Locke, Business Ethics Textbooks, and Virtue
Tyler McGowan
Syracuse University
Academic Business World Annual Conference
Nashville, TN
May 2007
1
Introduction
The recent Kelo decision caused an uproar. The ‘takings clause’ of the Fifth
Amendment seemed to be turned upside down and John Locke is spinning in his grave.
It is not that Locke thought people should have whatever property they can acquire.
Locke’s problem with Kelo is that the property ceded to the state was so small. However,
many people, for instance, people who write business ethics textbooks, think Locke’s
problem with Kelo is that the right to property has been violated since the right is nearly
unconditional.
I will show that modern business ethics textbooks often misrepresent Locke's
ideas on property. First, I show Locke's view of property, relying on his Second Treatise
of Government. Then, I show that Locke distinguishes property from monetary wealth.
Locke clearly limits the former. Third, I present passages from business ethics
textbooks. The textbooks often imply or state outright that Locke allowed for unbridled
acquisition of property. I suggest that many business ethics students may get the wrong
idea about greed, property, and Locke.
Locke’s view of property
The immediate connotation of the word ‘property’ is land. In fact, John Locke
begins his chapter “Of Property” with this obvious definition. Locke says that all the
earth and its contents belong to all men. Land can only be considered an individual’s
own once “he has mixed his labor with [it]” (Locke, paragraph 27). Under the same
clause Locke states, “Whatsoever then he[man] removes out of the state that nature has
provided” (Locke, 27) also constitutes property. This idea expands the definition of
property to material items of man's labor. Now, not only land can be property but also
the creations of man's labor. Locke defends this definition of property by saying labor is
inarguably a person’s own, and mixing labor with nature is mixing something of the self
with it. The result is tangible property. However, Locke’s notion of property is a bit
different than his view of money.
Locke states that “from the consent of men,” money may be used as a means of
exchange (Locke, 47, 50). Money is the third and final sort of property; but the initial
and primary understanding of property is of a tangible asset. From here forward, the
word “property” is to mean just as Locke intends—land and the creations made from it,
not money.
Limiting ‘Seemingly Endless’ Property
Locke would make sure limited resources were distributed
Locke lived in the seventeenth century. In his time and in his understanding, land
and resources were seemingly endless. In addition, he was very religious and used his
religious ideas in his essays. Although his work has clearly transcended time, he could
never have imagined an age where resources and land are limited. In his life, Locke
believed that there was land enough “to suffice double the inhabitants” (Locke, 36). His
writing reflects his attitude about the earth in claiming that the earth was given to man.
Statements such as, “God, who has given the earth to men in common…” (Locke, 26)
have created the American belief that Locke is all for unrestricted, private property.
However, Locke continues to say in the same sentence, “[God] has also given them
reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience” (Locke, 26). This
idea, in only the second paragraph of the chapter on property, is an early hint that Locke
3
intends to limit property. He does so quickly: in the third paragraph of the chapter, he
clearly limits property. Men are allowed property “at least where there is enough and as
good left in common for the others” (Locke, 27).
John Locke is extremely vague in explaining how property limitation is created.
At one point, in part 31 of the chapter “Of Property”, Locke states that men, “keeping in
the bounds of reason [,] … [would have] little room for quarrels …about property”
(Locke, 31). In this paragraph, Locke seems to say that men will share property willingly
and freely. Later in the chapter, Locke states, “it [is] a foolish thing, as well as dishonest,
to hoard up more than he could make use of” (Locke, 46). Again, Locke makes the point
that excessive property is unreasonable and immoral. For a person like Locke, who saw
people as inherently good, property disputes and distribution thereof would be cordially
arranged for the best. I am tempted to discuss CEO salaries but will only suggest that
today, people do not appear willingly to give up property for others.
On the other hand, Locke does make mention of government in the chapter.
Locke explains “that the increase of lands and the right employing of them is the great art
of government” (Locke, 42). On one hand, Locke believes people will use property
morally, i.e. people will take what they can use and not waste property. On the other
hand, he sees the “art” of government to employ land with “honest industry” (Locke, 42).
In a different section of the chapter, he almost blends these two claims saying, “by
consent… [people came to] agree on limits between them and their neighbors, and by
laws within themselves settled the properties of those of the same society” (Locke 24).
Locke believed government should be “agreed” upon. The usage of the word “agree”
4
shows Locke’s belief that men will willingly share property, and also that the agreement
involved in having a government with “laws” will be part of this honest usage of land.
Regardless of how Locke restricts property, he does restrict it. Locke understood
that his idea on property might be misunderstood. As any scholar should, Locke handled
this misinterpretation of his work before it became the norm (unfortunately, as we see
later in this paper, it has become the norm). The beginning of paragraph 31 addresses the
potential misunderstanding. “It will perhaps be objected to this that ‘if gathering the
acorns, or other fruits of the earth, etc., makes a right to them, then any one may engross
as much as he will.’ To which I answer: not so” (Locke, 31). Locke, as clear as day, says
people cannot engross endless amounts of property; there is a limit.
Business Ethics Textbooks on ‘Life, Liberty and Property’
Most state that Locke calls for unbridled property
Business ethics textbooks seem to overlook the passages from Locke where he
limits property. I examined five, mainstream, late-edition textbooks—all in the fifth and
sixth editions. In all five, Locke was either not mentioned at all or quickly breezed
through. In only one does the author note that Locke directly limits property.
The best, i.e., most accurate, depiction of John Locke by the mainstream
textbooks that I examined was done by William H. Shaw in Business Ethics (5th Ed.).
Shaw has a sizable section designated strictly to the theories of distributive justice. He
presents the competing positions. Shaw quotes a section of Locke that states if a property
owner has too much property whereas a portion of it rots, then his ownership is immoral.
