JOHN LOCKE'S MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH WHITE, Purdue University

Abstract

This essay is an attempt to investigate various aspects of John Locke's endorsement of the principle of economic individualism. This principle means that individuals have the moral right to maximize their material well-being through the appropriation of the earth's natural resources. Furthermore, the civil state has the role of protecting and advancing the freedom of persons in their pursuit to increase their possessions. The strategy of this study is to show that Locke's theory of property, based on individualist principles, provides a moral foundation for his mercantilist economic policies and the type of social structure which those policies generate. Commentators have often linked Locke's social thought to the main themes of the Puritan movement and the Whig party. Thus, in the Introduction of this essay, basic doctrines of the Puritan and Whig traditions are presented to supply a basis for determining whether Locke's economic individualism does reflect Puritan and Whig principles. A second feature of the Introduction is a synopsis of C. B. Macpherson's controversial interpretation of Locke's social philosophy. Throughout this study, reference is made to basic points of Macpherson's reading of Locke's position since Macpherson has presented the most thorough analysis of Locke's individualism. Chapter One is basically an affirmation of the view that Locke believed men have a right to accumulate property without the consent of others. Yet, I argue against the widely received view that Locke tried to establish this point by describing the activities of men in the state of nature. Locke's examples of men who appropriate property and develop money-economies concern men who lived within civil societies. I claim that Locke's state of nature has been misunderstood by commentators and that key passages in Locke's Second Treatise concerning the origin of commercial growth have been misinterpreted. Chapter Two contains an analysis of Locke's theory of property. I find myself substantially in agreement with Macpherson's claim that Locke tried to establish limitations on the amount of property that men can procure and then went on to state that the invention of money makes it possible for men to overcome those limits. Locke attempts to justify the origin of unequal possessions among men by defending the activity of those who attain wealth and by arguing that the laborer benefits in an economic system involving inequality. Chapter Three moves the discussion from the realm of natural rights to the consideration of Locke's mercantilism. I try to show that Locke accepted the classical balance of trade theory and the doctrine that the laborer is the chief source of national wealth. The ultimate aim is to determine the type of social structure that Locke tried to justify within a mercantilist framework. I argue that Locke was in favor of securing the position of men of estate and that he appears to have been against increasing the economic mobility of the laborer. In Chapter Four, I examine Macpherson's claim that, for Locke, a differential in moral rationality develops as a result of class division. I claim that Macpherson is in error in asserting that the laboring poor were, on Locke's view, incapable of living a morally rational life. Yet, Locke does seem to have thought that the typical seventeenth century laborer would behave immorally more often than those of higher condition. Thus, Locke advocated laws to force the poor to remain industrious in their occupations in order to prevent them from leaving their employment and seeking public relief.

Degree

Ph.D.

Subject Area

Philosophy

COinS