As I hope will emerge more clearly as the text unfolds, property for Locke is whatever is proper to someone. That is, one's property is a right to anything, which may not be violated without consent. What is properly and justifiably one's own flows from the exercise of one's volition in the fulfillment of one's needs for survival and the rational enjoyment of life. His "labor" theory is a specification of the process whereby that exercise of volition, in the appropriate circumstances, entitles one to what that exercise produces. It is the metaphor that bridges from Life and Liberty on the one hand, which Locke thinks are obviously and undeniably our own, to the products of our labor on the other hand, our estate (the more usual referent of the term property).
We are entitled to our stuff, that is, by the proper use of our selves, and the term property, Locke insists, when used precisely, encompasses this whole complex: "By property I must be understood here, as in other places, to mean that property which men have in their persons as well as goods" (II, 173). In other words, property as a whole is "Life, Liberty, and Estate" (II, 87).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
To go one step further, our propriety is our identity -- first our very selves (our lives), then by extension the manner in which we manifest ourselves in the world, and come to be known by others. Through the metaphors of mixing, investing, etc. we make parts of the natural world into aspects of ourselves, which thereby become morally inseparable from us -- proper to us.
That, at any rate, seems to be the Lockean conception. Whether it works is a separate question.
I did not anticipate Locke’s meaning of property. Locke’s view here seems to be secular in nature; the right to live a free life and sustain that life by reasonable means. As such, we are our greatest assets. We traditionally think of property as something external to the self that we own. Locke’s definition of property reinforces the idea of self-investment. (This seems to be a strong argument that does not rely on theological assumptions.)
In order to cast Locke's argument concerning property in a purely secular manner, we need to separate it from the theological argument that we own ourselves via a loan from God. Although we have acknowledged the possibility of a secular basis for self-ownership, I think that it is important that we determine what that secular basis is, before we determine how strong the secular argument truly is.
Locke’s contention is that God did indeed give the world in common, but does his argument need to rest on this theological assumption. I don’t think it’s that big of a leap for us to remove the argument from theological concerns to test it’s validity, strength, and effectiveness. I do not think that how we obtained this freedom is of great concern when we begin the argument with our selves, our liberty. If however, we begin with Locke’s claim then this gift to humankind might represent the first (metaphorical) gift from God. Locke mentions too that, although we have liberty, it is not absolute. In II.33, Locke speaks of obedience to the command of God. But, for our intentions, I think it’s interesting to see what happens when we remove the argument from its theological nature. In other words, will Locke’s argument hold, in a secular manner, absent his first premise.
the theological argument that the physical representation of ourselves is loaned to us from God reminds me of the concept of gift giving tanya mentions in her post. can we be bound by respect to God or the other tribe to honor our gift without consent or consciousness? by living up to our expectations to reciprocate in thanks for our gift, we become caught in a whirlwind, and cannot make progress. for a gift to be a gift it must be let go of from the giver to know what kind of a person the gift receiver is; if they respond out of their free will and choose to honor the giver out of love and respect they enter in harmony and love and move together through time continuously creating the win win situation. and that is the reason for breaking away from the theological argument, but i am not convinced the secular argument will comply with the win-win situation created to reinforce yourself through the people who surround you wanting to benefit your life because they see you willing to benefit theirs. my blog doesn't speak directly to property but my subjective observation applies to property and is consistent with all social interactions and beyond from material to metaphysical matter
Post a Comment