2669348

7/27/2019 2669348

1/15

Natural Law, Theology, and Morality in LockeAuthor(s): Steven FordeSource: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 396-409Published by: Midwest Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2669348 .

Accessed: 22/08/2013 09:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Journal of Political Science.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2669348?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2669348?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsa

7/27/2019 2669348

2/15

Naturalaw, heology,ndMoralitynLockeStevenForde UniversityfNorthexasLiberal heorists ave always beenconfronted ith he criticismhatliberalism acks a moralfoundationadequate to the needs ofsociety.undertake reading of Locke thatagrees with hose scholars who havefoundgreatermoralresources inhisphilosophy han has sometimes beenallowed. Drawingprimarilyn theEssay ConcerningHumanUnder-standing, he TwoTreatises f Gov-ernment, ome ThoughtsConcerningEducation, nd The ReasonablenessofChristianity,find Lockean basisformoralityhat ranscends narrow rmundane self-interest.hismoralityhoweverdepends on a controversialand unfinished atural heology. his,I argue, led Locke to elaborate apractical eachingthatwas as inde-pendentas possible oftheology. heresult s a bifurcated egacy: Lockebequeathes us a philosophywithmoraldepth,but a political eachingvulnerable o the criticism f moraldeficiency.

iberalism as always ad to contendwith hecriticismhat t ackssufficient oral foundation. ts notion of a social contractmoti-vatedby self-preservationnd comfort eems to deny he need forany moral concernforothers,which ts ndividualist sychology oorlysupportsnany ase.Yet ritics uestionwhether ociety an dispensewithsuch moral oncern ltogether.venbeforeRousseau aunchedhis famousassault, ocke and theother ioneers f iberalism erefending ff ttacksfrom ften eligiously otivated ritics f theirnew politics nd morality.Locke himself eniesthathis philosophy elies nlyon narrow,mundaneself-interest,nd indeed claimsother-wordlyupport or t. n accordancewiththis, some interpretersodayfind a Locke who is morallymoresubstantial hanhis criticshave alleged,a "perfectionist"ocke whosetheory rovidesmoralresources verlooked ythosecritics.1n view ofmodern ociety's eliance n the iberalphilosophy,ndthemoralfailingssometimes raced o thisreliance, e would do welltoexplore ocke'sun-derstandingfthesematters,specially is claim o have ncluded ther-re-garding irtuesnhis iberalism. t matters o us whatthemoral founda-tionsof our iberalism re,whether hey re the cause or thepossible ureofsociety'slls.In a peculiar ense, heymight e both.The following eading f Lockewill uggest hat hilosophically,e provided or socialmoralitymorero-bust hanhiscritics aveperceived, orerobust hanHobbes'sfor xample,but thathispractical eachingeavesthatmoralityo somedegree nsup-ported.Locke'smoralphilosophy, hilenotabandoning hedistinctivelyliberalgroundingn self-interest,cknowledgeshat ven iberalmoralitywilloccasionally ncroach n the ndividual's elf-interestnthis ife.Thisrequired ocketo have recourse o a theology fotherworldlyewards ndpunishments. e neverprovided full ccountofthis heology owever,anddoubted heeffectivenessfanynovel heological eachingnany ase.Thisproblem, suggest,ed Locke n hismorepracticalworks oprovideteaching hatrooted tself s muchas possible nmundaneself-interest,Steven orde s AssociateProfessor f Political cience,Universityf NorthTexas,Denton, [email protected]).I would ike o thank rofessorshomasPangle nd ThomasWest or ommentsn anearlier ersion.Work n this ssaywassupported y heNational ndowment or heHumanities.'A good recent eview f these ontroversies aybe foundnMyers 998, hapter .Liberalism ay e consideredperfectionist"f t rests pon distinctiveirtues, iewedas humanperfections. yers inds "perfectionist"ocke nd places uch uthors sWilliamGalston, oseph az, nd Stephen alkevernthe ttendantamp f iberalism.In the neutralist"amp he placesJohn awls,RobertNozick,BruceAckerman,ndothers. ee alsoNathan arcov'sccount f he non-Lockean ocke"Tarcov, 983).American ournal f olitical cience, ol. 5,No.2,April 001, p. 396-409?2001 by heMidwest olitical cience ssociation

396

This content downloaded from 186.143.20.53 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:39:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/27/2019 2669348

3/15

7/27/2019 2669348

4/15

398 STEVEN FORDELocke never producedone, and may n factnot havethought tfully ossible.4 et hiswould seemtolead tothe conclusion hat theresno lawof nature ccordingto Locke" Rabieh 1991, 51;cf. trauss 953, 04,220).This stateof affairss doublypuzzling ince Lockecould haveavoided it in severalways.Most simply, ecouldhave ubscribed oanyofseveral ossible proofs"of a legislating,nforcingGod. Locke alludes to suchproofs n his published nd unpublishedwritings, utendorses oneofthem.5We must ssumehe found hemdefective. e might henhave tipulated hatnatural awdoes notrequire legislating ill, r a divine nforcer,obe law. This was the view taken by Hugo Grotius,wholly espectable uthorityn natural aw in Locke'sday.The fact hatLockefollows ufendorf ather hanGrotiusnthismatter,espite hedifficultiestcausedhistheory,s a compellingign hat hiswashissincere er-suasion.6Finally, ockecould have abandoned naturallawaltogethernfavor f ome other oundation ormo-rality.erceptivendforcefulrgumentsavebeen madethat Locke did precisely his,professing llegiancetonatural awwhile overtlyeplacingtwithnatural ight,in themanner fHobbes (Strauss 1953,212-214,227-229; 1959,201-206; Zuckert 994,237-240,274; Rabieh1991). It is undeniable hatLockeproceedsbythiskindof misdirection n othermatters, speciallymatters

touching n religion.7 ut he seems o foreclose hepos-sibility f groundingmoralitynthis ype f right atherthan natural aw when he insists, s he does repeatedly,thatnot only natural aw," ut"duty,"virtue,"ndeed"morality"out ourt ependupon divine egislation ndenforcement.8s we shall ee,Locke s compelled o takethisposition ythepremises f his moralphilosophy.

Theologynd he oundationsfMoralityThe EssayConcerninguman Understanding,hich on-tainsLocke'smost horough reatmentf moraltheory,also contains omeof hismost mphatic tatementshatmorality er se depends upon divine legislationandenforcement:whatduty s,cannotbe understoodwith-out a law; nor a lawbe known, r supposed,withoutlawmaker,r without eward ndpunishment"1.3.12; f.Questions, 01, 103). Distinguishingimselfpecificallyfrom obbes andfromhe lassical hilosophers, e saysthat thetrueground fmorality"an onlybe "thewilland law of a God,whoseesmen n thedark,has in hishandrewards nd punishments,ndpower nough ocallto account heproudest ffender"1.3.6; f.RC, 139-140,144). These rewards nd punishmentsmoreovermustconsistof "some good and evil that s notthe naturalproduct nd consequenceof theaction tself"11.28.6).The enforcer ust e an active ndprovidentialgent.These arenot dle statements. eward nd punish-ment remade ndispensableo morality yLocke's iewof humanor rational ature ndhisawareness fthe n-evitable onflict etweenmoralitynd individual nter-est. The sole motivenotonlyofa humanbeing,butofany rational creature, e asserts, s its own happiness(11.21.43, 2, 62; 11.27.17-18,6; cf.RC 149).Thishappi-ness sreducible opleasure,whichmenpursue n differ-entways 11.21.41,54-56, 62). Good and evil are butnamesforwhatbrings leasure nd pain,whichhas ledmen to shapemorality,ariably,naccordancewith heirviewsofhappiness 11.20.2; .3.6).Truemoralgood andevilontheother andrequire othdivine egislationnd

4Strauss 953,207; 1959,202-203,206; Dunn 1984,30, 84-85;Grant 987, 5-26; Pangle1988, 01;Horwitz 990, 6. See alsoRC, 139.5Locke utlines providential atural heology ased on God'srole s fathern his ournal or 5July678 passage ranscribednvon Leyden 956, 5). See also RC 133,149 but, f.139); EssayIV.3.18, V.13.3. ockewouldhavebeen ware f Cicero's engthydiscourse n natural heologynDe NaturaDeorum,s well sMontaigne'sommentaryn thenaturalheology fRaimond eSebonde Apologie e Raimond ebond, ssais11.12). t is worthmentionings well hat ocke ouldhave rofessedo adopt ne oftheseproofs,while ndicatinghat he truebasisof hismoraltheoryay lsewhere.For Locke's dmission hathe never rovided n adequateproof imself,ee his etter oWilliamMolyneux f January9,1694 Locke1976-, ol.4, 784-787; f. 67-768).He tended o beevasive hen skedwhy edid not omplete his art fhisnatu-ral heology.thers hofindhe rgumentsocke ffersorGod'sexistencerprovidenceessthan atisfactorynclude enz1956,118;Ashcraft969, 03-206, 14;Dunn 1969,194;Pangle1988,198-201. ee also thepassages itednnotes and 4.Dunn 1984,84) argues hat ockeoriginallyhoughthedevelopmentf anadequate aturalheologyobe easier han tproved. hismay etrue, hought s n hisearly uestionsoncerninghe awofNa-ture hat ockedescribeshe aw ofnature s"hidden ndunper-ceived"111).See also Horwitz1990,26-27).6Grotius1625] 1925Prolegomena 3;Pufendorf1673] 19911.2.2, , 7; 1.3.10. f.Olivecrona974, 11.Locke's tatementnALetter oncerningolerationhatThetaking way fGod, hobuteven nthought, issolves ll," eems o be a direct ebuttal fGrotius'tatementothe ontraryLocke,1689a]1983, 1).

