John Locke Hypocrisy

John Locke was regarded as the “Father of Liberalism” for his ideas on freedom, limited government, and property rights. In the Second Treatise of Government, Locke lays the framework for a civilized society with based on natural rights and social contracts. One of his major premises states, “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.” It seems like Locke is against slavery, but he contradicts himself when he later justifies some form of slavery, such as slavery applied to prisoners of war. I will argue that Locke’s hypocrisy concerning slavery contradicts his own philosophical position. He does this by changing the word to a …show more content…
He argues that people cannot voluntarily become slaves because they do not have the power to give up their own freedom. Slavery can exist in his society when it is an extension of the state of war. For example, someone who conquers another through lawful means is able to come to an agreement with the captor for limited power. This form of slavery is not absolute but nonetheless a violation of the principle of life, liberty, and pursuit of property. Locke calls this an agreement between the two, but in reality it is nothing but another from of enslavement. The choices made when backed up into a corner cannot be one of consent. It is not truly consent if the two choices are between enslavement and death. He also claims that the captor is able to escape his slavery through his death because “whenever he finds the hardship of his Slavery out-weigh the value of his Life, 'tis in his Power, by resisting the Will of his Master, to draw on himself the Death he desires.” This goes against the preservation of