The death of natural freedom: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » The death of natural freedom » The death of natural freedom

The death of natural freedom
A look at John Locke's Second Treatise

Page: 1 2 3 4

The death of natural freedom

Roostersauce
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 14

Posted 03/17/08 - 06:58 PM: Subject: The death of natural freedom	#1
Hello all! This is my first visit to this forum. I am a freshman at NIU and have just recently discovered an interest in philosophy. I don't really know how this site works, so if I'm doing it wrong my bad, just let me know. This is my most recent journal for my Intro to Political Philosophy class. I'd really like to hear what anyone thinks. ============= Locke’s laws of nature vs. society break down human social interaction to its barest form. It is the idea of giving up one’s freedom for that of safety and security. The whole idea of the civil society in Locke’s eyes is the choice of lifestyle; if one chooses to be a free man he takes the law into his own hands. This gives him the right to punish those he has perceived to do him harm in whatever way he sees appropriate. If a free man in nature decides that death is the most appropriate response to an action taken against him, then that is his choice as a free man. The drawback to this, though, is that he is at the mercy of the punishment of others. Another man has the same right to punish him with death as he does to others. To take a place in civil society is to give up ones right for personal retribution. The society he places himself into takes control of law and decides what is good for the people as a whole; while he loses true freedom, he gains safety against other men. Today in modern society man has lost his freedom to be free. The true state of nature has been completely eradicated; the option of living in a state of nature has been taken away from man. There is no more uncharted wilderness of people to live where they like and how they like. There are still places where man can live in a sense of nature away from other people, but he is still at the mercy of the state he lives in. Human beings populate every inhabitable space on the planet. Every one of these areas has been designated as a state of power with rules and regulations. The closest anyone can come to true nature is to move to areas largely uninhabited by people. If a man buys land deep in Wyoming territory miles and miles away from any other person, he has put himself into a sense of true nature. Even though he is far from populated areas in a sense of his own, living on land he bought, he is still at the mercy of the state. Even indigenous peoples living deep in South American rainforest are at the will of the recognized government. Customs that have been with the group for generations can be perceived as against the law in standard and they will be punished. This problem is becoming ever increasingly drastic as the loss of natural space disappears from the world. Natural habitats are being burned, cut, dug, and bulldozed away from existence. Thousands of acres of tropical forest are lost forever every day. Swamps are drained and removed from areas to build land for the ever expanding civil society. The modern man is at a war with the world governments for his God given right to make his own decision of how to live, he is just not fully aware of it yet. Our rights as natural beings are being ripped away from us right under our noses. Before we know it there will be no nature, no true freedom, only ones obligation to his civil society. Where there were forests there will be shopping centers, gardens will be parking lots, and our freedom as human beings will be gone forever.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 03/17/08 - 07:18 PM:	#2
Interestingly, you are touching on some of the same issues that I've been toying with in the thread "Are Rights a Useful Concept". In one sense I agree with your point that Locke's claim of a choice between freedom and society is unreal. But whereas you say that the freedom was lost in modern society, you'll find that this is really nothing new. People have always been at the mercy of greater forces whether it is democratic society or conquering kings. On the other hand, I think you grant far too much power to society and underestimate the freedom of choice that we all retain. These choices do not depend, as you imply, on secluded natural habitats. 1) Nobody can take away your ability to form your own opinion, even if you live in North Korea. 2) The ability to voice unpopular opinion has, if anything, been enhanced by the technologies of modern society. Similarly, it has never been easier to find and connect with others who share your opinion no matter how small or dispersed your "society". 3) War (conflict of will) has always been part of human existence. Why would you expect this to be different today? If you want to secure your "God given right" to make your own decisions you have only to decide. Don't blame society for a prison of your own making.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Roostersauce
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 14

