Locke:
metaphysics &
epistemology
ethics & politics
Mark Bedau
Hum 210
1
overview


Locke’s metaphysics and epistemology
key: primary vs. secondary qualities

rooted in new science



evidence for distinction
connection with skepticism
Locke’s ethics and politics

similarities and differences with Hobbes


especially property
key problems
2
broad ideological context

primary & secondary qualities

contingent empirical natural science vs.
necessary a priori philosophy


relation gives rise to primary/secondary
private, subjective, internal perspective vs.
public, objective, external perspective
appearance/reality ~ primary/secondary
 Aristotle downplays appearance/reality
new science relies on appearance/reality

3
idea of redness
idea of roundness
redness
roundness
causes
primary quality
Do ideas of Q
resemble Q?
yes
What causes idea
the primary quality
of Q?
secondary quality
no
a complex of
primary qualities
4
“veil of ideas”

immediate objects of awareness are ideas
not objects or their qualities
 anti-Aristotelian


purely mental ideas merely represent
external reality

symbolically stand for them
5
secondary qualities



secondary: color, sound, taste, odor, heat
primary: shape, size, motion, location
explain perceptual relativity naturally





corpuscles in hand are in motion
“warmth, as it is in the hand, is nothing but a certain
sort of motion in the minute particles of our nerves or
animal spirits”
contact between water corpuscles and hand
corpuscles causes them to go faster/slower
causes hand to feel hotter/colder
N.B. our ideas do not resemble their external
causes
6
metaphysical consequences

colors, odors, etc. are nothing in objects but
powers to cause certain ideas in us?


plausible for pain: caused by needle, persists after
needle is gone, so not in needle
consequence: nothing is really colored, etc.




not black, white, gray, …
color is no more in needle than pain is
nothing in needle remotely resembles its color
Q - why believe this?
7
perceptual relativity argument

ideas of secondary qualities vary with conditions of
perceiver (mind-dependent)




water feels hot/cold, porphyry, almond, manna, fire …
contrast constancy of ideas of primary qualities
so, ideas of secondary qualities are “only powers to
produce various sensations in us by their primary
qualities”
problem: perception of primary qualities also varies


circle looks elliptical, rectangle looks square, …
square tower looks round, straight oar looks bent, …
8
new science argument


new science posits corpuscular, atomistic
view of nature
so, only PQs can be properties of objects


shape, size, motion, location, solidity
so, ideas of SQ cannot resemble real Qs
9
new science argument
1.
2.
3.


the corpuscular theory of matter is true
if so, then perceived color, etc. are not real, intrinsic
qualities of objects
so, in bodies they are only powers to produce various
sensations in us by primary qualities.
issue with (2): corpuscular theory consistent
with real colors, etc.
(1) is real flaw: no compelling evidence for
Locke that science could explain everything

evidence compelling only 200 years later
10
upshot on evidence

problem: why believe it?
no good arguments for PQ/SQ distinction
 Locke and many others believed it


possible solution
take new science for granted, not question it
 PQ/SQ distinction follows
 compare two perspectives on skepticism

11
global skepticism

preoccupation: secure foundations for all
knowledge
inner sensory experience is certain
 build objective knowledge of external reality
on subjective certainty of inner reality


but global skepticism equally hits PQ, SQ

so why confident that PQs are veridical?
12
limited skepticism

preoccupation: metaphysics and epistemology
implied by new science





no demon-proof guarantee of new science
new science is less intuitive than Aristotelean
key: take science for granted, it entails PQ/SQ
distinction, so our senses are mistaken
entails skepticism about SQ, not about PQ
picture: L’s discussion of fire, etc. do not argue
for distinction but illustrate how science accounts
for puzzles of contextual relativity and illusions
13
conclusion (part 1)


post-Aristotelian world of Galileo, Descartes,
Hobbes, Locke is our world
contemporary philosophy: colors, etc.?


consciousness paradox
contemporary science




PQs = root explanation + observable properties
today: nothing plays both roles
everything is a secondary quality
science removes the world even further from our
grasp
14

and now for something completely
different …
15
ethics and politics

Locke
rights
 government
 property


first: compare Hobbes

both are social contract theorists
why differences?
 consequences?

