2. John Locke, introductory remarks and approach to religious toleration.
John Locke was an English thinker born in 1632 and died in 1704. He studied at Oxford and was
actively involved in English politics. At one point in his life, he lived in exile in the Netherlands
out of fear of persecution, during which time he wrote some of his famous books. After the
Glorious Revolution in 1688, he returned to England and passed away there.
The Glorious Revolution was a conflict between the Catholic King James II and the Protestant
Whig Party. The struggle centered around James II's leanings toward Catholicism and his attempt
to diminish the power of Parliament in favor of the Crown. Ultimately, Parliament emerged
victorious, leading to James II's removal from the throne and his replacement by William of
Orange. The term "Glorious" refers to the nonviolent nature of the revolution, as James II fled to
France. This revolution symbolizes the triumph of the monarchical-parliamentary system. In
1689, a bill of rights was adopted, which limited the king's authority in crucial matters such as
the suspension of laws, military recruitment, and taxation.
Locke's writings covered various fields, including the theory of cognition, but he is particularly
renowned for his empiricism. In our discussion, we will primarily focus on his work titled "The
Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of
Civil Government" (1689), as well as his "A Letter Concerning Toleration" (1689).
Considered one of the most significant liberal philosophers, if not the most important (alongside
J.S. Mill), Locke's ideas have had a profound impact on the American Revolution and continue
to influence liberal thought to this day. Let's begin with "The Second Treatise of Government:
An Essay Concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government."
Locke initiates the discussion with the question of how political government comes into
existence. Similar to Hobbes, he proposes a social contract theory, albeit with some distinctions,
as we shall see. In the state of nature (a thought experiment demonstrating a pre-state scenario;
also utilized by Hobbes), individuals are free to act as they please with regard to their bodies and
property. This state is characterized by equality, according to Locke. He believes in the inherent
equality among human beings, encompassing not only physical but also mental and spiritual
virtues, which we will delve into later. Additionally, Locke asserts the existence of natural law in
the state of nature (unlike Hobbes). This natural law imposes certain obligations and prohibits
individuals from causing harm to others. If one person harms another in the state of nature, the
harmed party has the right to defend themselves and punish the offender. However, such a
1
situation can lead to disorder and chaos. People may show leniency toward their friends while
punishing foreigners more severely. Hence, the need arises for a political entity as a means of
establishing order. It is important to note that Locke acknowledges that this depiction of the state
of nature is not a historical account.
To establish civil government and end the state of nature, individuals must willingly agree to
enter into a political society. There is no other means by which a person can become part of a
state or polity; consent, resulting in a social contract, is the only avenue.
It is worth noting that Locke's state of nature is not as dire as Hobbes's depiction. Locke's state of
nature primarily lacks order and possibly a judicial system, but it does not entail a war of all
against all. The main motive for entering the political realm, according to Locke, is to establish
order and a fair judiciary in which judges can make impartial decisions on cases.
Surprisingly, in the subsequent section of the essay, Locke does not address the question of how
the state should be structured, but rather delves into the topic of private property.
In his exploration of the issue of private property, John Locke argues that when a person is born,
they have the right to self-ownership over their body, and by extension, the right to possess the
things necessary to sustain their livelihood. Locke also asserts that a person owns the labor they
exert. Therefore, if an individual applies their labor to a previously unowned resource, the
resulting product becomes their property. Locke views this as an extension of one's body.
However, Locke introduces a caveat to this principle of private property. He suggests that
individuals must allow others a sufficient amount to use, of equal quality. This concept is
encapsulated in Locke's famous expression or proviso: "Enough and as good."
Locke likely considered scenarios where one person monopolizes all the available drinkable
water or all the available land. In such cases, he would argue that it is unjust for one individual to
claim exclusive ownership of essential resources while leaving others without access to an
adequate share. The principle of "Enough and as good" implies that private property rights are
not absolute but subject to certain limitations to ensure a fair distribution of resources.
Indeed, John Locke's perspective on property and labor is tied to his broader individualistic view.