7Lockemakeshimselfppear o be more rthodox hanhe is onmattersike heFall and thebasis for alvationDunn 1969, 3,193; Myers1998, 187-188). He also concealshis kinshipwithHobbes n mattersike he tate fnature.omeof hese aseswillbe discussed elow.8See Questions,5 includinghe ormulationf he irstuestionitself), 01; Essay .3.6, 2, 18; 11.28.5-6;V.10.7;Thoughts,61.This s not to deny hatLocketurnsnaturalaw on its head byrooting t na form f right. or partiallyontrastingiews, eeStrauss 953, 28, nd Zuckert 994, 72-275.


7/27/2019 2669348

5/15

NATURAL LAW, THEOLOGY, AND MORALITY IN LOCKE 399enforcement,o align happiness with a proper law(11.28.5-6, ). Sincehedonism s inseparable rom atio-nality, he moral aw will have to take accountof t, n-deed build on it: itwould be utterlynvain tosupposerule et o thefree ctions f man,withoutnnexing o tsome enforcementf good and evil to determinehiswill" 11.28.6).Morality,ike obedience o anyother awor rule, annot reasonably e expectedofmen,unlessthey achgain ndividuallyy t.It is sometimes lleged that by tyingmorality oclosely o enforcement,ocke confuses bligation ndmotivation,ut this ssimply consequence fhis hedo-nisticmoralpsychology.9ot every ct thatman s moti-vated to ismoral, bviously, utmorality annot ustlybe demandedof himunless an appropriatemotive ssupplied.This swhydivineprovidencesnecessary: hegainsfrom iolatingmoralityaneasily utweighhe d-vantages fobeying t, nthisworld.Only providentialenforcement hose rewards nd punishmentspecifi-cally outweigh hegainsof immorality an bringtheindividual's leasure ndpain fullynto ine withmoralaction (1.3.13; 11.21.70;11.28.8;cf.Tarcov 1984, 101;Pangle1988,191). Curiously,tappears hat hemorera-tional man s,themoreprovidence ecomesnecessaryto supporthismorality.Mosthumanbeings, ocke re-mindsus,follow ustom nd habitmorethanreason ntheir houghtsnd actions 1.3.24-25; 11.28.12;V.16.4;cf.Questions, 27,135; Conduct, 81). Ifthey remoral,tis likely or hisreason.But thosewho think or hem-selves,whounderstandhe rueprinciplesf rational c-tion,need instead reason orbehavingmorally. rovi-dence s theonlyreason offeredo such ndividuals yLocke'sphilosophy.To be sure, hemoralityockeproposes, iberalmo-rality,s essdemandinghan tspredecessors,nd, sweshall see, this fact s pivotalto his practicalteaching.Lockeanmorality erivesfrom he fundamental rin-cipleofthepreservationndhappiness fmankind, n-derstoodnthehedonistic ayLockehasoutlined1.3.6;cf. 1.21.47-52; irst reatise?56,59, 86; SecondTreatise??6, 7, 135,182; Thoughts116;RC, 147).Amorality i-rected o this nd will mpinge n the nterests f ndi-vidualsmuch ess thanother,more usteremoral odes.But Locke does not magine hat tsdemands analwaysbe reconciledwithpersonalhappiness rself-interestnthis ife cf.RC pp. 148-149; Tarcov1984, 149;Pangle1988, 191,211). That reconciliation an only akeplaceinanother.

Thus does Locke nticipate he rgument hat venliberal order cannot be viable without a religiouslygroundedmorality. ut t s necessaryo mark losely hetype freligion his rder equires nd themethod ockeuses to discover t.Tobeginwith,God mustunderstandthatmoralbehaviorcannot be reasonably xpectedofhumanbeings or anyrational eings)unlesshe makes tworth their while in termsof pleasure or happiness(1.3.13, 1.21.62). ocke's eneral rocedurentheologysto reason nthisway from is own considered iewsofmorality o conclusions oncerning ivinewill. Nor isthis nabusive orm fmoralreasoning. ocke's yllogis-ticor demonstrative oralitywouldtakeprecisely hisapproach, eginning rom deas groundednperception(v.Grant1987,38; Myers 998, 9). Thus, incepunish-ing othersforAdam's sin is incompatiblewith ustice,Locke knows that God does not do so (First Treatise??46-47; RC, pp. 6-8; cf.Dunn 1969, 2, 192). Similarly,thecurseput uponEve s somethingheandherdaugh-ters reperfectlyree oevade, f hey an, nthenameofhappiness FirstTreatise 47). Locke sides withreasonagainst cripture oncerningman's natural ight o usetheanimalsfor ood, right erivedogically rom res-ervationSecondTreatise25; contrast irstTreatise86with 39 and withGenesis :29and 9:3).Ashe writesntheEssay, Reason is naturalrevelation,"nd must beused to "regulate" ur assent to alleged supernaturalrevelations IV.19.4, 14). Speaking pecifically freli-giousmatters, e says Reasonmust e our ast udgeandguide nevery hing" IV.17.24;cf.First reatise86). Infine, naturalreligion" s to be preferredo revelation(111.9.23).Lockeuseshis fundamentalrinciple f naturalaw,that hepreservationndhappiness fmankind reto beserved s much as possible, o sift evelation, cceptingsomeof tspreceptsndrejectingthers. e interpretsheBiblical njunctionbe fruitfulndmultiply"s a simplestatementfthis rinciple.Whetherrnot twasactuallyuttered y God,Locke asserts hat t s conveyedo menvia thenaturalmpulse fself-preservationFirst reatise?86). Thus didGod speak oman-"that is,directed imbyhissenses ndreason"-commandinghimtoprovideforhimselfid.). Thiscommandproves o mandatenotonlyLocke'sdoctrine fproperty,ut "the mprovementtooof heArts ndSciences,nd the onveniencesfLife,"together ith uchthingss a ban on absolutemonarchy(First reatise33;cf. econdTreatise41).Godcould notbe so capricious r cruel s togive s irresistiblempulsestopreservation,omfort, ropagation,nd the ike, ndthen unish s for ollowinghem.Rather,uch mpulses,togetherwithour naturaldesireforhappiness nd thecharacteristicsftheworld n whichwe havebeen placed,

9In the Essay, ocke writes the nclination nd tendency f[men's] atures an obligationnd motiveo them" 11.21.52,m-phasis dded). See Dunn 1969, 190;Yolton1958,491; Zuckert1994, 86;Myers 998, 37.


7/27/2019 2669348

6/15

400 STEVEN FORDEareoursurestndicationsfthedivine lan First reatise?86). Lockesilently ismisses he possibility hat heseimpulsesmight e the corrupt ppurtenances fa fallennature, r that ur natural onditionmight e partlyheconsequence fAdam's in.10Without ven having stablished he existence f aprovidentialGod, we alreadyknow a greatdeal aboutwhathiswillor ntentionmust e.WhatGod wills s hu-man prosperity nd happiness; the moral law thathegives s is directed o that nd that lone. God willspri-vatepropertyndtherespect f thatproperty yothers.He willsrational nd industrious ccumulation nd hasgranted he earth solely) to those who practice t (Se-cond Treatise 34). This, rather han any quietismorpurely piritual erfection,sGod's planformankindcf.Dunn 1969,chapter8;Ashcraft 969). The perfectionfour nature sthepursuit fhappinessnthemostreflec-tive rrationalmanner ossible Essay 1.21.47, 1). Thelawwe aregiven, ocke ays,s but thedirectionf a freeand intelligent gent o his proper nterest, nd pre-scribesno fartherhan s for he generalGood ofthoseunder hat aw" SecondTreatise57).Butthis rings s backto ourproblem: aturalaw sdirected o the "generalGood" ofmankind,whichwilloften utnot always oincidewith he propernterest"of the ndividual.The rational ndividual s concernedwithhis owninterest boveall (Essay11.27.17, 8),butfor ocke, hemoralperspectivestheperspectivefthegenerality.t is notpossible obring hese wofullyntoharmonywithoutprovidence,whichis whyLocke isunwilling o relinquish hetheological aspectsof hismoraltheory. he questionthathas vexed nterpretersfrom ocke'sdayto this s, Whydidhe notprovide nadequate proofoftheprovidentialGod his theory e-quires?Hiswritingsketch fairlyobustnatural heol-ogy;all it acks,pointedly,s this ornerstone.We knowthatLocke wasawareof thisproblem,fonlybecause ofthepleasof hisfriends,utwemaynever e ableto sayfor ertainwhyhe lefttunremedied."1erhaps partialremedysto be found nhisargumenthat omethingscan be knownonlyprobably, hich renonethelessd-equatefor uiding urconduct I. 1.4-5; V. 4;cf. V.3.6).Locke is careful o stipulate t a numberofpoints, nPascalianfashion, hattheprospectof divinerewards