16
Locke = Hobbes

H&L - right of self preservation in a state of
nature
H - problematic, since no “rights” in state of
nature
 L - religious foundation of right to self
preservation

17
Locke = Hobbes

H&L - “negative” liberty only: free from
restrictions or coercion from society


willingly give up in social contract
compare “positive” liberty requires society


Hegel: rational control rather than caprice
Marx: economic resources allowing choice
Locke ≠ Hobbes


H - children and beasts are free
L - freedom requires reason, recognition of true goods
18
Locke ≠ Hobbes




H - state of nature = war
L - state of nature = peace
H - no property in state of nature
L - property in state of nature

property is Locke’s primary concern
19
Locke ≠ Hobbes

H - no rights in state of nature


morality is artificial -- radical view
L - many rights in state of nature
perfect freedom if respect self-preservation of
others
 equal right to exercise natural freedoms (none
subordinate to another)
 rights to life, health, liberty, property, punish
transgressors
 no right to destroy self, to deprive others of rights


we are all God’s property
20
Locke ≠ Hobbes

H - no appeal to religion in ethics or
politics


a novelty then, more natural now
L - ethics is founded on religion

conventional then, less natural now
21
Locke = Hobbes

H&L- aim of political society is security
Locke ≠ Hobbes

L - government is just for protecting our rights,
especially property




government as “fiduciary” of the people
only purpose is to protect citizens’ interests
H - nothing like this
cp. Declaration of Independence
22
Locke ≠ Hobbes

H - no right of rebellion


sovereign may do as he pleases, bound by no law
L - right of rebellion
when government becomes a tyranny, “the people
have no other remedy … but to appeal to heaven”
§168
 in 17th C. England means taking up arms

23
social contract problem


is the contract hypothetical or historical?
hypothetical

how can it
bind us?

historical
where and
when?
 why bind
us?

24
social contract problem


is the contract hypothetical or historical?
hypothetical

how can it
bind us?

historical
where and
when?
 why bind
us?


tacit consent
if you benefit

real, daily
25
property

God gave us the earth and all in it for our
support and comfort



you own your body and your labor


ours “in common”
to be of use, how to apportion it?
its your property
removing something from state of labor and
mixing your labor with it makes it your property

nobody else need consent, not robbery
26
mixing your labor




acorns or apples you gather
deer you kill, fish you catch
grass your horse eats
turfs your servant cuts



not limited to your labor
permits tremendous wealth if you can hire others
forerunner of capitalistic theory of appropriation
27
land



“As much land as a man tills, plants, improves,
cultivates, and can use the product of, so much
is his property.” §32
God commanded us to labor, to improve the
land for our own benefit
“He that in obedience to this command of God,
subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it, thereby
annexed to it something that was his property,
which another has no title to, nor could without
injury take from him.” §32
28
puzzles about property
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
When you mix your labor with something, why
don’t you own just the portion you put in?
… why don’t you just loose it?
When you enclose something with a fence, why
don’t you just own the part under the posts?
… why don’t you acquire what’s “outside”?
If ability to use is enough to acquire title, what
about the 360º view from a mountain top?
If land is inherited legitimately only if previous
owner had legitimate title, does anyone have a
legitimate title?
29
limits

only as much as you can use and enjoy


given by God for us to enjoy; so cannot waste it
Locke holds equality of persons and rights, but
justifies vast inequalities in property

money can exist only by convention, and it does exist


so we have consented to it
consequence: money not spoil, allows vast inequality


so we have also consented to this consequence
Protestant ethic: different degrees of industry determines
your wealth
30
Lockean proviso

scarcity makes appropriation problematic


if scarce, you can take only as much as would
leave in common as much, and as good


no problem at flowing drinking fountain
then it’s just as if you didn’t take any
problem: is the proviso ever met?

not right to equal property but equal right to property


equal opportunity to mix our labor with it
but, given economic, social, and gender differences,
is there really equal opportunity to exercise this right?
31
conclusions (part 2)

Locke on rights


Can we make sense of natural rights without God?
Locke on property


social and political consequences of L’s property
forces us to confront deep questions

What is the proper way to view property?


legitimate possession
redistribution without consent
32