Of the freedom of men, Locke says, “is to have a standing
rule to live by, common to everyone of that society, and made by the
legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things
where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant,
uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man” (272). This freedom is
guaranteed in the laws of nature, which guide all men and society. According to
the laws of nature, every man should act in self preservation and there fore
“nobody can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away
his own life cannot give another power over it." However, even though his
description of a free man includes not being subject to another, he thinks
there are grounds for slavery. If a man forfeits his life, and it is not taken
away by force, he is a slave to another man. The master should do him no injury
because the slave has not given up his life. Locke calls this the “perfect
condition of slavery” which is just the “state of war continued between a
lawful conqueror and a captive” (273). Locke says the slave and master have
entered into an “agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience
on the other.”
Locke admits that in history, particularly among the Jews
that men did sell themselves but that is was “only to drudgery not to slavery.”
I cannot help but wonder what kind of slavery Locke would
define as appropriate. Looking at history and the slavery trade in Latin
America and North America, Africans were brought over to the new world to be
sold into slavery. These slaves did not speak English. Did they enter into
contracts with their owners or would Locke say these men were free and should
not have been enslaved?
If Locke would disagree with this type of slavery what kind
of action could the slaves take against their owners? Locke says the “each
transgression may be punished to that degree and with so much severity, as will
suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent,
and terrify others from doing the like” (267).
What would Locke say about slave rebellions in which slaves
killed their owners? Would this be equal punishment for the crime of poor treatment
or the murder of other slaves who were over worked? Is Locke saying that the
masters should be enslaved so that their punishment is of equal “severity”?
According to Locke, an aggressor may attempt to take property when trying to take over another commonwealth but he is not rightly entitled to any of it. Therefore, by the extension of this logic, he makes the same claim about slaves. Human beings could not be rightfully owned by another who had taken person by force. Only those who were enslaved as a result of a just war can be true slaves… Here is where I had the most difficulty understanding Locke’s logic- the idea that someone can be ‘justly enslaved’ is just not one that translates well into modern society. The argument he lays out seems to be analogous with that which he makes for property. The idea that the only just way to acquire property is to toil on it- oddly reminiscent of some of our (American) previous legislation regarding treating slaves as though they were property
ReplyDeleteLocke would not justify the actions of slave rebellions, however, because he believes that part of the contract which people enter when they ‘agree’ to become enslaved includes relinquishing your rights to another- including your right to rebel. In reality, I don’t think slave masters could be punished for their actions in Locke’s mind since the enslaved people ‘consented’ to being enslaved.