and punishments s enough to determine ur actionseven f considerednthe mereprobability11.21.44, 0;IV.14.2). ndeed,upon examination,manyof his state-ments boutour knowledge fGod, and hence he tatusof "demonstrative orality,"urnout to be couched nprobabilisticerms e.g., V.3.6, 7-18; V.14.2; V.17.23).Whether his s fully ompatiblewithhis strongertate-ments boutthe olidity f natural heology nd demon-strativemoralitys anopen question.In anycase, t s clear hatLockenevermodified isexplicit eachingnmoralityn account fthisdifficultyand that hat eachings dependent pon natural heolo-gy.What s strikings we move from he EssayConcern-ingHuman Understandingo Locke's more practicalworks,wheremoral conduct s discussedin concreteterms, s how thiswhole controversyecedes ntothebackground. heseworksmake ome use of natural he-ology, uttypically ery ittle. heyrelymuch more onothermotivations oproducemoralaction. n light fthe difficultiesfnatural heology,his shouldnotbesurprising.ocke eeks n hispracticalworks o providefoundation ormoral action s independents possibleofthe uncertainties hatwillnecessarily urroundhistheology. tthe ame time, ocke saware hat nynatu-raltheology, owever olid,couldnot immediatelye-comethebasis for hesweeping eform fpolitics ndmoral culture hathe seeks.To tiehispracticalprojecttooclosely o a novel heology,ven fully erfectedne,would onlybe to eopardize ts uccess.

Natural aw nd PoliticsDespite occasionallyprominentmentionoftheDeity,the SecondTreatisefGovernmentevelops n argumentthat s almostwholly ndependent ftheology nd thecontroversiesurroundingatural aw. t relies otondi-vine egislationndenforcement,ut onmundane nter-ests and material ncentives.t showseloquently nd atlength owthesocialgood is mosteffectivelydvancedbyself-interestedction, ntheacquisition fproperty,the defense f ndividual ights,nd the ike. n makingthis rgument,he SecondTreatise akes heperspectiveof ociety atherhan he ndividual itizen lmost xclu-sively. his is naturalenough, given tsfocus,but weshould not fail onotice hat hisperspectivelso allowsit to elide almost completely he difference etweensociety's generalGood" andthe ndividual'spropern-terest,"isguisinghe needfor ther-regardingoralityin citizens. o show that elfish ctionon the whole ad-vances the social good, as in economics, s not to show

10Thiss not o say hat ollowingny ndevery ppetite mountsto moralityEssay .3.13). n the ontrary,he ssence fmoralityis rational iscipline f the ppetitesEssay 1.21.57,2; Thoughts?33). Butmoralityoes consistnfindingnd pursuingrue lea-sure n thisworld irst. hiswe can do rationally,ithout ivinegrace being necessary o correct "fallennature" cf. Essay11.21.47).1'See he itationsnd discussion t note .


7/27/2019 2669348

7/15

NATURAL LAW, THEOLOGY, AND MORALITY IN LOCKE 401

that elf-interestas no harmful onsequences. Lockedoes say t theoutset ftheSecondTreatisehat hepur-suitof ndividual elf-interestustbe bounded by thelaw of nature,whichcommands that each strive, asmuch s he can, topreservehe est fMankind" ?6). Buthe interpretshisduty urely egatively,s a prohibitionofharm: "no one ought to harmanother n his Life,Health, iberty,rPossessions" ?6). And it s remarka-ble how far he SecondTreatise dvancesthe commoninterest ithout elying n even hisminimal uty.12Propertys theparadigmatic ase. In theoriginalstate fnature, atural aw mposed limit n accumula-tion, hat f waste: t was a violation fthe awto allowanything o spoil n one'spossession ??31, 38, 46, 48).This restriction as rooted nthe general ood of man-kind, nasmuch s waste obsothers ftheirhare ??3 1,37, 46). ButLockeemphasizes hat t was the nterest findividuals, ot their haritableness,hatmade thisruleeffective: o one has an incentive o gather oods thatwillrot ntheir ossession??46, 48, 51).With he nven-tionofmoney,ven his imit s ifted,nd accumulationwithout regard to others' sharesbecomes legitimate(??36, 50; cf.Fagiani 1983,169).Locke'swell-known r-gument s that this imitless ccumulationservesthecommongood byunleashingheproductive ower f a-bor and increasingwealth xponentially??37, 40-41,43). The concern with others' shares is obviatedbygreater ocial prosperity,s acquisitiveness ervesthenatural aw'smandate o "preservemankind" etter hancharitytself. houghLockehadspoken fcharityntheFirstTreatise,13t is notoriously bsentfromhis treat-ment of propertyn the Second TreatisePangle 1988,chapter 4; Strauss 953,248). Traditionalharityouldparadoxicallynterfere ith hepreservationrcomfortofmankind, ince too great n emphasison charityslikely o turn nto condemnation f the cquisitivem-pulsethat rulyerves hegoodof mankind. raditionalcharitylso fails o distinguishdequately etween he"Industrious nd Rational" o whomGod gave heearthandthe QuarrelsomndContentious,"owhomheap-parently id not (?34; cf.Fagiani 1983, 168). On both

counts, t would run counter o the divine plan, or tonatural aw.In politics s well, he SecondTreatise eplaces ltru-ism or beneficences much s possiblewith elf-interest.Limitedgovernmentmaybe theonly government hatproperly erves he preservation fmankind nd there-with henatural aw ??42, 229; First reatise,?33, 41),butLockepresumes either"godlike rince"whowillbewise or generous nough o maintainucha systemSe-condTreatise42), nora citizenry howilldemand t nthenameof thegoodof mankind. reegovernmentsse-curedrather y ndividuals cting n their wninterest(??208, 230; 17,23, 111). ndividualswillnot evenrise othe defense foppressed ellow-citizens,nless hey e-lieve thatoppression ugurs ll for hemselves ??208,230). Finallyndmostnotoriously,ndividualsnthe tateofnaturewillnot byandlarge nforce he aw ofnatureon others' ehalf, lthough heyhave thatpower ??7,126). Thispower s rooted xplicitlynthe right"ach n-dividual asto preservemankind; ut he nly duty" aidto arisefrom t s a duty ot to harm ??1 1, 13, 16).Even negative utys a duty hough,ndthemoralminimalism f theSecondTreatisehouldnotblindustothefact hat ts natural awdoes impose imits n indi-viduals.This is mostvisible n thewell-known iffer-ences betweenLocke and Hobbes. Hobbes had derivedmoralityntirelyrommundane elf-interest.is naturallaw bid men to be socially accommodating,to be"compleasant"o one another,olely or heir wngoodin this ife,which s servedby peace.14Lockerequiresgreatermoralrestraintromndividuals, artly ecausetheyhavegreatermoralprivileges. ockean ndividualsenjoy xclusive roperty ightsven nthe tate f natureand hencedo not haverights o one another's ifeorlimb, except perhaps in extremis. herecan be "forcewithout ight"n thestateofnature, possibility hatscarcelyxistsnHobbes."5 ocke's ights,nlike hose fHobbes, ntail uties n thepart fothersTarcov1984,

12Formuchmore etailedccounts f his, ee Pangle 988, hap-ters 6,17, 0, nd Zuckert 994, hapters, 9.13?42,where haritys apparentlyimited o cases f tarvationntheone side ndthe xistence fa "surplusage"ntheother.Weshould lso note he ontext: ocke sarguing hat neman cannever se theneediness f nother o force im nto ubjection-thatAdam, ven fhe had had exclusive ominion f theworld,could nothaveused t togaindominion ver thers,utwouldhavebeen boundtogive hem f his urplus ??41-43). See alsothe rgument or haritys a duty n extremisn the hort ssaylabeled Venditio,"ated1695 reprintednDunn 1968, p. 84-87).

'4Hobbes,Leviathan, hapters 4, 15. Hobbes does assert,ikeLocke, hat he aw of nature s aw only ue to divine egislation(Leviathan,hapters 5, 1,26,31). Thishowever oesnot ppearto alter he purelymundanenature f the elf-interesthis awserves.n theLeviathan, obbes ntroducesaturalaw, efinestsbasis preservationf man's life,"hats, xistencenthisworld),and ists nd analyzes henineteenaws fnature, eforemention-ingdivine egislationlmost s an afterthoughtchapters 4-15).He also ays,noppositiono Locke, hat hese aws re nforcedythepurely atural onsequencesheir iolation ringschapter1;contrastocke, ssay 1.28.6).'5Second Treatise?19,232. "Forcewithout ight"might xistnHobbes's tate fnaturef ne ndividualttackednother ithoutbeingmotivatedyconcern orhispreservation.obbes takeslittle ognizance f this ossibility,xcept erhaps hroughis t-tack n vaingloryLeviathan,chapters3-15).


