The phrase “state of nature” is common to Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. They differ in their view of man in such a state. In Locke’s case, the phrase shouldn’t be seen as synonymous with the primate state as it is with Hobbes and Rousseau. For Locke, it has more to do with what I call “the situation.” Two individuals (or groups of people) that have no governing institution in common are in a state of nature. Canada and the United States are currently in a “state of nature” since there is no common government that jointly rules over both regions. The Founding Fathers used the phrase in this sense when they referred to independence as creating a “state of nature” between Britain and America.
The “state of nature” can be peaceful, as it has been between Canada and the United States for centuries. It can also be a rights-respecting regime as our rights are just as secure in both countries. While Locke holds that rights are valid by our nature, he clearly has no illusions that they are secured in a primitive state. He sees the creation of a government as important to protecting natural rights. Jefferson will echo his thoughts when he writes “to secure these rights governments is instituted among men.”
Rousseau sees the primitive state as idyllic and civilization as corrupting. Hobbes sees the primitive state as inherently brutal requiring men to enter civilization by giving their government a blank-check. Locke sees no need to surrender one's fundamental rights in order to benefit from civilization. One surrenders the enforcement function to the government.
Locke's view of man and morality shows many influences. There is a passage in the Essay Concerning Human Understanding that I find interesting and perhaps revealing:
That men should keep their compacts is certainly a great and undeniable rule in morality. But yet, if a Christian, who has the view of happiness and misery in another life, be asked why a man must keep his word, he will give this as a reason:- Because God, who has the power of eternal life and death, requires it of us. But if a Hobbist be asked why? he will answer:- Because the public requires it, and the Leviathan will punish you if you do not. And if one of the old philosophers had been asked, he would have answered:- Because it was dishonest, below the dignity of a man, and opposite to virtue, the highest perfection of human nature, to do otherwise.
Which view is Locke’s? Further reading of the Essay confirms it is clearly the Christian view as he sees the rewards in the next life as important to the hedonic calculus that makes men moral. Which view inspired the Founding Fathers?
7 comments:
Jason,
Nice post.
I believe because the Founders believed in limited government, BECAUSE people were to be self-governing, they believe in the philospher's view. Virtue was part of the individual, not outside the individual. People kept their word and were to be trustworthy, as that was to be expected.
The Christian view views a "God" that will reward or punish, in eternity, while the Hobbesian view was the government was the punisher of those that did not keep their compacts. Both os these views are based on outside sources of motivation. And could be seeen as co-ercive.
Which view inspired the Founding Fathers?
Throw in Aristotle, Cicero, Sidney, etc., and me and T. Jefferson pick D, all of the above.
.
All of the above.
.
BTEW, Jason, I appreciate your blog on this issue. It is well put and helps build understanding. Gets away from the fluff stuff.
.
Thankee Kindlee
.
.
Two individuals (or groups of people) that have no governing institution in common are in a state of nature. Canada and the United States are currently in a “state of nature” since there is no common government that jointly rules over both regions. The Founding Fathers used the phrase in this sense when they referred to independence as creating a “state of nature” between Britain and America.
Jason, this illustrates why so much of early natural law theory---Suarez and Grotius---was about "international law." This always puzzled me, but it's because the regime of a particular place or time becomes irrelevant, and the core principles can be examined without the questions of internal politics.
Monarchies were the rule then, but there is no king of the world, only king dealing with king, nation with nation.
It is true that American society was diverse, as to Christian faith, but it was agree that power had to be balanced and limited, because of such diversity.
I understood the question to be about "the original Founders", who weren't "preachers", except for Wietherspoon. These were educated people that created our nation. And their edcuation was in the "classics" and "philosophers" of old.
Every educated man, no matter how religious, knew the classics.
Every educated man, no matter how unreligious, knew the Bible as well. [Think Paine and Jefferson. Franklin.]
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/11/ben-franklin-was-not-deist-ok.html
Interesting thoughts about virtue, Angie. Virtue was a crucial component in republican theory. Tom posted some of Jefferson’s interesting thoughts on the limits of virtue. While I posted some of Adams’ exhortation to virtue, he knew the limits and thus the needs for checks and balances. Still, Washington is the ultimate model of virtue and honor. His inspiration was the Stoic Roman Senator, Cato the Younger. Add Cato to Jimmiraybob’s list.
Glad you enjoyed it Phil.
Tom, that’s an inspired insight (re: early natural law thinkers).
I think Hobbes can be ruled out; I don't know of any Founder that admired Hobbes. The influence of religion and the classics ... the degree, nature, variants, keeps us debating the interplay in this blog.
Locke’s 2nd Treatise and Essay on Human Understanding strike me as having very different views of man’s ethical nature. The 2nd Treatise is a natural rights document while the Essay is utilitarian. I see the natural rights theme in our founding but the utilitarian influence isn’t clear. I’ll have to read more ...
Post a Comment