He highlights the notion that human labor is instrumental in increasing the overall quantity of
property. This emphasis on labor and productivity contributes to his optimistic outlook, as it
2
suggests that individuals have the capacity to improve their circumstances through their own
efforts.
Locke places great importance on human diligence as a prerequisite for acquiring and
maintaining property. He believes that an individual's labor is a fundamental aspect of their
personal autonomy and that they have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor. By emphasizing
the role of labor, Locke diminishes the significance of historical conditions or the succession of
generations in determining property ownership. Instead, he emphasizes the agency of the
individual in creating and accumulating property.
After discussing the concept of property, Locke returns to the topic of political society. He
explores how a civil government or state should be formed. Based on his belief that individuals
are born free, Locke argues that a legitimate state can only arise when all members of society
willingly transfer their authority, via a contract, to punish those who violate their liberty to the
community as a whole. This transfer of authority allows the community, represented by the state,
to enact laws and impose punishments to protect the life, liberty, and property of its members.
It is important to note that Locke distinguishes his perspective from that of Thomas Hobbes.
While Hobbes posited that individuals surrender their freedom to the sovereign in exchange for
protection, Locke maintains that individuals retain their freedom and simply transfer their
authority to judge and punish to the community. This distinction reflects Locke's emphasis on
preserving individual liberties within the framework of a civil government.
According to Locke, a legitimate government exists when individuals in society voluntarily
agree to transfer the authority of judging and punishing to the community as a whole. This
consent-based approach is a key aspect of Locke's theory and sets it apart from other forms of
governance, particularly single rule.
Locke argues that single rule, where a ruler holds absolute power without checks and balances, is
incompatible with his political theory. Without a system of judgment and accountability, there
would be no mechanism to hold the ruler in check, which contradicts the fundamental purpose of
establishing a government. Additionally, if the ruler harms a member of society, the individual
would be deprived of the opportunity to defend themselves, which goes against the principle of
justice that underlies the formation of a state.
3
In Locke's view, individuals, who are inherently free, equal, and possess their own natural rights,
can become members of a political community only through their consent. Joining the state
through consent does not strip them of their freedom but rather provides greater protection for
their natural rights compared to the state of nature. By expressing their consent via a contract, a
political body is formed, and decisions can be made through a majority.
However, a question arises concerning individuals born into a political community who did not
explicitly consent to become members of the state. Locke addresses this concern by stating that
children born into the state are under the guardianship of their parents until they reach adulthood.
Locke examines the concept of consent, distinguishing between explicit and tacit consent. While
explicit consent is rare, Locke explores the idea of tacit consent, which can be manifested
through ownership of property or the use of public infrastructure like roads.
Critics of Locke's theory argue that tacit consent may not be a satisfactory approach to establish
consent for citizens in democratic countries who are not part of the founding generation. They
contend that individuals engaging in certain behaviors, such as using roads, may not view it as an
explicit pronouncement of consent. Furthermore, true consent implies having the option to
choose otherwise, and for many people who cannot easily leave a country, tacit consent may not
hold as a valid form of consent. Despite the debates surrounding the efficacy of tacit consent in
Locke's theory, consent remains a central concept in his political thought.
After discussing the consent and formation of the state, Locke delves into the purposes of the
state. He asserts that individuals are motivated to join the social contract out of dissatisfaction
from the state of nature and the desire for adequate protection of their life, liberty, and property.
By consenting to the authority of the civil government, individuals do not surrender their
freedom entirely. Instead, the outcome is a limited government.
Locke also addresses the question of when it is permissible to rebel against the government.
According to him, rebellion is justified when the government violates its fundamental purpose,
which is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the individuals in society. If the government
fails in its duty and becomes tyrannical or oppressive, the people have the right to resist and
overthrow it.
This notion of the right to rebel is an important aspect of Locke's political philosophy. It provides
a safeguard against the potential abuse of power by the government and emphasizes the ultimate
authority of the people in shaping the political order.
4
Locke’s A letter concerning toleration.
