Summary Of John Locke's Second Treatise Of Government

Second Treatise of Government by John Locke focuses on the transformation of society from a state of nature to a civil government. The state of nature according to Locke has perfect freedom and individuals govern by reason, whereas a civil government has an established legislative and executive power that has authority. To understand the Treatise on of the very first chapters, titled “The State of Nature”, discusses how men behave in without the legislative and executive powers, or in a sense how they govern themselves.
This chapter begins with the idea that all men are born in a perfect freedom and on an equal standing, in which no individual is born with a higher advantage compared to that of another. However, some men might gain an advantage
in power but only through God. Furthermore, Locke explains that if a state of perfect freedom exists, the actions of men cannot be constrained by other men. To support his argument that equality needs to exists for a civil society, Locke quotes Richard Hooker, who argues that to satisfy their selves whether that be with love or needs, men have to satisfy the love and needs of other men as well.
If there exists a state of liberty, it does not give the rights to men abuse other men’s liberties, lives, and possessions, even if there are no limitations placed on a man’s ability to do so.
Thus, reason has to be applied, and men most conclude that equality exists because God created all men equal, and thus men should act equal towards one another. If a man has committed a crime against another man’s liberties, live, or possessions, the decision of punishment is enforced by every man. Punishments are decided this way due to the fact that there does not yet exist a government and equality exists thus there is no superior individual to make the choice on behalf of every
individual.
Even though punishments exist in the state of nature, there of some restrictions placed by Locke on the type of punishment that can be enforced.
When deciding on the punishment, one must not choose a punishment that does not fit the crime. For instance, a death sentence for a punishment should not be applied to an individual who stole bread. The main reason that punishments exists is that the individual decided to break the nature of law, which is an agreement between that individual and God. Since he has broken this pact, he is viewed as no longer being able to obey the laws of nature and thus is considered dangerous to the rest of society. The individual that has committed the offense is punished to make an example out of him so that others do not try to follow and create chaos amongst mankind. To strengthen this argument, Locke reaches out to the opposing side who may view this argument as controversial. He supports this argument by explaining that a sovereign has the right to execute a noncitizen for a crime. However, Locke explains further that those legislatures that made the law that the noncitizen broke, cannot be applied to the noncitizen and thus he cannot be executed. If a society wants power in which their laws can be applied to others, they first must be able to understand why in a state of nature all men have the ability to punish.
Locke brings up another idea based on reparations after a crime is committed. Locke believes that if a man has had a crime committed
against him, he has the right to ask for reparations for the harm that he has suffered. Furthermore, only the person who has been harmed has the ability to set the terms for reparations. Locke points out one specific crime, murder, and what reparations are acceptable. Locke believes that any individual has the right to kill a murdered as a form of reparation because no other form would be sufficient, using the example of Cain.
Although all these guidelines for punishing exists, Locke does note that her understands that if men are the judges of themselves or of their friends that may not be completely fair. The only solution for such a problem is a civil government with the power to formally judge. However, there are also problems with this solution since an absolute monarchy can disregard reason and follow the monarchy’s interest. In this case a state of nature is favored instead of an absolute monarchy.
Locke ends this chapter by answering the question if there has ever existed a state of nature with men. Locke confirms that there have existed arrangements between men that do not damage the state of nature, for example between an Indian and a Swiss. All men exist in this state of nature, up until the point that they consent to be governed.