[Peace-discuss] Locke's Natural Law

[Janine Giordano]

sorry, late seventeenth century...  1690, in fact.

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Janine Giordano 
  To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
  Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 6:25 PM
  Subject: [Peace-discuss] Locke's Natural Law


  Phil Stinard said of a book he's reading, "He points out that statements
  >of human rights or of ethics, such as the Bill of Rights or the Ten
  >Commandments, are inherently contradictory."
  and Bob Ilyes said "Natural law assumes that there are laws and ethical guidelines that
  apply to all persons, regardless of religion or origins, by virtue
  of their humanity alone. One of my favorite natural law documents
  is John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government, about 300
  years old and much of the theoretical basis for the Declaration
  of Independence. Locke argues for human rights on parallel
  religious and philosophical grounds, and reaches exactly the same
  conclusion. "

  I'm afraid the Second Treatise is also contradictory. Locke does tout the equality for all "men" under the law (clearly not referring to women in the sixteenth century). But, even that comes with severe strings attached. He rationalizes that all men who are "industrious and rational" ought to be able to own as much land as they can defend and cultivate (he uses the word "improve"). Basically, any being that is not industrious and rational is not worthy to be a landowner, and is by virtue of that fact fit to be a slave. He draws equality on the basis of this construction of "industrious and rational," which does I suppose ring of the Declaration of Indpendence. But as far as I am aware, the Declaration neither freed all the slaves nor adequately defends human rights abuses today. The fact that all the slaves were not freed, that slave ownership gave southern planters more votes in Congress, and that women did not get universal suffrage, etc etc, to me resonates of how unsuccessful the Declaration of Independence was at affirming a set of human rights principles that really apply justly. 

  One of the problems I've always noticed with trying to conform one's ethical principles to a code of "natural law" is that there is no significant encouragement to do "good," "right," or "in accord with natural law," and no significant deterrent to breaking the law. What inspires you to abide by natural law, if this is your belief system? 

  I also think it's very important to remember that Adam Smith's concept of a free market economy arrives in the same era of this "natural law" of "industrious and rational" landowners in the "New World." Locke, who helps write the constitution of South Carolina (I think), helps rationalize why "industrious and rational" people (read: white Anglo men) have the "natural" right to their violently steal of Indian land, buy and use slave labor, and exploit mercantalist colonies of their natural resources (and more) all over the world. 

  Even if fundamentalism sounds too neat to you, I have yet to find a set of ethical principles for universal human rights outside of the Bible. Please show me one if you think you have found something better! To me, being a child equally loved by God, with equal access to the justice and blessings of the Creator, is the greatest manifesto of universal  human rights I can imagine. I'm definately up for discussion on this. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Peace-discuss mailing list
  Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
  http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20060217/6d8cabbf/attachment.htm