7/27/2019 2669348

8/15

402 STEVEN FORDE

132; Grant 1987,91; Zuckert1994,275). Though theseare purely egative, uties o do no harm, hey o entailrestrictionsn the pursuit f self-interestTarcov 1984,149; Pangle 1988,211). The fact hatmanyflaunt heserestraints ith mpunity oes not render hemnugatoryas moralrules r prevent ockefrom stablishing fun-damentalmoraldivide etween he Industriousnd Ra-tional" and the "Quarrelsom nd Contentious,"n thestate fnature tself.16hose who violate roperty ightsmightwell advance their ersonal nterest hereby; herule they iolate s thatwhich eeks he general ood ofmankind. or LockeunlikeHobbes, here s such a thingas injusticen the tate fnature,ndits ource sthe x-cessive ursuit fself-interest.This is why neither he theoretical ifficulties fnatural aw nor tspractical neffectivenessnthe tate fnature nd in most societies nduce Locke to replace twithnatural ight,t east s he understandshat erm.17Tobe sure, herights f ndividuals, asedontheir eep-est needs and interests,re thebasis ofhismoralsys-tem-this is what makeshisa liberalmorality. ut t sLocke'sviewthatrights annotform natural asisformorality ithout pre-civil uty n thepart fothers orespect hem.This is natural aw. ts moralfocus s thegeneral ood,orthepreservationfmankind,he ameperspectiveocketakes nadvancing isphilosophy.etthis eavesunsettledhequestionof ndividualmotiva-tion, and henceobligation,18n those caseswherethegeneraland individualgood do not coincide.Again:While t s true hat he ecurityfmyproperty ependson an environmentn whichrightsrerespected, maystill enefit romaking dvantage fothers' orbearanceinsuch nenvironment.tmay e a logical ontradictionfor n individual o claimproperty ightswithout on-ceding he ike oothersas Locke'sderivation fnaturallawfrom areequalityn theSecondTreatiseuggests: 6;cf.Strauss1953, 229; Zuckert1994, 277-278), but thiswillnotaffectndividualmotivation robligationnanyway ecognized yLocke'sphilosophy.In theend,theSecondTreatise fGovernmentoesnot fully xplainhow individuals an rationally e ex-

pected o obeythe naturalaw.Virtue s left o some de-gree unendowed" RC, 150).The problem s minimizedby aying ut thebroad commonground etween ublicand private nterest,whichLocke's liberalism makesbroader ydefininghecommongood as an aggregationof private nterests,nd confiningaturalmoralduty oabstention rom arm.This s adequate o long s we arepaintingnbroad strokes,oncentratingn the way nwhich regime fnatural aw serves he generality.utlimitationsf the pproach revisible n the rgument fthe SecondTreatisetself. ocke does notmarhis presen-tation or xample ybringingp thenettlesomeubjectofmilitaryervice,n area wherepublic and privaten-terest lashmosturgently.hiswasan issue boutwhichHobbes was most forthrightLeviathan, hapter21).Similarly,ibertyppears ntheSecondTreatiserimarilyas a safeguardfmaterialnterests,"Fence" o preserva-tion ??17-18, 23). This sa surprisinglyrabbed efenseof freedom or ne ofthefounding ocuments f mod-ern free overnment.n otherworks, ockeplacesfree-dom in a decidedly obler ight, esignatingt a perfec-tion of our nature" Essay2.21.47;cf.2.21.67; Thoughts??33, 38, 45, 122;Grant1987,90-93, 198; Myers1998,163,168). t s a perfectionecause true reedomsratio-nal freedom, he rationaldirection f our nature o itstruehappiness.Rationalfreedom resupposes reflec-tive wareness fthedistinctionetween rue ndappar-ent happinessand a weighing f the respective lter-natives. n the Second Treatise, his understanding ffreedoms barely isible nLocke's rgumentornaturallaw as self-restraint:reedoms freedom nlywithin helimits f reason.Thosewhodefy hese imits orfeitheirrights nd sinkto the evelofbeasts ??8, 10, 11, 163,172).The language s striking,ut equally trikings thefact hatLockescarcely ses it nthe SecondTreatiseoarguethenobility f free ction orof free overnment.He does not explain, s he does in otherworks,why a-tionalitys thatwhichmakesmen human. n theSecondTreatise,ational elf-restraints only abstention romharm, oavoidreceivingarm nreturn?6). Rationalityis simply faculty hatmakesmenproductive,nd safeto one another. hiscorrespondso the imited ocus fthework s a whole.It has been said thatthe Second Treatises moreacivil than a philosophicalwork Strauss 1953, 220; cf.Dunn 1969, 8, 120); nthat apacity,thasbeen a stun-ning success. It has transformed ustomarywaysofthinking,venwhere tdoesnotprovide complete c-countofthebasis ofitsownphilosophicalunderpin-nings Dunn 1969,88; Myers 998,38). It has beensuc-cessful artly ecause,whileexplicitly asing tself nnatural aw, t minimizes he duties demanded by that

16?34. t s possible o argue hat n practice ocke's tate fnatureresolveso thoroughlynto state fwar hat is awofnature e-comes ssentially dead letternthat tate, swithHobbes v.Zuckert 994, 35-240). t seems o methough hat hiswould n-tail hedemise f Locke's xclusive,repoliticalropertyight swell s his distinctionetween herational nd the ontentious,which ouldhave he irest onsequencesor ispoliticalhiloso-phy s a whole.His argumentor imited overnment,or xample,at east s a moral rgument, ouldbe nextremeeopardy.17Questions,01.Again, eeLocke's tatementsn law as theonlypossible asis fmorality,ssay .3.6, 2.'8Seenote ,andtext,bove.


7/27/2019 2669348

9/15


law and focuses much more memorablyon naturalrights. reedom-loving uman beings respondmuchmore enthusiasticallyo this pproach cf.Tarcov1984,114). As to theology,henatural aw s said n theSecondTreatise o be authorized y God, but no strong r the-matic tatementsremade on the ubject, nd the rgu-ment roceeds lmostwhollywithout elyingndivinity.In almost verynstancewhereGod is mentioned, par-allel rgument elyingimply n reason r"nature"sof-fered s well.Theprohibitionfsuicidemaybe theonlyexception though f.Glenn 1984,86-87; Zuckert 994,245-246). In thework, here ppears obe onlyone ex-plicitmention fGod as legislator ?135) and noneasenforcer-evennthe ection n theenforcementfthenatural aw (??7-13)! Thisparsimony llows Locketodevelop his argumentwithminimum ontroversyndmaximum ppeal,but t eaves heargument ith omeimportant aps.

VirtuenEducationLockemight e dismayedwerehe to learnthat heSe-condTreatisefGovernmentas become so definitivefhis thought or o manyreaders n our age. Its moralteachingslimited o therules fsocialconvenience nddoesnotgive complete iewofwhy venthatmoralityis choiceworthyor ndividuals. morecomplete iewof thesematterss found n SomeThoughts oncerningEducation, ocke'scurriculum or moralupbringingand another ey xampleofhispractical eaching. hiswork ontains ocke'smost omplete ccount f thevir-tues andprovides moreroundedviewthan he SecondTreatise alone of the cultural transformation hatLockean iberalism as in view. t makesno referenceonaturalaw, utdoestake hepreservationfmankind obe thedefining rinciple fmorality. hisprinciple spresented nequivocallys thebasisofmorality,ndtheoriginofnaturalduties, s wellas rights: truly,fthepreservationf allmankind,s much s inhim ies,wereeveryone's ersuasion,s indeed t severyone's uty,ndthe trueprinciple oregulate urreligion, olitics, ndmorality y, heworldwouldbe muchquieter ndbetternatured han t s" ?116).We notethat hisformulationf theprinciple igh-lights heconcern or thersn it, hedifferenceetweenthepreservationfmankind nd thenarrowelf-interestofthe ndividual. his s thetheme hat heSecondTrea-tiseargely inessed.till,t snot mmediatelylearwhatduties his rinciple rescribes,r exactly oworwhyweare to be concerned or thers. he statementuotedap-

