If this is going to be the state of liberal commentary in the Trump Era we are truly doomed. We live in a period where a small group of Far Right corporate oligarchs and bankers has seized power. The House, the Senate, the Presidency, and 33 state governments are now under Republican control.
The natural law concept existed long before Locke as a way of expressing the idea that there were certain moral truths that applied to all people, regardless of the particular place where they lived or the agreements they had made. The most important early contrast was between laws that were by nature, and thus generally applicable, and those that were conventional and operated only in those places where the particular convention had been established.
This distinction is sometimes formulated as the difference between natural law and positive law. Natural law is also distinct from divine law in that the latter, in the Christian tradition, normally referred to those laws that God had directly revealed through prophets and other inspired writers.
Thus some seventeenth-century commentators, Locke included, held that not all of the 10 commandments, much less the rest of the Old Testament law, were binding on all people. Thus there is no problem for Locke if the Bible commands a moral code that is stricter than the one that can be derived from natural law, but there is a real problem if the Bible teaches what is contrary to natural law.
In practice, Locke avoided this problem because consistency with natural law was one of the criteria he used when deciding the proper interpretation of Biblical passages.
In the century before Locke, the language of natural rights also gained prominence through the writings of such thinkers as Grotius, Hobbes, and Pufendorf.
Whereas natural law emphasized duties, natural rights normally emphasized privileges or claims to which an individual was entitled. They point out that Locke defended a hedonist theory of human motivation Essay 2. Locke, they claim, recognizes natural law obligations only in those situations where our own preservation is not in conflict, further emphasizing that our right to preserve ourselves trumps any duties we may have.
On the other end of the spectrum, more scholars have adopted the view of Dunn, Tully, and Ashcraft that it is natural law, not natural rights, that is primary. They hold that when Locke emphasized the right to life, liberty, and property he was primarily making a point about the duties we have toward other people: Most scholars also argue that Locke recognized a general duty to assist with the preservation of mankind, including a duty of charity to those who have no other way to procure their subsistence Two Treatises 1.
These scholars regard duties as primary in Locke because rights exist to ensure that we are able to fulfill our duties. Simmons takes a position similar to the latter group, but claims that rights are not just the flip side of duties in Locke, nor merely a means to performing our duties.
While these choices cannot violate natural law, they are not a mere means to fulfilling natural law either. Brian Tienrey questions whether one needs to prioritize natural law or natural right since both typically function as corollaries.
He argues that modern natural rights theories are a development from medieval conceptions of natural law that included permissions to act or not act in certain ways. There have been some attempts to find a compromise between these positions.
Adam Seagrave has gone a step further. God created human beings who are capable of having property rights with respect to one another on the basis of owning their labor.
Another point of contestation has to do with the extent to which Locke thought natural law could, in fact, be known by reason.
In the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke defends a theory of moral knowledge that negates the possibility of innate ideas Essay Book 1 and claims that morality is capable of demonstration in the same way that Mathematics is Essay 3.
Yet nowhere in any of his works does Locke make a full deduction of natural law from first premises. More than that, Locke at times seems to appeal to innate ideas in the Second Treatise 2. Strauss infers from this that the contradictions exist to show the attentive reader that Locke does not really believe in natural law at all.
Laslett, more conservatively, simply says that Locke the philosopher and Locke the political writer should be kept very separate. Many scholars reject this position. That no one has deduced all of natural law from first principles does not mean that none of it has been deduced.
The supposedly contradictory passages in the Two Treatises are far from decisive. While it is true that Locke does not provide a deduction in the Essay, it is not clear that he was trying to. Nonetheless, it must be admitted that Locke did not treat the topic of natural law as systematically as one might like.
Attempts to work out his theory in more detail with respect to its ground and its content must try to reconstruct it from scattered passages in many different texts. Unless these positions are maintained, the voluntarist argues, God becomes superfluous to morality since both the content and the binding force of morality can be explained without reference to God.
The intellectualist replies that this understanding makes morality arbitrary and fails to explain why we have an obligation to obey God. With respect to the grounds and content of natural law, Locke is not completely clear. On the one hand, there are many instances where he makes statements that sound voluntarist to the effect that law requires a law giver with authority Essay 1.
Locke also repeatedly insists in the Essays on the Law of Nature that created beings have an obligation to obey their creator ELN 6.
On the other hand there are statements that seem to imply an external moral standard to which God must conform Two Treatises 2.
Locke clearly wants to avoid the implication that the content of natural law is arbitrary. Several solutions have been proposed. One solution suggested by Herzog makes Locke an intellectualist by grounding our obligation to obey God on a prior duty of gratitude that exists independent of God.Having considered all of this, the prospect for freedom of speech looks bleak.
Whether it is Islamists with bombs and blades, or oligarchs and celebrities with the jackhammer of their own personal fortunes, or the use of the web by the state to reinforce its own existence and control, the possibility of free speech looks increasingly remote.
Mar 12, · We live in a period where a small group of Far Right corporate oligarchs and bankers has seized power. The House, the Senate, the Presidency, and 33 state governments are now under Republican control.
There is no such thing as “hate speech” or a “hate group”. entirely legitimate ideas and arguments of people on the political right, the political opponents of the Marxist radicals who.
PUTIN AND THE OLIGARCHS. Peter Rutland [Forthcoming in Stephen Wegren (ed.) Putin’s Russia (Rowman and Littlefield, 3rd edition, ] The age of the oligarchs as a political class came and went. Ten years ago, they seemed to have. Find helpful customer reviews and review ratings for The Oligarchs: Wealth And Power In The New Russia at He set out to put the enormous industrial wealth of the country into private hands.
The Oligarchs utilised Yeltsin’s ambitions to their own enormous advantage. Putin was destined to clash with the Oligarchs because his personal. Many political debates never reach the public, except as a species of comedy, lampooned by ignorant scoffers in media programmes that specialise in mockery.
There is little chance for people to get the kind of sustained sequential argument and discussion that happens at public meetings.