues for the savage. But what about practical wisdom? Does the savage not need to be able to deliberate well about the things that relate to everyday living in order to live in the state of nature? Yes, he does. But such a virtue need not be attained by the savage. It is natural to him. The need to attain virtues only arises once man becomes civil. Aristotle is only necessary to the weak, (compared to the savage), civil man who desires to know.

The rotten apple: a crime against man or God?

In Ch. V, Locke says that God gave the earth and its goods to mankind in common to rely on for their subsistence. The only natural property a man has is his body. But if man is going to take advantage of the goods God gave him, there must be a way for him to appropriate some personal property. A man can claim something as his own if he puts the labor into acquiring or producing it. He need not the consent of others to claim his property, for it is the natural right of man to reap what he sows.

Because God has supplied mankind with plenty more than need be, man can acquire as much as he can use without it spoiling. If a man acquires too much and it spoils, however, he has surpassed his rights as an individual man and thereby committed a trespass against the rest of mankind. For this, he is liable to punishment. But why?

Is there any rational basis for such punishment? The reason Locke gives is that it is only rational to take what you need: why waste something if you’re not going to use it? It may seem that it is only rational to do take only as much as you need, but this need not imply that it would actually be irrational to take more than you need, even if it spoils. The reason Locke says the man has committed a trespass against the rest of mankind is that he has taken from them. But has he? Has not God supplied man with plenty more than mankind could ever need? It doesn’t seem that letting the fruit spoil actually does harm anyone at all. Why didn’t Locke say that there actually were a limited number of resources. This would make punishing a “trespasser against mankind” legitimate. But he can’t say such a thing, for 1^st Timothy tells us that “God has given us all things richly”(pg. 290). But now that we are speaking of the earth as a gift from God, things change. It is not that man actually trespasses mankind, it is that he is being disrespectful to God when he spoils that which God has given him. It seems as though that the ‘evil’ of the spoiler isn’t due to his trespass against mankind, but rather to his irreverence.

Hobbes and Locke as Political Scientists

After reading portions of Hobbes and Locke, I would like to compare them as Political Scientists. It seems that using scientist-ness as our criterion in comparing these two philosophers leaves Hobbes as the clear winner. When reading Hobbes, one gets the sense that he paid no attention to Aristotle's caveat,which says, of men no science can be made. Hobbes tries to account for every variable in a political society and address it as best he can. You can see this in the structure of his book: he starts by telling us that a political society is a fake human, and that that the city is composed of humans. in other words he says that the material and (kind of) formal cause of a city is a "human". Thus, in his four part book, he spends the entire first part looking at what man is. He describes the passions, the desires, and actions of men in lengthy detail so that we may better understand the components of a political entity. He even does so in a geometric/axiomatic manner (as much as possible). Even though axioms are based on opinions to some extent, Hobbes tries to base his opinions on observation and experience, and he then proceeds in a nearly deductive manner.
Locke, on the other hand, uses opinions and scripture as the basis for his political theory at nearly every turn. Where Hobbes is telling us to beware sentimentality, Locke is discussing the heritage of Adam. Where Hobbes is explaining what a human being is, Locke is telling us why we ought to read the Judicious Hooker and Sir Robert Filmore which are merely more opinions of the day.
Overall, it seems that hobbes gives us a more straightforward account of what a human is, how they behave, why they enter into a society, and ultimately why we should have an absolute monarchy. It is important to note, however, that all of these things follow from what a human is. In Locke it seems that one could disagree on many grounds like the system he is setting up is not just, or people wouldn't behave in the way he predicts. Yet for Hobbes, precisely because he has defined all of these things, the only argument you can have with him, is an argument about definitions.

Rebellion or Assimilation: Hobbes, Locke, and Freedom in the Commonwealth

Just as with Hobbes’ Leviathan, Locke’s Second Treatise on Government is entirely concerned with the notions of freedom and preservation. And although differing in their opinions of the purpose and need for absolute power and monarchy, i.e. the way people interact with one another and formulate commonwealths, Hobbes and Locke agree, in principal, that a man’s first and most basic instinct is that of survival. What’s more, this survival or freedom to survive seems to be the principle means by which Locke defines his State of War. As he notes in Chapter III, “He who attempts to get another Man into his Absolute Power, does thereby put himself into a State of War with him” (279). Moreover, “No body can desire to have me in his Absolute Power, unless it be to compel me by force to that, which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my Preservation” (279). Essentially, Locke is arguing that, as he states later on, the State of War is created when one man imposes “Force, without Right, upon another Man’s person” (281). Locke, thus, continually associates the notion of the State of War with the State of Slavery. And whereas Hobbes would consider an enslaved commonwealth rightfully conquered and assimilated not only lawful but justified, I’m not sure Locke would agree. After all, for Hobbes, free will does not exist, but for Locke, free will is the cornerstone of his entire political philosophy. All the same, for both men, the principle Laws of Nature pertain to the idea of survival and the freedom to survive, even if they disagree about the best method for obtaining that survival.

Nevertheless, as we noted in class on Monday, Locke’s arguments are entirely unsatisfying. Beyond the fact that he doesn’t give us a sufficient definition and qualification of the factors contributing to a State of War as Dr. Davis pointed out, even when he does attempt to quantify his arguments, he does so in vague terms. As stated above, he defines the State of War as “Force, without Right, upon another Man’s person,” but what equates Right? Would Locke argue that there is a just and right cause for the oppression of another man’s freedoms? I hardly believe it. Altogether, Locke’s ideas fail to follow a simple and explanatory process of logical progression.