Posted 03/17/08 - 07:54 PM:	#3
I use the word freedom in the Lockean sense of the state of nature vs. the state of civil society. We are still free to make day to day decisions and form our own opinion as you say. To me the state of nature is that of total freedom, basically a state of anarchy. In a state of nature, man has the freedom to make his own laws, and has the right to deal out the punishment he sees fit when these laws are broken. It is true mankind has been at the mercy of political power for a long time, conquering kings and such as you say. But there was still un-populated land back then. There were places on earth that were not dominated by a single government. Like I said in my journal, there is no land left on Earth that has not been carved up and placed under the control of a ruling body. You are correct in that we have still have some aspects freedom in life, but we have lost the ability to be truly free. Man can not make his own personal law anymore. Those that try to shape their own world based on their own laws are sent to prison or executed. True, this is the price of living in a society. But that is my point exactly. If one wishes to leave society and have no bonds to any law but his own, where can he go? Where can one go that is not already controlled by another body? The idea I'm trying to get at is that in the modern world, there is no escape from civil society. Locke says there are two choices of life, that of nature/chaos and that of society/safety. We have lost the choice for nature. Without natural habitat we are doomed to a world of order and control. A planet without forests, grasslands, swamps, etc. It will be a world of perfectly weeded backyards, acres and acres of corn and soybean, farms of perfectly spaced pine trees. A planet without any natural world is truly a world without originality, beauty, or freedom. Also, I'm not saying Locke's views are unreal at all. I am arguing that we are losing the rights that Locke discussed in his writings. I'm also confused about what the status of war and conflict has to do with this. Edited by Roostersauce on 03/17/08 - 08:13 PM

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 03/17/08 - 08:30 PM:	#4
Again, you're romanticizing a Golden Age that never was. The further you go back in history, the more brutal is the warfare. In the natual state of anarchy, the standard practice is to kill anyone not from your clan before they kill you. Politics is just warfare of a different form and even in the most primitive societies there was the politics of the clan. You can see all of this in studies of primates, lions, and other social animals. There is nowhere you can go to escape others and in fact you would only impoverish yourself by doing so. Sealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand) offers an interesting example. Try imagining yourself as a tiny nation of one surrounded by powerful forces. You can start a war with them but they will crush you. You can make up your own laws but you lack the power to enforce them. Anarchy is simply a state of mind. The reality is that as an individual you are relatively weak and this has always been so. So the better solution is to form alliances with your neighbors, to form confederations to strengthen your position. In other words, politics. Better to create your own kingdom where you live.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Roostersauce
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 14