Locke’s "A Letter Concerning Toleration" focuses on the relationship between the state and
religion. Broadly speaking, Locke advocates for the separation of church and state. However, the
exact nature of this separation and its justification warrant further examination.
Locke puts forth several assertions in support of his argument. Firstly, he distinguishes between
the functions of the state and those of the church or any religious institution. According to Locke,
the state is primarily concerned with coercion and the use of force. This includes activities such
as tax collection, the actions of law enforcement, the military, and so forth. Conversely, religion
deals with matters pertaining to the soul and faith. Locke asserts that these two domains are
fundamentally distinct and unrelated. Consequently, any attempt to blend or merge them is
destined to fail.
Locke presents a second argument for the separation of church and state, emphasizing that the
imposition of faith through force is ultimately futile. He asserts that faith must arise from an
individual's voluntary decision and cannot be coerced by the state. Regardless of the type of
force employed, religious coercion through state means is inherently ineffective. While a person
can be compelled to utter certain words, faith itself is a deeply personal and internal matter,
rooted in the workings of one's soul. Therefore, religious coercion represents an inherent
contradiction, as it may enforce conformity but not genuine faith.
Additionally, Locke raises a pertinent modern argument. He highlights the existence of numerous
religions and sects, each claiming to be the true faith. Many of these groups seek state
intervention to promote their respective beliefs coercively. However, how can one determine
which faith to endorse through the apparatus of the state? Is the state equipped to make such a
choice? Moreover, what if the state's decision proves fallible? It's important to note that Locke
does not endorse religious skepticism; rather, he questions the capacity of the state in this regard.
Furthermore, Locke takes an anti-paternalistic stance, asserting that it is not the role of the state
to dictate matters of faith, just as it is not responsible for mandating specific dietary choices or
requiring individuals to seek medical attention when unwell.
5
Locke perceives churches as voluntary organizations, separate from the government. These
organizations are established by their members through voluntary associations and are financially
supported by contributions from their members.
While religions can provide explanations and persuasion, they cannot, under the Lockean
framework, coerce individuals to join or punish them for leaving (exiting) a religion. Religions
may impose excommunication on those who violate their laws, but such exclusion should not
entail financial harm for the individual who chooses to depart; the only consequence is their
disassociation from the respective church.
When a conflict arises between the laws of religion and the laws of the state, Locke asserts that
the church must yield. The laws of the civil government take precedence over the laws of the
church.
However, Locke also acknowledges certain limits to religious tolerance. Firstly, he argues that
individuals who believe their religion justifies actions that surpass the boundaries set by the state
cannot be tolerated. Secondly, those who join another religion and thus become subjects of
another country (particularly Catholics and possibly Muslims) may face limitations on their
religious freedom. Lastly, atheists are mentioned as lacking trustworthiness in honoring
agreements, and therefore, they may be subject to restrictions on their religious liberties.
Concluding comments.
In conclusion, Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration" advocates for the separation of church
and state, highlighting the distinct roles and functions of each. He emphasizes that faith is a
voluntary matter that cannot be coerced by the state, asserting that religious coercion is
fundamentally ineffective and self-contradictory. Locke raises important questions about the
capacity of the state to determine and promote a particular religion, especially considering the
diverse array of beliefs and sects. Moreover, he takes a stance against the paternalistic role of the
state in dictating matters of faith. Locke views religions as voluntary associations, separated
from the government, funded by the contributions of the members, and there is free exit from
such associations.
Locke places limits on religious tolerance, particularly in cases where individuals believe their
religion justifies actions that transgress the laws of the state, when individuals join religions
associated with other countries, or when dealing with atheists who are seen as untrustworthy.
6
These limits reflect Locke's concerns about preserving social order and preventing potential
conflicts between religious and civic authority.
Overall, Locke's arguments for the separation of church and state, his defense of religious
freedom, and his nuanced exploration of the boundaries of tolerance continue to shape our
understanding of the relationship between religion and government. His ideas have had a lasting
influence on the development of liberal democratic societies and the protection of individual
rights and freedoms
