John Locke (Free Will, Politics and Education)

 Free Will

According to Locke freedom is not an idea belonging to volition or preferring, but to the person having the power of doing or forbearing to do, according as the mind shall choose or direct. We cannot say a man’s will is free, “it is as insignificant to ask whether a man’s will be free, as to ask whether his sleep be swift or his virtue square.” The will is one power or ability, namely, the power of an agent to think his own actions and to prefer their doing or omission.

Freedom is another power or ability, the power to do or forbear doing any particular action according as he himself wills. So that when we ask, Is the will free? We are really asking, has one power another power? which is an absurdity. It is to ask, Is the will a substance, an agent? The will is not a faculty or substance. A man is free as far as he has power to think or not to think, to move or not to move according to the preference or direction of his own mind. Wherever he has not the power to do or forbear any act according to the determination or thought of the mind, he is not free though perhaps his act may be voluntary. It is some pressing uneasiness that successively determines the will and sets us upon those actions we perform. This uneasiness is desire, it is an uneasiness of the mind for want of some absent good. God has put into men the uneasiness of hunger and thirst and other natural desires, to move and determine their wills for the preservation of themselves and the continuation of the species. The most pressing uneasiness naturally determines the will. But what moves desire? Happiness alone.

Politics

Locke’s theory of the State is presented in his Two Treatises on Government, the first of which is a refutation of Sir Robert Filmer’s (died 1653) absolutistic work, Patriarchal In the second he discusses “the true original, extent, and end of civil government.’’ He opposes the view that all government is absolute monarchy, that kings have a divine right to absolute power, and that mankind has no right to natural freedom and equality. Men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending on the will, of any other man. They are also in a state of equality of nature, no man having more power and jurisdiction than another. The law of nature or reason teaches all mankind that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, and possessions. Everyone is bound to preserve himself and to preserve the rest of mankind when his own preservation comes not in competition. And in a state of nature everyone has a power to punish transgressions of that law of nature, to preserve the innocent, to restrain offenders, and to take reparation for injuries done him. Each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will* suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like.

The state of nature is not (as Hobbes supposed) a state of war, but a state of peace, good-will, and mutual assistance. God made man so that convenience and inclination drove him into society and fitted him with understanding and language to continue and enjoy it. But many things are wanting in a state of nature: an established, settled, known law; a known and impartial judge with authority; power to back and support the sentence, when right, and give it due execution. We have political or civil society whenever any number of men are so united into one society as to quit everyone his executive power of the law of nature, and to resign it to the public: whenever men enter into society to make one people, one body politic, under one supreme government (contract theory).

Hence, absolute monarchy is inconsistent with civil society. For if the prince holds both the legislative and executive powers, there is no common judge who may fairly, indifferently, and with authority decide, and no standing rule to appeal to; the subject is the slave of one man. No one can be subjected to the political power of another without his own consent. When any number of men have, by consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority. But after such a society has been formed, every man puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to submit to the rule of the majority. Otherwise, there would be no compact if he were left free and under no other ties than he was before, in the state of nature. Unanimous consent is next to impossible. The governments of the world that were begun in peace were made by the consent of the people.

Man gives up his freedom and power, because the enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe and insecure. If it were not for the viciousness and corruption of degenerate men, there would be no need of any society but (the state of nature. The great and chief end of men’s uniting 'into a commonwealth is for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates. Hence the power of society can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good.

The first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and (so far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it. The first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power. This legislative is not only the supreme power, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it; nor can any edict of anybody else have the force and obligation of a law, which has not the sanction from that legislative which the public has chosen and appointed. But the legislative power cannot be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people, it is limited to the public good of society. The laws of nature do not cease in society, they stand as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. Hence, it has no right to enslave, to destroy, or designedly to impoverish the subjects. Again, the legislative cannot assume to itself power to rule by extemporary arbitrary decrees; standing laws are needed. Further, the supreme power cannot take the subject’s property without his consent; taxes can be levied only by consent of the majority. Lastly, it cannot delegate the power of making laws to any other hands.

It is not well that those who have powers of making the laws should also have power to execute them. The federative power is the power of war and peace, leagues, and alliances and all transactions with all persons and communities without the commonwealth. The federative and executive powers are almost always united, and it is best that they should be placed in one hand. The executive has the supreme execution of the laws and should be exempt from subordination. But the legislative may take both the executive and federative powers out of the hands it has placed them in, when it finds cause, and to punish any maladministration of the laws. The legislative is the supreme power, but it is a fiduciary power to act for certain ends. So, the people have a supreme power to remove and alter the legislative when they find it act contrary to the trust reposed in it. But whilst the government exists, the legislative is the supreme power. The power of choosing the legislative rests with the people. Not the prince, as Hobbes taught, but the legislative is the soul of the commonwealth, and the legislative represents the people; the people is the judge whether the prince or the legislative act contrary to their trust.

Education

'Like all the great philosophers of the modern era, Locke finds fault with the methods of instruction which had come down as a heritage from scholasticism and presents a new program of education based on his empirical psychology and ethics. The soul being at birth devoid of all principles except the desire for pleasure and the power to receive impressions, the problem of education must be to learn by experience and to realize happiness. In order to solve it, a healthy body and sound sense-organs are requisite; by exercise and habit the body must be hardened; hence, the need of physical training for the child and a frugal mode of life. The individuality of the child is to be developed in a natural manner; hence, private instruction is preferable. Locke also emphasizes the importance of object lessons, of learning by play, and of arousing the pupil's mental activities; study is to be made a delight. Above all, the social end of education should not be lost sight of the youth is to be trained as a useful member of society.