pears nLocke'sdiscussion fcruelty nd how t can bepreventednchildren. s the ntithesisf concern or hepreservationfmankind, rueltyouldbe considered hearchetypicalrime rvicefor ocke, s formanymodernthinkers.uthow does Lockeunderstandhis ice nd tscountervailingirtue? o beginwith, ockerefuses o be-lieve hat here s anynatural mpulse o cruelty,ypothe-sizing nstead hat tmust omefrom ustom, nd fromhistory, hich ypicallyonfers lory n theperpetratorsofcruelty.19 o prevent ruelty rom evelopingntheirchildren, here re two things ocke tellsparents o do.They houldnot allow heir hildren o tormentnimals,a practicehat aves heway ocruel reatmentfhumanbeings ?116). Andtheymust each hem ivil nd com-passionate ehavior oward heir ocial nferiors?117).Thesecondofthese, ndperhaps hefirst s well, ssen-tiallyonstituteessonsntheprinciplefequality. qual-ity s theprinciple romwhichnatural aw or theduty opreservemankindwasderived ntheSecond reatise?6);Locke's rocedure ere uggests hat hat rinciple,f in-cerelymbraced ythechild, f tself osters umanitar-ianfellow-feeling.Childrenhouldnotbe sufferedo osethe consideration fhuman nature n theshufflingsfoutward onditions"?117). Social rank s an obstacle othedevelopmentfhumane entiment;t s all toolikelytogiverisetoa haughty ride hatnurturesrueltyndoppression id.). Locke wishesto forestall ride-basedcrueltynchildren ndfostern its tead humanitarianconcern or thers ooted nequality.Locke's ducation o ustice eflects similar rienta-tiontoward thers. t s especially seful o compare hispartof his curriculumwith heteaching fthe SecondTreatise. s with heothervirtues, ockebeginshis n-structionn ustice yplayingn the hild's esire or heesteem nd approvalof hisparents-by appealingto apositive ind fpride. The firstendencyoany njusticethat ppears,"writes ocke, mustbe suppressedwithshow fwonder ndabhorrencentheparentsndgover-nors" ?110; cf. 84). Gradually, arentsmayteach hil-dren ertain rules nd casesof ustice,"hebeginningsfa rational iew of thesubject.Childrenwho remain n-tractable, ocke says, hould have some possessionoftheirs aken way, omakethemunderstand he ting finjustice,nd to make hem ensiblewhat ittledvantagethey re ike omakebypossessinghemselvesnjustlyfwhat s another's, hilst here re n the world trongerand morementhan hey" ?110). Here sa rational rgu-mentforustice-and a remarkablyobbesianone. It s19?1 6 but f. 102).Hobbes lso denied hat rueltys natural omen Leviathan,hapter , 126), nd Montaigne egardedtas acardinal ice "De la cruaute',"ssais, 1. ).


7/27/2019 2669348

10/15

404 STEVEN FORDE

based on thechild's ulnerabilityndappeals only o hisself-interest.utLocke scareful o inform s that his snot how he wishes hildren-or adults-to think boutjustice. ather,heyhould e imbuedwith an ngenuousdetestationfthis hameful ice,"which sexplicitlyre-sented s a different,nd a better,ence gainst njusticethan any considerations rawnfromnterest"?110).The "Hobbesian"ogic s marshalled nly s a lastresort.Its rguments a true ne, ndmost ffectiveor hildrenwhose elfishnessasproven ntractable,ut for ocke trepresents either hecomplete rgument or the truemotive orustice.Locke'spreferredducation o usticegrounds t n-stead n iberality.he firsthinghildrenhould earn e-gardingmaterial ossessions, ockecontends,s howtopartwith hem, easily ndfreely"?110). Parents osterthisbycompensating hildren or ny osses,ensuringthat their children lways profit y being liberal.Ofcourse, profitableiberality ardly eserves hename,but Locke'spurpose s to develophabitsthatwill atermake hildrenrulyiberal, erivingndependent leasurefrom enerosityoothers. ven ntheearly tages fthiseducation, ocke ays hat hechild's ain fromiberalitywillbetwofold:reaterlentyguaranteed y heparents)and "a return f kindness" rom hosethey enefit ndanywho observe heiriberality?110). Bythe ime hil-dren earn hat iberalitys often materialacrifice,heywillfind t rewarding n its own terms, wingto thegoodwill f heir eneficiariesnd the steem f ocietytlarge. he result s tobe an"ingenuous etestation"f n-justice nd a positivenclination o iberality.Locke'sproceduremaybe surprisingo readersofthe Second Treatise. he apostle of natural,exclusiveproperty ights eaches hildreniberalityefore rop-erty,ndas aneducationalmattert east, ays he foun-dations" f ustice nthisother-regardingirtue? 110).The virulencewithwhich Lockecondemns lliberalitymight ventakeus by surprise: Covetousness,nd thedesire fhavingnourpossession nd under ur domin-ionmore hanwe haveneedof, eing herootofallevil,should be early nd carefully eededout" (? 110). Thisquasi-Biblical hetoricshardlywhatwewouldhave ex-pected rom heLockeof theSecondTreatise. here hatworkportrayedthedesireofhaving nourpossessionand under urdominionmore hanwe haveneed of"asproductivefthegreatestocialgood, t s hereproduc-tive fthegreatestocialevil,due to its ssociationwith"covetousness."Thetwo assessmentsfpropertyrenot contradic-tory,ordo theytem rom ifferingiews fthe ubject.Whatthey eflects thedivergent urposesofthetwoworks. he SecondTreatise utlines politicalmorality

basedon individual ights, ithminimal atural-law u-ties o others.t showshow elf-interestedction ased onthoserights s the mosteffectiveuarantor fthe ocialgood,without ully ccounting or ndividualmotivationand action. ome Thoughts oncerningducation,n theotherhand, s primarily oncernedwiththese.Locke'sgoal here s theformationf an individualwho s to findpersonalhappiness s a usefulmember f society. hisleads Lockebeyond hemoralminimalism f the SecondTreatise,ven s individual leasure emains hemotiva-tion. n order o counteract henatural endency ftheloveofpropertyobecomepredatoryr covetous,"ockeweaves iberalitynto thevery oundation fthechild'sconcernwithproperty. his procedure uggests hat tleastpsychologically,ustice nd beneficence re closelybound, hat espect or herightsf others ecessarilyn-volves certain lement f iberality,ather han impleselfish alculation.Hobbesian calculationmaybe a re-straint n the njustice fespecially efractoryhildren,but t s not ustice sLockewishes ocultivatet.The samemustbe said ofthemoral deal ofSomeThoughts oncerningducation s a whole.Thework ssuffusedwiththebelief hatbeneficence s vital to theindividual's appiness n society. he goodwill tearnsfrom thers,nd ustas importantly,he atisfactionnecan learn o take nbeneficencetself,re asting ewardsthat heproperly aisedchild earns specially orelish.Theserewards renot obedismissedightly.hey onsti-tute hereal ink etween irtue nd ndividual appinessin thework, he bridge hat iberal heory ypically asmostdifficultyonstructing.ike ll iberals, ockemustfind wayto makefundamentallyeparate nd indivi-dualistic umanbeings ociable nough o sustain ocialorder.n SomeThoughts oncerningducation,efindssolution n civilitynd "goodbreeding,"raits hatbe-come heultimateoalofhiseducation. hese pecificallysocialvirtues nhance hewarmthndpleasure fthe ifeof virtue nsociety ??94, 134). Civilityndgoodbreed-ing,more han he ther irtues,urn ockean ndividualsinto ocialcreatures,hough f a distinctiveort.Civilitys an extension fthehumanity r fellowfeelinghat ockewants hildrenodevelop rom senseof theequality fmen. Bothqualities re cultivated ypreventing aughtybehavior towardsocial inferiors(? 117).Lockefirstnvoked he enseofhumanityopre-ventcrueltyn children;now,under hishusbandry,tblossoms into a "respect nd good will to all people"(?67). Lockeemphasizes hatgoodwill s not tobemereoutwardshow,but a sincere warmth toward others(??67, 143). Affectation,eigninghiswarmth here t slacking,sparticularlyondemned yLocke ?66; Tarcov1984,109). t s essential hat hildren evelop real,not


7/27/2019 2669348

11/15


a counterfeit,oncern or thers, or nly sincere ivil-itywillfulfillhefunctions ockedesigns or t.We cannot utbepleasedwith humane, riendly,civil emper herever e meetwith t.Amindfreeand master f tselfndall ts ctions, ot owandnarrow, ot haughty nd insolent, otblemishedwith any greatdefect, s what everyones takenwith.. This seemstometo be thatbeautywhichshines hroughomemen's ctions...when y con-stant ractice,hey ave ashionedheirarriage,ndmade ll hose ittle xpressionsf ivilityndrespectwhich ature r custom as establishednconversa-tion, o easy o themselveshat hey eemnot rtifi-cialor studied, utnaturallyo follow rom sweet-ness fmind nda well-turnedisposition.?66)