Posted 03/18/08 - 01:49 AM:	#5
You said in your first response, “But whereas you say that the freedom was lost in modern society, you'll find that this is really nothing new.” The thing though is that it really is something new. That is exactly why it’s called modern society. Human existence goes back before the time of kings and armies. All living things on earth are believed to derive from a single cellular common ancestor, the very first organic life on Earth. We humans are animals that evolved to who we are as a species on the plains of Africa. Tens of thousands of years ago there was tropical jungle where the African plains now are. Earth, already existing for billions of years, never once stayed the same for long. The movement of the earth’s land continents causes a drastic change in climate. As climate changes so does life. Darwin’s theory of evolution states that animals change over periods of time due to pressures they face in their environment. Each specific adoption perfectly suited for the challenges they will face in life. Modern man as we are today came around about 10,000 years ago. At this time human culture was that of hunter and gathers. Since we relied on the natural world for our sustenance we were a nomadic. Groups consisted of families co-operating for survival. Humans evolved as a patriarchal system. There were other human beings in the area but they were not a trusted kin. This is the said “Golden Age” you speak of, which has been the majority of the human experience on earth. Living in a state of nature, one makes their own laws and decides the punishment for the breaking of these laws. If a strange man kills another man’s wife; the widower has the right, if he chooses it just, to take the offender’s life. This is a logical cinerary. The Widower has had an essential part of his life taken away from him, in all meanings of the word. The man’s wife would have provided him the essential elements of survival. The mans wife would have been an extra pair of hands for the gathering and collecting of food, wood, and other essential, or also non essential aesthetic, objects in their habitat. She would have been a nose and set of ears and noses to watch of for danger. She was a source of joy and emotional comfort towards him, he loved her. It is more than understandable to see why the widower would think a violent relation is appropriate. In a state of nature it is also appropriate however to deal out the same punishment for what would appear to be a less serious crime. Two men meet randomly who are strangers to each other. Man A kills man B because he did not like the way man B looked at him. In a state of nature this is a perfectly appropriate response. This is where the split in the choice of life comes from. Human beings invented society and government in a way to better protect themselves from strangers. We are the most effective predator on the face of the earth. For this reason we have no natural predators, and so the most dangerous predator for a human being is another unknown human. The life of society and government is one of a compromise. We as an individual give up our rights to be totally free beings in nature. With this sacrifice we receive protection from strangers. Killing somebody because they looked at you funny isn’t legitimate as an appropriate action anymore. Instead of taking the law into our own hands we leave it up to our government to make our decisions for us. If someone owes you body, it is illegal to show up at their house and attack them until they pay you. Instead you take them to a court of law and let a elected official decide the for the both of you if he has to pay you or not. I am not arguing if one is better than the other. I am not saying that we should go back to the age of hunters and gathers. I am simply stating that the choice to live in a true form of nature has disappeared. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing either, or a good thing really. We carry our culture, technology and ideas with us through the ages. Humans invented civil society. It did not exist before us. There are animals with similar social interactions, but nothing even compared to the level that human beings have taken it. The one issue that I do argue whether it is right or wrong is what our newfound civilizations are doing the natural world we once came from. Cities produce an unbelievable amount of waste. The growing population produces a higher and higher demand for food, space, and other resources. We are cutting down all of the world’s forests, damming up the world’s rivers, polluting and over fishing the world’s oceans and lakes. We were once a stable part of the natural ecosystem of Africa. We adapted technologies that allowed us to increase our population exponentially. With the increasing numbers we spread out across the continents. Our superior hunting skills and intellect letting us dominate and wipe out and resistance. The key to human beings though is that with out amazing ability to learn and perceive the world around us, we have a chance to make our own decisions. We never disagreed any points really except that nature is not needed. Have we really come as far this far as a species to recklessly destroy everything? Evolution never ends. The only way for evolution to stop is for the bloodline to go extinct. As long as life is on earth it will evolve. Do we really want the future generations of human beings growing up and evolving in a world with no places of nature left? The only animals left alive are the ones that can adapt to living around humans. There is nothing wrong with those animals, but this would mean a world without the tiger, or the elephant, the panda, the wolf and many others. A world of concrete and rules.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 55
Total Posts: 887

Posted 03/18/08 - 01:50 AM:	#6
Roostersauce wrote: I use the word freedom in the Lockean sense of the state of nature vs. the state of civil society. We are still free to make day to day decisions and form our own opinion as you say. To me the state of nature is that of total freedom, basically a state of anarchy. In a state of nature, man has the freedom to make his own laws, and has the right to deal out the punishment he sees fit when these laws are broken. This is the nut. What Locke says is that we each have "executive power" to fulfil God's laws, but he wants to say that in the State of Nature there would be disagreements (clearly people will disagree, as they always do)- however do not think for one moment he takes the Hobbesian view (state of war...no,no.)- and the best method to solve the situation (arguments) is like a "hand shake" with the State, so they can carry out God's Law ...on our behalf. - Ultimately, he is saying that we consent (implicitly perhaps, as there was no hand shake) to be governed; and what he says when speaking about God's Law (?) is that when we think that the state has contravened God's Law (Executive Power eg. the right to punish) then we may return to the State of Nature. In Many ways he is the father of Anarchy.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

