According to John Locke, all men are entitled to three things, “life, health, liberty and property (Locke, 9)”. All ideas created by the famous 17th century philosopher John Locke in the writings of the Second Treatise of Government. John Locke uses life, liberty and the property to explain the process of economic inequality. The philosopher uses these three basic ideas to define problems in society and eventually justify economic inequality. Locke begins by stating that “all men are naturally in and, and of their possessions and persons, as they fit, within the bounds of the law of nature (Locke, 8)”. Since all men are created equal in nature, all men are entitled to “life, health, liberty, and property (Locke, 9)”. This turns out to be the
…show more content…
Locke has already stated that to have property use must labor on the land but in this section Locke begins to go into more detail. Locke’s first begins an explanation of how one might labor for something, using the example of an apple fallen from a tree. Locke asks when does the apple become his “when he digested it? or when he picked it up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could (Locke, 19)”. This is another example of Locke’s simple thought process that explains how he can claim that everyone is equal. Locke also claims that “God has given us all things richly (Locke, 21)” and continues “As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils (Locke, 21)”. It is at this point that Locke claims paper money was created to stop the spoilage of property claiming “And thus came in the use of money, some latin thing that men might keep without spoiling, and that by mutual consent men would take in exchange for the truly useful, but perishable supports of life (Locke, 28)”. Because Locke believes that all men are created equal, he believes that everybody had an equal opportunity at money. Lets not forget, that Locke had already mentioned his view on slavery and that there are people who do not have a fair shot. However, Locke states “as different degrees of industry were apt to give men possessions in different proportions, so the …show more content…
However, Jeremy Waldron disagrees with many of the assumptions made by John Locke. Waldron argues that freedom is unobtainable by the homeless he uses and example of urination to prove his point, he says “though we say there is nothing particularly dignified about sleeping, or urinating, there is certainly something deeply and inherently undignified about being prevented from doing so (Waldron, 320)”. Waldron concludes that if you do not have property you do not have the fundamental freedom that Locke claims you do. Moreover, if you do not have freedom and property, you do not have wealth, thus, economic inequality is real. However I do not believe it is justifiable, how do you expect certain minority groups, sons and daughters of slaves and the homeless to ever make money. Locke may say that they are free, and they must be ‘industrious’, but thats just an easy way of making a conclusion. John Locke is able to justify economic inequality through his definitions of “life, health, liberty, and property (Locke, 9)”. Although each principle leads to the next, and they don't exist without each other they still do not make economic inequality justifiable. Locke makes a convincing argument, until it is further broken down. Many people believe Locke’s ideas are stronger than those of the founding fathers. Nevertheless, Jeremy Waldron was able to disprove Locke’s ideas
Locke has already stated that to have property use must labor on the land but in this section Locke begins to go into more detail. Locke’s first begins an explanation of how one might labor for something, using the example of an apple fallen from a tree. Locke asks when does the apple become his “when he digested it? or when he picked it up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could (Locke, 19)”. This is another example of Locke’s simple thought process that explains how he can claim that everyone is equal. Locke also claims that “God has given us all things richly (Locke, 21)” and continues “As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils (Locke, 21)”. It is at this point that Locke claims paper money was created to stop the spoilage of property claiming “And thus came in the use of money, some latin thing that men might keep without spoiling, and that by mutual consent men would take in exchange for the truly useful, but perishable supports of life (Locke, 28)”. Because Locke believes that all men are created equal, he believes that everybody had an equal opportunity at money. Lets not forget, that Locke had already mentioned his view on slavery and that there are people who do not have a fair shot. However, Locke states “as different degrees of industry were apt to give men possessions in different proportions, so the …show more content…
However, Jeremy Waldron disagrees with many of the assumptions made by John Locke. Waldron argues that freedom is unobtainable by the homeless he uses and example of urination to prove his point, he says “though we say there is nothing particularly dignified about sleeping, or urinating, there is certainly something deeply and inherently undignified about being prevented from doing so (Waldron, 320)”. Waldron concludes that if you do not have property you do not have the fundamental freedom that Locke claims you do. Moreover, if you do not have freedom and property, you do not have wealth, thus, economic inequality is real. However I do not believe it is justifiable, how do you expect certain minority groups, sons and daughters of slaves and the homeless to ever make money. Locke may say that they are free, and they must be ‘industrious’, but thats just an easy way of making a conclusion. John Locke is able to justify economic inequality through his definitions of “life, health, liberty, and property (Locke, 9)”. Although each principle leads to the next, and they don't exist without each other they still do not make economic inequality justifiable. Locke makes a convincing argument, until it is further broken down. Many people believe Locke’s ideas are stronger than those of the founding fathers. Nevertheless, Jeremy Waldron was able to disprove Locke’s ideas