This solicitude or therssnot entirelyatural-it mustbepracticed-but t can and shouldbecomeentirelyin-cere Tarcov 1984, 138). This sinceritys "sweetness fmind" ?66), "goodnature ndkindness"?67), or simply"goodnature"?110), and t s the ulminationfLockeansocialvirtue. omplete ivility-the internal ivilityfthemind,"ogether ith he xternal orms oconveyt-is whatLockecallsgoodbreeding,he firstnd most ak-ingofthe ocial virtues"?143; cf. 67). Well-bredndi-vidualsgainpleasure rom leasing thers, askingntheesteemofsociety nd ofthemselves. or thispurpose,Lockeconfides, ood breeding s more mportanthanany ther irtue rvirtues.Thehappinesshat ll men osteadily ursue onsistingnpleasure,t seasy o seewhythe ivil remore cceptablehan heuseful....Power ndriches, ayvirtue tself,re valuedonly s conducing oourhappiness"?143). Since he ssence fvirtueccord-ingto Locke s restraintnd self-denial??33, 38, 45; cf.Essay1.3.13), ivilitynd good breeding rovide here-wardfor his acrificen ourrelations ith thers.Goodbreeding omestotakepleasure nthevery iscipline fsocialvirtue,n iberalitynd socialbeneficence.taccom-plisheswhatLocke's ocial philosophymust, ombiningindividual edonismwith he concern or hewellbeingofmankind hat s thedefining rinciple fhismorality.These wo ualitiesmake he ife fvirtue otonly mostrespectable,uta most leasantife.This pleasure, obviously, s whollyof thisworld,which ccordswell withLocke'sdesire oavoid relianceon theologywherepossible.Butreligion s not absentfrom ocke's ducation; e says ndeed hat bedience oGod is thetruestandard fmorality?61), and that"truenotionofGod" is the foundation f virtue nthechild ??136, 139; cf.Essay I.3.18). till, hechild's reedis limited o a few imple deas.He is to know God as

"SupremeBeing,Author nd Maker ofall things, romWhom we receive ll our good,Who loves us, and givesus all things" ?136). In due course,God is revealed sone who sees and hears all, governs ll, and "does allmanner f good to those hat ove and obey Him" id.).Whilehardly full heology, hiscreed s evidently d-equate to the support f virtue, nd not onlychildren'svirtue id.). Wenote that t presentsGod as a lawgiveronly mplicitlyGod as governor,s onewho shouldbeobeyed);his roleas enforcers even more atent omni-scient iver fgoodto thosewhoobey).Locke aysnoth-ingofthe fterlifer of punishments or hosewho dis-obey.Divineretributionsrenot nvoked ven nthe aseofthe mostrefractoryhildren the Hobbesianbogey senlistednstead). heGod discovered yLocke's upils sbothmorebenign, nd moreremote, hantheGod ofmany f their ompatriots. s for he Bible,Locke ndi-cates hat thasmuch hat s wrongheadedlongwith hegood (??158-159). He recommendsome reading romthe Bible foryoung children, ut only selectively,ndcenteredn moral ales ??158-159). In olderpupils, heBible staken p again-in fact, t stheonly eading f-ferednmorals-but Lockenotes hat t this oint nthepupil's education, reading s less important han thetraining n morals that he has already experienced(?185).20 In accordance withwhatwe havenoticed nothercontexts, ocke's use ofthe Bible displaysmoreconcern hat hildren otreceive alsenotionsfrom t,than hat hebook shouldbeneglected. hepurelyocialcompensationsfcivilityndgood breeding arrymuchmoreweightnLocke's ducation o virtue.

TheReasonablenessfChristianityandTheologicaleformIn SomeThoughts oncerningducation,s in theSecondTreatisefGovernment,ockewishes o construct mo-rality ithminimal eliance n theology. e doesthis npartbecauseoftheunfinishedtate fhisowntheology,inpart o avoidunnecessaryonfrontationsithChris-tianity. ut even n hispracticalworks, e cannot voidtheology ltogether.he TwoTreatisesfGovernmentndSomeThoughts oncerningducationnevitablyncoverflawsnChristianity,t least s interpretednhisday-unjust n itsbelief ntheFall,wrongheadednits nsis-tenceon charity,alse n itsdenigrationfhappiness n20Though heBible s theonly eading n "morals," icero s as-signed s readingn"ethics,"nd PufendorfndperhapsGrotiusin politics, atural ight,nd aw ??185-186).


7/27/2019 2669348

12/15

406 STEVEN FORDEthis ife. ocke'sprocedurenthese nstancessto substi-tuteproperprinciples urreptitiously,uoting heBiblewherepossible, remaining ilentwherenot, above allnever dmitting disagreement ithChristianity. utChristian rthodoxytill ooms as an unconquered or-tress-a practical bstaclenow,more than theoreticalone.An assault nthefortress,nthenameofnaturalhe-ology,wouldclearly e counterproductive.hat trategywould then e effective?ound principles f natural he-ologymay ventuallyeplaceChristianrror, ut Locke'smoral ndpolitical eachings illhave o make heirway,initiallyt east,na worlddominated yorthodoxy.TheReasonablenessfChristianityepresentsocke'sresponse o this mmediate roblem.n somerespects,trepresentshefurthesteach fhis trategy ith heprac-ticalworks. t showshow farLockebelievedorthodoxycouldbe pushed nthedirection fhisteachings,nhisimmediate istoricalontext,nd howfartwouldhave obe accommodated. hisappears o be thereasonfor hemostpuzzling spectof the TheReasonablenessfChris-tianity,tsapparent cceptance f theveracityfscrip-turalrevelation,nd the remarkable ccommodationstmakesto portions f the Biblical eaching t odds withliberalmorality. hese havebeen interpreteds philo-sophical capitulationAshcraft 969, 218; Dunn 1969,187),butweshould ee them nstead sparts f a tempo-rizing trategy.heEssayConcerninguman Understand-ingwascomposed oughlyimultaneouslyithTheRea-sonableness fChristianityDunn 1969, 198; cf Yolton1970,179), ndthatwork eavesno doubt boutthediffi-cultyfnot mpossibilityfconfirmingevelationndthedanger frelyingn it mplicitlyIV.16,18,19).TheEssaystrictlyubjects evelationo the crutinyfreason, nderthedictum,Reasonmustbe our ast udgeandguide nevery hing"IV.19.14; f. V.16,18, 19; Conduct, . 342).TheReasonableness f Christianitys Delivered n theScriptures,ycontrast,ignals y tsvery itle strategyfaccepting cripturetfacevalue, nterpretingt withoutinvestigatingtsprovenance.Given their ontempora-neity, he differences etweenthe two worksmust betraceableo differencesf trategylone.Indeed, heEssay tselfuggestshe need for worklikeReasonableness.lthought s theduty f each ofusto followreasoneven n matters freligion, heEssaytells s,theunfortunateact s that a great artof man-kindare,bythe natural nd unalterable tateofthingsin thisworld," oomed to an "invinciblegnorance" fthe basis of theirown opinions (IV.20.2-3; cf.1.4.22;11.21.47-53,7). TheReasonablenessfChristianityon-curs: thegreatest art of mankind] annotknow, ndthereforeheymustbelieve" 146). Paradoxically,ne ofthe things Locke finds most "reasonable" aboutChristianitys its ubstitutionf authoritativeevelation

for eason 142-144, 147, 157). Up to the timeof Jesus,philosophy ad failed o establish truemorality,ponthe foundation f a propernatural heology pp. 139-140,144). Even if it had, Locke notes, the true phil-osophywouldhave had to competewiththe false ndcould neverhavebeenas effective prop to moralitysan authoritativeogma 141-143). Moreover, he timeswere corrupt, urdenedwithpernicious manners ndprinciples"144). All thismade t reasonable orJesus oteachbyfiat atherhan ogic 143).The times nwhich ockewrites re corrupt noughin their wn way, nd revelation emains much morepowerfulool thanphilosophy,f tsworst buses can becorrected.21ThoughLocke ndicates learly noughtheunverifiabilityfJesus' laim o revelation,22e makesnoissue of t.Torepeat, is undertakingn TheReasonable-nessof Christianitys to interpretheBible as itstands,and the Bible's eachings emphatically ot natural he-ology 5). WhattheBibleteaches nstead s the Fall (4),salvation yfaith17-20, 50-51), and a highly tringentmoralcode (1 15). Lockebeginsby accepting hesepre-mises, radually urninghem o account, o far s theymaybe turned o account.Thus TheReasonablenessfChristianityndorses heprinciple f salvation y faith,ndeedelevates t ntothesoletenet fChristianity.he result s to make tan en-gineoftoleration. nywhobelieve hatJesuss theMes-siahareChristians nd areeligible or alvation n thebasisofdivineforgiveness17-20, 50-51). Themyriadother oints fChristianheology, hichhave etChris-tians t eachothers' hroats or o long, rerelegatedosecondaryfnot nsignificanttatus.fthis nterpretationof theBiblewere oprevail, irtuallyll bases for ectari-anismwouldbe removed,nd tolerationwould be uni-versal mongChristians. ut Lockegoesfurther.aith,he says, s not theonly venueto salvationnthe Bible.Non-Christians aymerit ternalife f hey bey everytittle"f the aw andso do not stand n need offorgive-ness (12; cf.10). This appearsto be verydifficult,ndLocke s ambivalent n itspossibilityorhumanbeings(11, 110, 112, 114).But f hispath o salvations closed,21Cf. unn 1984, 6. Forgood accounts f howLocke oftens rmodifies hristian octrinen Reasonableness,ee Zuckert 986;Pangle 988, 51-158;Rabieh 991. ee also Kraynak 980, 0,62,66.22Locke aysJesus' ommission as proven yhismiracles, hichwere o certain hatno one has everdareddeny hem, otevenJulian138). Yet he xistencef non-Christians,theists,nd yes,JulianheApostate,how he everseopatentlyhat ocke's tate-ment an only e understoodronicallyStrauss 959, 10;Rabieh1991, 49-150).He notes hat heJewsmight venhave dmittedthemiracles, ithout onceding esus' ommission80). Locke'sDiscoursefMiraclesubjectsmiracles ubtly utunmistakablyorationaludgmentLocke1997a, 61-262, 64).


