Locke argues that all individuals have natural rights: life, liberty and property. He also believes that in the state of nature we have complete equality, reason and total freedom (aside from destroying ourselves and others). However, we do not own ourselves. God created us so we belong to him. Also, our property is an extension of our being. Thus an attack on an individual’s property is an attack on their very being. Therefore, if someone attacks our property or tries to take it from us we have the right to fight back. Then, in Ch. IV, he argues that slaves are responsible for their own enslavement because if they were human beings they would have fought back (since it is our duty as humans to fight back).
I find his argument, while valid, flawed in several ways. It sounds as though the slaves are considered to be property because the slave owners possess them almost as if they possessed an object. I do not see how a slave can be considered not a human being. Just because they were unsuccessful in their fight from being enslaved does not mean they did not attempt to fight. And thus, if they had attempted to fight, they are human beings. Their only option to avoid enslavement then is suicide and, since our bodies to not belong to us, we cannot kill ourselves. Therefore I feel like it can be proven that slaves are, in fact, human beings. And, in the state of nature, all human beings are equal and should be treated as such and should not be enslaved. It almost seems as though the slave owners are attacking the property of the slaves and should be the one’s punished—not the slaves. The sovereign should then act and free the slave. Long story short, I believe that it can be proven that slaves are human beings and, as human beings, they should be allowed all the liberties and freedom of everyone else. By proving they are human beings all of Locke’s logic falls short. It almost seems as though Locke was stretching it a bit because he realized after saying all the things about human beings being equal he forgot to take slaves into account. He then seemed to warp his argument to make his argument still valid. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Do you think his argument worked?
I also don't agree with Locke's ideas on slavery, but he is able to prove, in the text, that slaves aren't human beings. Locke says that no human being would allowed themselves to be enslaved. You talked about how people slaves may be unsuccessful in their attempt to fight their enslavement but are still enslaved. I think Locke would say that we are only human beings if we keep fighting against our enslavement. We have to fight until we have escaped our state, and this could mean death. Locke isn't supporting suicide. He is just that if we are human beings we must fight our enslavement at any cost even if that means death.
ReplyDeleteEven though he proved that slaves are not human beings I feel that his argument is flawed in the sense that the slaves did, in fact, try to fight there way out of slavery. Not all sat back and just let themselves be enslaved. The way I see it, if they attempt to fight they are human and it is not fair for them to have to continue fighting until they are freed (not likely) or dead. To me fighting in this way is similar to suicide. A slave would have huge obstacles to overcome in order to be freed that it would be nearly impossible. They simply are not given a chance to prove their humanity
ReplyDeleteYour argument makes sense in the fact that a slave is physically bound as if he/she were a prisoner in a jail cell. But a classical slave always had a chance to rebel and fight. A failed revolt or failed fight is not an excuse to not fight for your rights. The situation has nothing to due with fairness. I think Locke is almost saying that if someone is not willing to fight for freedom then they shouldn't be given it. And there's no such thing as a human who shouldn't be given freedom "This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it". Therefore they aren't considered human.
ReplyDeleteAlso: "The sovereign should then act and free the slave.", I don't think the slaves are considered part of the common wealth.
Also: "And, in the state of nature, all human beings are equal and should be treated as such and should not be enslaved." Its true that Locke's state of nature says everyone has absolute freedom and they must abide by natural law but that doesn't mean everyone should be treated equally. Locke is saying that equality simply means the people can do as they please. Not that they should be treated equally.
I agree with you Elise, that Locke's argument seems like a weak attempt to justify slavery, actually it is a weak attempt to justify slavery. Going back to the original people who were enslaved, say the Africans who were originally taken to the colonies, what exactly would they be considered? For the first half of their lives they weren't enslaved, so they were human, but then once they were enslaved they just became non-human? I don't feel as though Locke could justify that someone can just go from a state of humanity to non-humanity. Also, Locke's argument that someone should just fight a losing battle their whole life is ridiculous. While this was obviously written before any modern advances in psychology, I think Locke was still smart enough to figure out that no human just keeps running into a brick wall over and over again, just to prove their humanity. There will always be forces that are stronger than someone, and the forces ( masters, society, the law) that stood in the way of slaves were just too strong. I feel as though Locke's argument can be reduced to the idea that whoever is stronger is better, which seems pretty barbaric.
