John Locke vs Karl Marx:
The Significance of Work to Human Life According to Locke, the claim of ownership to something can be divided into either common or private property. In terms of common property, God has given the world to all men and “... All the fruits it naturally produces and animals that it feeds, as produced by the spontaneous hand of nature, belong to mankind in common...” (Locke, 11). In other words, under the law of nature (which suggests that all men are both free and equal) everyone has a right to the natural resources that the earth produces and no man’s right exceeds another. However, how can common available resources become private property thus excluding the right of other men? Locke begins his argument by identifying the property each man has in his own person in which no other man can claim (Locke, 8). One's body, actions, thoughts, and beliefs is the basis on which Locke explains how an individual obtains the right to possess objects outside of himself. Locke argues, “Though men as a whole own the earth and all inferior creatures, every individual man has a property in his own person; this is something that nobody else has any right to.” Moreover, “The labour of his body and the work …show more content…
Despite Locke suggesting that every individual “has a property in his own person” which is reflected through their labor, Marx points out that in the case of an industrial worker their efforts are not reflected in the object they create at all. In fact, the worker has no right to the object they made at all. Although humans are fundamentally creative (in the sense that humans are best fulfilled when making things), the very nature of work on the floor of a capitalistic company deprives workers of any creative aspect of labor according to
The Significance of Work to Human Life According to Locke, the claim of ownership to something can be divided into either common or private property. In terms of common property, God has given the world to all men and “... All the fruits it naturally produces and animals that it feeds, as produced by the spontaneous hand of nature, belong to mankind in common...” (Locke, 11). In other words, under the law of nature (which suggests that all men are both free and equal) everyone has a right to the natural resources that the earth produces and no man’s right exceeds another. However, how can common available resources become private property thus excluding the right of other men? Locke begins his argument by identifying the property each man has in his own person in which no other man can claim (Locke, 8). One's body, actions, thoughts, and beliefs is the basis on which Locke explains how an individual obtains the right to possess objects outside of himself. Locke argues, “Though men as a whole own the earth and all inferior creatures, every individual man has a property in his own person; this is something that nobody else has any right to.” Moreover, “The labour of his body and the work …show more content…
Despite Locke suggesting that every individual “has a property in his own person” which is reflected through their labor, Marx points out that in the case of an industrial worker their efforts are not reflected in the object they create at all. In fact, the worker has no right to the object they made at all. Although humans are fundamentally creative (in the sense that humans are best fulfilled when making things), the very nature of work on the floor of a capitalistic company deprives workers of any creative aspect of labor according to