7/27/2019 2669348

13/15


or extremely ifficult,he age-old question rises,Howcanthose ustly e condemnedwho never eard fJesus?To this, he obvious nd natural" nswer, aysLocke, sthat ll thosewillbe forgiven y God "who rely n him,forwhatever,ither y the ight f nature, r particularpromises, e has revealed o them f his tendermercies,and taught hem oexpectfrom is bounty" 130). The"lightof nature"might evealto many merciful ndforgiving od; belief n thisdeityputs themon a levelwithChristians.Faith in Jesus, he defining enetofChristianity,anbe replaced y purely ational elief nthe enderndforgivingature fGod (cf.133).Thus Locke endorses he Biblicalprinciple f salva-tionby faith, ses tto sow tolerationmongChristians,then pens t tonon-Christians,n thebasis of whatwecan onlycall natural heology. till, he need for alva-tionbyfaith s notquestioned, or s the principle hatcreates hatneed,theFall.23These are intrinsic o theBible.Locke's ccommodation o scriptures evenmorestrikingn his treatment f morality r natural aw.Drawing exclusivelyn Jesus' tatementsn the Bible,Locke concludes hat his aw forbids notonlymurder,butcauseless nger,ndso much s words fcontempt";"irregular esires," ostentation fcharity,"covetous-ness" and "wordly are," s well as "lasciviousness" nd"evilthoughts"-all, upon painof hell-fire"115-116).Locke goes out of hiswayto identifyheseprincipleswith the eternal awofright,"rnatural aw,repeatingassertions o this effect o thepointofmonotony 10,11-13,112, 115,122, 142-143,144, 157).It s notpossible osquarethis eachingwith he ib-eralmoralityockehimselfhampions lsewhere ndertherubric fnaturalaw. t sufficeso think f the den-tificationfhappinesswithpleasure ntheEssay, r the"industrious and rational" virtuesof acquisition onwhichGod smiles n the Two Treatises. he Reasonable-ness fChristianityccepts he Biblical eaching nstead,even though tsmoral stringency ontributes o theneed forcontinualforgiveness,alvationby faith, ndother heological eculiarities.What sense can be madeofthis?Aside from isself-imposedule n thiswork otake cripturet tsword, ocke's trategyeems o be toidentify esus' eachingwith ationalmoralityr naturallaw-by hookorbycrook-then gently o suggest n-otherunderstandingfsuch a morality142-143). In acrucial et ofpassages, ockefirst indicates esus'mis-sionby pointing othe failure fpre-Christianhiloso-phyto establish rue natural aw.But in the courseofthatdiscussion, e reveals hat t east ometrueknow-ledgeofrightwas abroad in antiquity.n politics, rue

rulesof rightwerediscovered y statesmen ho simplysought ocial convenience nd generalprosperity. or"The law of nature s the aw of convenience oo" (142;cf. 139, 144, Essay1.3.6). Similarly, art of natural awwasknown o the heathenphilosophers,"hough heyfailed oteach teffectivelyp. 138-139,142).Theoppo-sitionofpriests, he competitionwithfalsephilosophy,and the failure f the philosophers hemselves o findthe truefoundation fnatural aw, ll doomed them oimpotence 135, 139, 140-144). Their failure ustifiedJesus' ecourse o revelation.Locke'sownsituation s not unlike hatof thean-cientphilosophers,ndhis reliance n revelationn TheReasonablenessfChristianitys one result. ut that eli-ance severelyimitswhat he can say n the work boutnatural aw. Lockedoes not say thatthe aw of conve-nience is all of the law of nature cf. 140, 142; Essay1.3.10), utweknow hathis reform fmoralphilosophyis designed obring tmuch closer o the sumofthoserules han heBiblewill trictlyllow.TheReasonablenessofChristianityotes hat ne oftheproblemswith irtuebeforeJesuswas its unendowed" haracter150). It wasunendowed because itrequiredunnecessary acrificesand lackedotherworldlynforcement.hristianityem-edies the second defect, ut only aggravates he first."Virtue nd prosperityo not often ccompany ne an-other," aysLocke at one point, aking he Biblicalper-spective148). Butthis s nothis ownperspective.iberalvirtue,hevirtue fthe industriousndrational,"oin-cideswithprosperityhegreatmajorityfthe ime.Thisvirtue nd its reward re scarcely isible n The Reason-ableness fChristianity,lthough ocke s careful ogivethem omerecognition.heBiblemaybe nudged n thedirection f iberal, cquisitive irtue, nd in thedirec-tionofLocke's natural heology,utitcannotwithoutfalsificationebroughtnto he iberal old.This swhyTheReasonablenessfChristianityhouldbe seen as a provisional ork, ne that ockehoped per-hapswould outlive ts usefulness. case couldbe madethat ocke's ltimateoalas a reformers thereplacementofChristianityith natural heologyfthe ype e out-lines notherworks. erhaps ehopedfor omethingikethesituation hatprevailed ne hundredyears fter iswriting, henDeismseemed ntheverge fsupplantingChristianity-in o smallpartdue to Locke's nfluence.Thiswas the raofJefferson'soldprediction,I trust hattheresnota youngmannow ivingntheUnited tateswho willnotdiean Unitarian."24ut not ong thereafter,

"See pages ,105.This s not o say hat ocke's nterpretationftheFall s orthodox.24This tatement as penned n 1822 Jefferson984,1459; cf.1464).On the nfluencefLocke's heology,ncludingts nfluencein colonialAmerica,ee Pangle 988, 51-158; angle nd Pangle1993,28,76-78.


7/27/2019 2669348

14/15

408 STEVEN FORDEnatural heology as on thewane, ndChristianityesur-gent. iberalismntheWesthas had to confront oreorless permanentlyBiblicalunderstanding ithwhich tcan never e entirelyn accord.This s the situation orwhichTheReasonablenessfChristianityasdesigned.

Conclusion:ocke's omplexequestThe Reasonablenessf Christianityevealsmost starklythecomplexnature fLocke'sbequestto hisposterity,the sometimes xtreme ccommodations e waswillingtomake to differentudiences and occasions.The Se-cond Treatise f Governmentnd SomeThoughts on-cerningducation howdifferentortsofaccommoda-tion, ut accommodationshey emain. hilosophically,Locke developed a liberal politics and morality hatdraws n themoral resources f (natural) heology,utin thesepracticalworkshe presentshis liberalism nformsmostly horn f ts heological upports.My argu-menthas been thatLocke did this ntentionally,wingto theproblems osedbythe heological lements fhisfull heory. hose problems re boththeoretical-thelack of a completeor fully atisfactory atural theol-ogy-and practical-the resistancehis political andmoralphilosophywould meet iftied too closelyto anovel heology.The result f this trategys thatLocke'sbequest sdivided ntotwomain strands. n itsfully rticulatedform, is liberalism nlistsdivinesupport n ordertobring ational nd hedonisticndividuals o the ervice fthe preservationf Mankind." ockecould notdispensewith his lement fhisthought ecause theneedfor n-centivesovirtue s built nto hevery oundationsfhisphilosophy.Without hese,no other-regardingctionscan be expected f Lockean ndividuals,nd indeednosuchobligations anbe laid on them. ockeagreeswiththosewho haveargued, romHobbes'sdayto this, hateven iberalmorality eedsmorethannarrow r mun-daneself-interesto be viable.Butthismessagehas beenmuddledbyhisstrategyffashioning practical each-ing argelyndependentf that heology.Locke'spracticalworks how both howdesiroushewasofdisentanglingisbequestfrom heological on-troversynd how far ockean iberalism angetwithouttheology. he SecondTreatiseppeals tovery ittle e-yond mmediate elf-interest,et onstructs vision ofgovernmentnd individualrights hat humanbeingshave foundcompelling. t is able to do this npartbe-cause ts focus n thegeneral ocialgood allows t tofi-nesse some of the conflicts etween hat nd the ndi-