Roostersauce
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 14

Posted 03/18/08 - 03:04 AM:	#7
litkey wrote: This is the nut. What Locke says is that we each have "executive power" to fulfil God's laws, but he wants to say that in the State of Nature there would be disagreements (clearly people will disagree, as they always do)- however do not think for one moment he takes the Hobbesian view (state of war...no,no.)- and the best method to solve the situation (arguments) is like a "hand shake" with the State, so they can carry out God's Law ...on our behalf. - Ultimately, he is saying that we consent (implicitly perhaps, as there was no hand shake) to be governed; and what he says when speaking about God's Law (?) is that when we think that the state has contravened God's Law (Executive Power eg. the right to punish) then we may return to the State of Nature. In Many ways he is the father of Anarchy. Why would Locke have said anything other than what he meant to say? Who is this "they" you speak of? You say there is a handshake with the state so they can carry out God's law. I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase please

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 55
Total Posts: 887

Posted 03/18/08 - 03:44 AM:	#8
Well, what he has written has been Interpreted in a myriad of ways, for example, I give his philosophy a distinct Anarchist Interpretation. Locke doesn't use the word "hand shake" in the Treatise, however the word is very close to the meaning he is trying to convey - on the agreement between citizen and ruler; it is an implicit agreement, and the agreement is founded upon the recognition that God's Laws need carried out, and the best way to carry out God's Laws would be to have an executive power as this would circumvent any disagreements that took place between Individuals - we thus hand over our executive power (of Justice). The conclusion, from the standpoint of justice, is that as Individuals we cannot carry out the Natural Law (or Executive Decisions)- as we have given this away to another, and given away to another..freely. But as you know, there never was this "hand shake" - however, Locke hits the metaphorical nail, and hard, against those authorities that seek power from elsewhere - like the "Divine Right of Kings" - and seek power without consent. Locke almost sounds rational. We wouldn't want to be ruled by people if we didn't consent - he paints the picture of Consent, and it is based on Natural Law (there is no magical divine right of kings).
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 03/18/08 - 07:53 AM:	#9
Roostersauce wrote: Modern man as we are today came around about 10,000 years ago. At this time human culture was that of hunter and gathers. Since we relied on the natural world for our sustenance we were a nomadic. Groups consisted of families co-operating for survival. Humans evolved as a patriarchal system. There were other human beings in the area but they were not a trusted kin. This is the said "Golden Age" you speak of, which has been the majority of the human experience on earth....I am not arguing if one is better than the other. I am not saying that we should go back to the age of hunters and gathers. I am simply stating that the choice to live in a true form of nature has disappeared. That isn't necessarily a bad thing either, or a good thing really. We carry our culture, technology and ideas with us through the ages. Humans invented civil society. It did not exist before us. There are animals with similar social interactions, but nothing even compared to the level that human beings have taken it. You are still romanticizing the nomadic days. You are comparing the cooperation of nomads to the conflicts of modern man. You left out the part where one nomadic group would come across another, kill all the men and children and rape the females to bear their children. That is why outsiders were not "trusted kin". On the other hand, I see nomads every day on the city streets hunting for handouts and gathering bottles and cans. If you want to be a nomad, join them.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Shalomon
Lantern holder

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 03/18/08 - 09:56 AM:	#10
I would say that you're making a false distinction between society and the "primitive" state. In the past, you could do whatever you want, and other people could do whatever they wanted to you. That is still, in large part, true today. If your neighbor angers you, you can kill him. Then other people can come and kill you in return. The change is not one of form, but of degree. Civilization has crystallized these facts, so that certain actions are almost certain to provoke specific reactions from others, but it has not changed the basic interplay of action and reaction. Refraining from your actions in order not be arrested is the same in essence as refraining from them in order not to be beaten by Ug in the next cave over. If anything, civilization has increased personal freedom, both through providing a wider range of opportunities (you had pretty much one career path in a hunter-gatherer society) and by organizing and codifying reactions so that one has a much better idea of the effects of one's actions. In the past, you simply stayed away from Ug's part of the forest, but now (theoretically) you can be free to go do whatever you want there as long as it's not on a specific list of prohibitions.

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.