Thursday, December 1, 2016
Locke and the Pursuit of Happiness
In today's class, it was mentioned briefly that John Locke's notion of property was extended to the notion of the pursuit of happiness in the American Constitution. The American Constitution marries Locke's ideals with that of John Stuart Mill. Mill pioneered the project-centered theory of living a valuable life which consists of people being able to choose their own "good" or life project and being able to pursue that however they choose--so long as that does not interfere with another's project. With this notion, there comes the idea of entitlements and holdings. This idea in and itself is a different strain of egalitarianism than some mentioned in class. Namely, it is the equality of opportunity. Even though Mill justifies inequality through property, property is something that is acquired simply by mixing one's labor with an object. This means that property and thus, justified inequality is ideally accessible to all (although this may not be true in practice). There is equal opportunity. Furthermore, the social contract allows property to be protected. This act preserves stability entitlements which are those things that allow for personal planning and the pursuit of one's personal project. In this way, Mill's notion of living a valuable life, pursuing whatever it is one defines as "happiness," is only made possible by Locke's notion of the social contract.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wouldn't say that property is acquired "simply" by mixing one's labor with an object. I know that this is Locke's belief but for someone who was so concerned with the idea that no one man's life is better than any one else's or should interfere with any one else's, I think he neglected to initially identify how complicated the idea of property can be. I think that Locke needs to recognize the difficultly in identify land as any one persons. What are the boundaries of the land? How can they outline the boundaries so that any one who passes is made aware that the land is already someone's property? I also wonder how slaves fit into the equation---if they labor the land, do they have any right to it or do they give that up when the agree to submit to an owner? I think that Locke's view of property is a very simplistic one that requires lots of conditions.
ReplyDelete