vidualgood. This eaves topen to theobjections fthosewhofind iberalismmorally nadequate. ome ThoughtsConcerningducation y contrast howshow Locke be-lieves n individualmight e motivated o perform isduty otend othegeneral ood,who ndeedwillbegladto practice iberality nd otherforms f social benefi-cence. Esteem and reputation re this ndividual'sre-ward,butLocke emphasizes he virtues fcivilitynd"goodbreeding"s thepivotal ratificationsf socialvir-tue.These,whenproperly ultivated,ind leasurenthevery ct ofserving thers.To theextent hatLocke discusses heologyntheseworks,t smoreto counteract alse ndbalefulnotionsheldbyhiscontemporarieshan oadvance full-blowntheology f his own.Those fewnotions side,he largelyleaves hefield oChristianity,t eastfor he mmediatefuture.This renders ll the more salient the need tomakeChristianitytselfmorereasonable, t east s rea-sonable as it canbecome, given tsdependenceon thetext f theBible.This imited, rovisional,ut nonethe-less mportantask s undertakenn The ReasonablenessofChristianity.ThecomplexityfLocke's trategy,hich s devisedtomaximize he ocial and cultural nfluence fhisphi-losophy,esultednan oeuvre hose ndividualworks onot always eemto agree. One ofthemost significantconsequences fthis s a practical eaching evered o asignificant egreefrom hetheologicalunderpinningsthat thad inLocke's wn mind. t isno doubt true hatthe mmense nfluence fLockean iberalism s due inpart to this separation,but it also layshim open tocharges f an impoverished, orallynadequate hiloso-phy. hisno doubt s not theoutcomeLockewould havedesired, ut havesuggestedhat t s almost nvited ythewayhepresents isteaching. he result s that ockecouldparadoxicallye saidtobe responsible or ome ofthemoral hortcomingsithwhich iberalismschargedtoday,while tthe same timeofferinguidance n howthoseveryhortcomings ight emadegood.Manuscriptubmitted arch ,2000.Finalmanuscripteceivedeptember,2000.

ReferencesAshcraft, ichard. 969. Faith nd knowledgenLocke'sphi-losophy."n John ocke: roblems ndPerspectives,d. JohnYolton. ambridge: ambridge niversityress.Cicero. 1933. De Natura Deorum, trans.H. Rackham. NewYork:G. P. Putnam's ons. Loeb ClassicalLibrary.


7/27/2019 2669348

15/15

NATURAL LAW, THEOLOGY, AND MORALITY IN LOCKE 409Dunn, John. 968.Justicend the nterpretationf Locke'sPo-litical heory. olitical tudies 6:68-87.Dunn, John. 969. ThePolitical hought fJohn ocke:An His-torical ccount ftheArgumentftheTwoTreatises fGov-ernment.ambridge: ambridge niversityress.Dunn, John. 984.Locke.New York:OxfordUniversityress.Fagiani, rancesco. 983. NaturalLaw andHistorynLocke's

Theory f Distributive ustice'" opoi :163-185.Reprintedin Locke,Volume. GreatPolitical hinkers eries, d. JohnDunn and IanHarris. yme, onn.: EdwardElgar, 997.Franklin, enjamin.1987. Writings. ew York:The Library fAmerica.Glenn, GaryD. 1984."Inalienable Rights nd Locke'sArgu-mentforLimitedGovernment: olitical mplications faRight oSuicide." ournal fPolitics 6: 80-105.Grant, uthW. 1987.John ocke's iberalism.hicago:Univer-sity fChicagoPress.Grotius, ugo. 1925[1625].TheLawofWar nd Peace:De JureBelli ac Pacis LibriTres. rans.FrancisW.Kelsey.Washing-ton: Carnegie Endowmentfor nternationalPeace. Re-printed, o date, yBobbs-Merrill, ewYork.Hobbes, Thomas. [1651] 1975. Leviathan. Ed. C.B.Macpherson. altimore: enguin ooks.Horwitz,Robert.1990. "Introduction."n John ocke, Ques-tionsConcerningheLawofNature, rans.RobertHorwitz,JennytraussClay, nd DiskinClay. thaca,N.Y.: CornellUniversityress.Jefferson,homas. 1984.Writings.d.Merrill . Peterson. ewYork: ibraryfAmerica.Kraynak, obert . 1980. John ocke:FromAbsolutism o Tol-eration." merican olitical cience eview 4:53-69.Lenz,JohnW. 1956. Locke's ssays n theLawofNature." hi-losophy nd Phenomenological esearch 6:105-113. Re-printedn Locke,Volume GreatPoliticalThinkerseries,ed.John unn and IanHarris. yme, onn.:EdwardElgar,1997.Locke,John.1663?]1990.Questions oncerninghe awofNa-ture. rans.RobertHorwitz, ennytraussClay, nd DiskinClay. thaca,N.Y.: CornellUniversityress.Locke,John.1689] 1995.AnEssayConcerningumanUnder-standing. mherst, .Y.:Prometheus ooks.Locke, John. 1689a] 1983.A LetterConcerning oleration.Trans.WilliamPopple,ed. JamesH. Tully. ndianiapolis:Hackett.Locke,John.1690] 1989.TwoTreatisesfGovernment.d. Pe-terLaslett. ambridge: ambridge niversityress.Locke,John. 1693] 1947.SomeThoughts oncerningduca-tion. n John ocke n Politics ndEducation.Roslyn,N.Y.:Walter . lack.Locke,John.1695] 1997.TheReasonablenessfChristianity,sDelivered n theScriptures.n The Works fJohn ocke, nNineVolumes. eprintf 1794 edition. ondon:Routledge/Thoemmes, ol. 6.Locke,John. 976-.TheCorrespondencefJohn ocke. d. E.S.de Beer.Oxford: xfordUniversityress.

Locke,John. 997. Of theConduct f heUnderstanding.n TheWorksfJohn ocke. eprintf 1794edition, ol I. London:Routledge hoemmes.Locke, John. 997a. A Discourse fMiracles. n The Works fJohn ocke, n Nine Volumes. eprint f 1794 edition.Lon-don: Routledge hoemmes, ol. 8.Michel de Montaigne, ssais.From OeuvresCompletes, aris:Aux Editions u Seuil,1967.Myers, eter . 1998. Our Only tar nd Compass: ocke nd theStruggle orPoliticalRationality.NewYork:Rowman &Littlefield.Olivecrona, arl.1974. Appropriationnthe Stateof Nature:Locke on the Originof Property." ournal f theHistory fIdeas 35:211-230.Reprintedn Locke, olume Great oliti-cal Thinkers eries, d. JohnDunn and Ian Harris.Lyme,Conn.:EdwardElgar, 997.Pangle,Thomas L. 1988. The Spirit fModernRepublicanism:TheMoral Vision f heAmerican ounders nd thePhiloso-phy fLocke. hicago:Universityf ChicagoPress.Pangle, Lorraine Smith, and Thomas L Pangle. 1993. TheLearning fLiberty: he Educational deas of theAmericanFounders. awrence, ans.:Universityress f Kansas.Pufendorf,amuel. 1673] 1991. On theDutyofMan and Citi-zenAccordingo NaturalLaw.Cambridge: ambridgeUni-versityress.Rabieh,Michael S. 1991. The Reasonableness f Locke, r theQuestionablenessfChristianity."ournal f olitics 3:933-957.Strauss, eo. 1953.NaturalRightndHistory. hicago:Univer-sity fChicagoPress.Strauss,Leo. 1959. "Locke's Doctrine ofNatural Law." Re-printedn What s Political hilosophy?ndOther tudies.Westport,onn.: Greenwood ress.Tarcov, athan. 983. A'Non-Lockean' ocke nd theCharac-terof Liberalism."n Liberalism econsidered,d. DouglasMacLeanand Claudia Mills.Totowa,NewJersey:owman& Allanheld.Tarcov,Nathan. 1984. Locke's ducation orLiberty. hicago:UniversityfChicagoPress.vonLeyden,W. 1956. John ocke and NaturalLaw."Philoso-phy31:23-35.ReprintednLocke,Volume GreatPoliticalThinkersseries,ed. JohnDunn and Ian Harris. Lyme,Conn.:EdwardElgar, 997.Yolton,JohnW. 1958. "Locke on the Law of Nature."Philo-sophicalReview 7:477-498.Reprintedn Locke,VolumeGreat olitical hinkerseries, d.John unn andIanHar-

ris.Lyme, onn.: EdwardElgar, 997.Yolton, ohnW. 1970.Locke ndtheCompass fHumanUnder-standing: Selectiveommentaryn theEssay.' ambridge:Cambridge niversityress.Zuckert,MichaelP. 1986. Locke nd theProblem f CivilReli-gion."n TheMoralFoundationsf heAmerical epublic,d.Robert Horwitz. Charlottesville: UniversityPress ofVirginia.Zuckert,Michael P. 1994.NaturalRightsnd theNewRepubli-canism. rinceton: rinceton niversityress, 994.

Documents

2669348