Monday, December 3, 2012
John Locke on Slavery
One thing that really shocked me in the reading from THO was Locke's emphasis on how "all people are naturally free and have a right to life, liberty, and property" (327). Given this, what do you think Locke's view on slavery would have been? Would he have found it unjust because it violated the slaves' natural rights? Or, because he did live in the 1600's in England, would he have shared the common belief that slaves were not really people and thus did not apply to these rules?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think at this time, Locke would have actually avoided the topic of slaves altogether because he wanted his new book of Two Treatises to get popular and to justify the bill of rights. Taking a side in a controverstial topic after the Sepulveda trials would have caused some backlash. He most likely debated with himself on this question too, but my gut (no evidence) says he thought slaves were morally wrong
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick when he said that his gut believed that Locke thought slavery was morally wrong. In The Human Odyssey when it discusses Locke and his views on natural law. He believed that one can discover natural laws by using reason, but everyone has a sense of moral laws and know what these basic laws consist of. Locke, believed that one should always live by moral laws/rights. These rights include the Natural Rights (life, liberty, and property.) Locke believed nobody should have enough power to harm or override these laws/rights from the people. Even though slaves were viewed as property, in order to get slaves under your power, you had to override and overthrow their Natural Rights. Also, Locke believed greatly in equality between the people. In his Two Treatises of Government, Locke wrote, "A state also of equality, wherin all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another" (396). This shows that nobody should have more power over another person, which when discussing slavery, is clearly not the case. Overall, I believe that yes, Locke would have found it unjust to take the life, liberty, and property away from the people who were forced into slaves.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Locke believes that it is by the will of God by which slaves derive. In the Second Treatise of Civil Government he says man is " promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the us of the same facilities, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination of subjection, unless the Lord Master of then all should, by any manifest declaration of His will, set one above another". So I dont necessarily think that Locke is for slavery but I dont think he is against it either, especially if it was the "will of God".
ReplyDeleteI think Locke would have been for slavery because even though he says everyone is born with equal rights, he is specifically referring to white men of a specific class. He excludes women from these rights which leads me to think that he would exclude slaves as well
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lindsey- I think that the quote presented by Carson acts as a loop hole as to why it is ok to have slaves. If you do follow Locke's original line of thinking, then no one should be slaves because everyone is equal. However, if GOD put the African's below below the Europeans, then having slaves is totally acceptable. I think that Locke likes the idea of equality for all, but he doesn't like what equality entitles- giving up slavery.
ReplyDelete