ReplyDeleteJust for argument’s sake, I’ll defend Locke’s position on slavery. I obviously do not agree that slavery is an ok thing to do, but just to help flush out Locke’s argument, I’ll try to respond for him. As for the original African slaves, I think Locke would argue that they were never human in the first place. I don’t think he would consider tribal society a real commonwealth, and definitely not civilization. He would probably even argue that because they had not conceived of modern civilization, they were incapable of doing so.
ReplyDeleteAlso, even though a task might seem difficult, that difficulty doesn’t necessarily relieve you of your obligation to complete the task. Particularly when that task involves your being a human being, you should fight as hard as you can. As Elise pointed out, many slaves did try to fight back. This resistance wasn’t always direct force (or “running into a brick wall over and over again”) but was more subtle. Many “cultural dances” slaves practiced were a mixture of different martial arts put to music. Slaves were training to defend themselves right under the noses of their masters. If this doesn’t constitute resistance, then I don’t know what does.
Locke would agree that a situation in which one human being was suppressing the rights of another is breaking the fundamental laws of nature. He would argue that not only did the person being suppressed have a right to kill his suppressor, but also that the sovereign and the laws of the commonwealth should protect the person being suppressed. If the sovereign and the laws do not defend someone whose rights are being taken away, the population has a duty to revolt.
This is an excellent discussion regarding an important aspect of Locke that has had--and still continues to have--incalculable consequences for the history of our country. In your discussion, you have all bumped up against what I find to be the most interesting aspect of Locke's "defense" of slavery. Either these people are not human, or enslavement is unjust. The former argument, although weird and offensive to contemporary ears, was (and in many places and in many peoples' consciousnesses continues to be--this is the essential force behind ALL racism) nevertheless widely believed. Regardless, if true, then Locke is valid and the subject is essentially closed. The latter argument, however, is as complex as it is revealing of Locke's philosophy. If slavery is unjust, then (as stated above) the slaves have a right--which, remember, means "duty"--to defend themselves with deadly force. But are they the only ones? That is, does anyone else have a right/duty to interfere with the slave-owner? In this regard, I would have you consider four different groups/individuals: (1) the Sovereign Power of the Commonwealth, (2) the individual slave-owner (does he have the right/duty to defend himself?), (3) OTHER slave-owners (do they have the right/duty to defend one of their own--considering that this is a representative of their shared livelihood, that they could only own slaves on the basis of their belief that these are not people but property, etc.?), and (4) OTHER free, non-slave-owners (do they have the right/duty to interfere in the interests/property/bodies of others?). In your response to these questions, consider this: many thinkers in recent times have actually blamed Locke (in his role as the father of the individual, liberalism, rights-theory, etc.) as the conceptual author behind great and small atrocities. How do you think such a philosophy--one upon which we have based a good deal of our country's political-economic structure--could lead to such accusations?
ReplyDeleteNB: This is not rhetorical. I would like
everyone interested to continue discussing this issue. Responses to this post will certainly count as comments towards your blog grade.
-W.
Groups 2 and 3 (the slave owners themselves and their other slaving owning friends), if they want to continue to own slaves, seem obligated to defend the fact that slaves are, in fact, not human. If they asserted that their slaves were human, they would have no rational choice but to release them. As for the sovereign, if he (or she) believes that slaves are human, than he or she has must propose and defend a law outlawing such practice. As for the non-slaving-holding public, I also believe that they must revolt against a government that explicitly allows slavery. If a government allows fellow humans to be enslaved, then it could allow you to become enslaved. Since this is an attack on your property, you are put in the state of war with that power.
ReplyDeleteI will go ahead and play devils advocate here and partially defend Locke's point. If it can be proven that slaves are, in fact, not human then it is appropriate the conclude that they are the property of the slave owners. Therefore, if the government attempted to make laws outlawing slavery it would be an attack on the slave owner's property and thus put them in a state of war with the government. This would cause more trouble then it is worth so it seems as though Locke is trying to find a way to justify slavery to prevent this Chaos. He simply just found a logical way to defend slavery.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not agree with the institution of slavery, I have to say that Locke has a valid argument. That being said, I do not think that his argument is sound. Based on Locke's definition of human beings, it is obvious why his logic was used to endorse slavery for so long. If we are rational human beings, we will not allow for ourselves to be enslaved. Thus, if we are enslaved, then we are not human. This is a logical deduction. While this is morally unsound, Locke's argument is nonetheless a valid one.
ReplyDelete