Shaw writes, “[Property rights have a] restriction that ‘enough and as good’ be left for
others” (Shaw, 90). Shaw explains that Locke does, in fact, limit property rights.
5
However and unfortunately, in the next sentence, Shaw explains that with money, Locke
says, hoarding is viable. Locke never really states that hoarding money is allowed; only
that it can happen. “Of Property” is a discussion of land and the land’s creation—not of
money.
Manuel G. Velasquez, in his sixth edition of Business Ethics, does probably the
second best job in explaining limitation and Locke. He provides the excerpt from Locke
that this paper has probably beaten to death—“…‘as long as there is enough, and as good,
left in common for others’” (Velasquez, 130). In this snippet from Velasquez, he at least
highlights the limitation of property that Locke stated. Unfortunately, Velasquez never
references this part of Locke’s block quotation. Instead, Velasquez simply makes the
obvious point that Locke believes property is a right. Locke’s ideas fall under a heading
entitled “Free Markets.” No mention of limitation exists anywhere near the section on
Locke.
In a discussion of property in Contemporary Issues in Business Ethics, the authors
DesJardins and McCall make quick mention of John Locke as “[an] intellectual source of
our economy and political system” (DesJardin, 60). This section on property is simply a
defense of private property. It explains Locke’s definition of property; mixing labor with
nature creates property. Never once does the book, in its fifth edition, explain that Locke
limits property. To their credit, in the property section, the two authors state that property
owners may not act immorally with their property for acting in this fashion is unfair to
others (DesJardins, 61). This claim is only mentioned once and the defense of private
property returns to the forefront. Limitation is never mentioned in the same paragraph as
6
Locke. From this text, the traditional view of Locke’s defense of property is reinforced
and any kind of limitation is quickly dismissed or left unmentioned.
Ethics and the Conduct of Busines, fifth editon, by John R. Boatright has seven
page listings in the Index for Locke. Boatright uses Locke’s work to justify a right to
property and even discusses a possibility for restriction or limitation on property. (238)
However, his limiting property does a disserevice to Locke, for Boatright says
a further objection to an unlimited right to property can be constructed using
Locke’s own premises. Property rights are fundamental in Locke’s political
theory because of the role they play in satisfying our basic needs and securing
liberty. It can be argued, however, that instead of serving these Lockean ends, the
doctrine of employment at will has the opposite effect. (238-9)
Boatright’s phrasing suggests that Locke favored an “unlimited right to property” when,
in fact, Locke states unequivocally that a person may not “engross as much as he will.”
If Locke is, as many Americans are taught and the aforementioned author,
DesJardin, highlights, a “source of our economy and political system,” not mentioning
Locke’s limitations of property represents an incomplete description of property,
distributive justice, and thus business ethics.
“The legislation has expressed social demands; it embodies a view of business
that, when taken as a whole, is clearly different from the view found in John Locke or in
the U.S. Constitution” (De George, 617). This quotation is taken from the sixth edition
of Business Ethics by Richard T. De George. It pretty clearly states that Locke makes no
room for “social demands”, i.e., limiting property for the common good, in his
philosophy. These lines from De George’s text flat out disagree with the claims from the
Second Treatise of Government, such as, “at least where there is enough and as good left
7
in common for others” (Locke, 17). De George is way wide of the mark in analyzing
Locke’s ideas.
Conclusions
Virtue, Property and Locke
Business ethics books may lead students to vice
The fact that De George’s book is in its sixth edition is disheartening. The book
is in its sixth edition because professors have been using it and business students have
been reading it. De George’s book corrupts Locke’s ideas. Many other widely used
business ethics textbooks do, too. The problem that this paper dealt with was the fact that
textbooks do an insufficient job in noting that Locke limits property. None state outright
that Locke limits property.
Distributive justice and property rights are a big part of business ethics, especially
on this aging planet with its limited resources. It is good that all texts mention John
Locke, the “source” of many founding ideas on our economy. Once texts finally decide
to mention him, they absolutely must provide complete coverage of his ideas. It is not
fair to Locke or students to simply pass through Locke and pick and choose what to
report. It is true that Locke did see property as a God given right; it is also true that he
did set limits on property. Not to present thoughts of limitation leads to billionaire
CEO’s who own companies that pay children cents a day. Some workers don’t have
“enough” while CEO’s “hoard” and are “dishonest.”
Americans are raised on the slogan “Life, Liberty, and Property”, whereas the
“source”, John Locke, really said, “Life, Liberty, and Property (as long as everyone is
8
eating).” Business ethics should be a lesson on how to think ethically and morally in the
workplace. As business students and professors, we have the ‘intellectual property’
allowing the teaching of virtue and fairness. By not teaching the whole truth about Locke
and distributive justice, we are “hoarding.”
Business ethics professors would be wise to teach Locke completely. If
professors of business ethics hope to contribute to the likely virtuous behavior of their
students, the necessity of thinking about others should be incorporated in the classroom.
Unbridled and unrestrained acquisition ought to be criticized. The right to property is not
a liberty without license. Or: greed is not a virtue. Greed is a vice.
Locke knew that and business students should, too.
Works Cited
Boatright, John R. Ethics and the Conduct of Business, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River:
Pearson, 2005.
De George, Richard T. Business Ethics, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2006.
9
DesJardins, Joseph, John McCall. Contemporary Issues in Business Ethics, 5th ed.
Belmont: Thomson, 2005.
Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1952.
Shaw, William H. Business Ethics, 5th ed. Belmont: Thomson, 2005.
Velasquez, Manuel G. Business Ethics, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2006.
10