John Locke (1632-1704)

The British philosopher John Locke was especially

known for his liberal, anti-authoritarian theory of the state, his empirical theory of
knowledge, his advocacy of religious toleration, and his theory of personal identity.

In his own time, he was famous for arguing that the divine right of kings is supported
neither by scripture nor by the use of reason. In developing his theory of our duty to
obey the state, he attacked the idea that might makes right: Starting from an initial state
of nature with no government, police or private property, we humans could discover by
careful reasoning that there are natural laws which suggest that we have natural rights to
our own persons and to our own labor. Eventually we could discover that we should
create a social contract with others, and out of this contract emerges our political
obligations and the institution of private property. This is how reasoning places limits
on the proper use of power by government authorities.

Regarding epistemology, Locke disagreed with Descartes rationalist theory that

knowledge is any idea that seems clear and distinct to us. Instead, Locke claimed that
knowledge is direct awareness of facts concerning the agreement or disagreement
among our ideas. By ideas, he meant mental objects, and by assuming that some of
these mental objects represent non-mental objects he inferred that this is why we can
have knowledge of a world external to our minds. Although we can know little for
certain and must rely on probabilities, he believed it is our God-given obligation to
obtain knowledge and not always to acquire our beliefs by accepting the word of
authorities or common superstition. Ideally our beliefs should be held firmly or
tentatively depending on whether the evidence is strong or weak. He praised the
scientific reasoning of Boyle and Newton as exemplifying this careful formation of
beliefs. He said that at birth our mind has no innate ideas; it is blank, a tabula rasa. As
our mind gains simple ideas from sensation, it forms complex ideas from these simple
ideas by processes of combination, division, generalization and abstraction. Radical for
his time, Locke asserted that in order to help children not develop bad habits of
thinking, they should be trained to base their beliefs on sound evidence, to learn how to
collect this evidence, and to believe less strongly when the evidence is weaker.
We all can have knowledge of Gods existence by attending to the quality of the
evidence available to us, primarily the evidence from miracles. Our moral obligations,
says Locke, are divine commands. We can learn about those obligations both by Gods
revealing them to us and by our natural capacities to discover natural laws. He hoped to
find a deductive system of ethics in analogy to our deductive system of truths of
geometry.

Regarding personal identity, Locke provided an original argument that our being the
same person from one time to another consists neither in our having the same soul nor
the same body, but rather the same consciousness.

Table of Contents

1. Life
2. Writings
1. Plan of the Essay
1. Ideas in General
2. Simple and Complex Ideas
3. Primary and Secondary Qualities
4. Knowledge of Mathematics, Ethics, the Self, and God
5. Sensitive Knowledge of the External World
6. Judgment
2. Two Treatises of Government
3. Economic Writings
4. Letters on Religious Toleration
5. Theological Writings
6. Educational Writings
3. References and Further Reading

1. Life

John Locke was born at Wrington, a village in Somerset, on August 29, 1632. He was
the son of a country solicitor and small landowner who, when the civil war broke out,
served as a captain of horse in the parliamentary army. I no sooner perceived myself in
the world than I found myself in a storm, he wrote long afterwards, during the lull in
the storm which followed the kings return. But political unrest does not seem to have
seriously disturbed the course of his education. He entered Westminster school in 1646,
and passed to Christ Church, Oxford, as a junior student, in 1652; and he had a home
there (though absent from it for long periods) for more than thirty years till deprived
of his studentship by royal mandate in 1684. The official studies of the university were
uncongenial to him; he would have preferred to have learned philosophy from Descartes
instead of from Aristotle; but evidently he satisfied the authorities, for he was elected to
a senior studentship in 1659, and, in the three or four years following, he took part in
the tutorial work of the college. At one time he seems to have thought of the clerical
profession as a possible career; but he declined an offer of preferment in 1666, and in
the same year obtained a dispensation which enabled him to hold his studentship
without taking orders. About the same time we hear of his interest in experimental
science, and he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1668. Little is known of his
early medical studies. He cannot have followed the regular course, for he was unable to
obtain the degree of doctor of medicine. It was not till 1674 that he graduated as
bachelor of medicine. In the following January his position in Christ Church was
regularized by his appointment to one of the two medical studentships of the college.

His knowledge of medicine and occasional practice of the art led, in 1666, to an
acquaintance with Lord Ashley (afterwards, from 1672, Earl of Shaftesbury). The
acquaintance, begun accidentally, had an immediate effect on Lockes career. Without
serving his connection with Oxford, he became a member of Shaftesburys household,
and seems soon to have been looked upon as indispensable in all matters domestic and
political. He saved the statesmans life by a skillful operation, arranged a suitable
marriage for his heir, attended the lady in her confinement, and directed the nursing and
education of her son afterwards famous as the author of Characteristics. He assisted
Shaftesbury also in public business, commercial and political, and followed him into the
government service. When Shaftesbury was made lord chancellor in 1672, Locke
became his secretary for presentations to benefices, and, in the following year, was
made secretary to the board of trade. In 1675 his official life came to an end for the time
with the fall of his chief.

Lockes health, always delicate, suffered from the London climate. When released from
the cares of office, he left England in search of health. Ten years earlier he had his first
experience of foreign travel and of public employment, as secretary to Sir Walter Vane,
ambassador to the Elector of Brandenburg during the first Dutch war. On his return to
England, early in 1666, he declined an offer of further service in Spain, and settled
again in Oxford, but was soon induced by Shaftesbury to spend a great part of his time
in London. On his release from office in 1675 he sought milder air in the south of
France, made leisurely journeys, and settled down for many months at Montpellier. The
journal which he kept at this period is full of minute descriptions of places and customs
and institutions. It contains also a record of many of the reflections that afterwards took
shape in the Essay concerning Human Understanding. he returned to England in 1679,
when his patron had again a short spell of office. He does not seem to have been
concerned in Shaftesburys later schemes; but suspicion naturally fell upon him, and he
found it prudent to take refuge in Holland. This he did in August 1683, less than a year
after the flight and death of Shaftesbury. Even in Holland for some time he was not safe
from danger of arrest at the instance of the English government; he moved from town to
town, lived under an assumed name, and visited his friends by stealth. His residence in
Holland brought political occupations with it, among the men who were preparing the
English revolution. it had at least equal value in the leisure which it gave him for
literary work and in the friendships which it offered. In particular, he formed a close
intimacy with Philip van Limbroch, the leader of the Remonstrant clergy, and the
scholar and liberal theologian to whom Epistola de Tolerantia was dedicated. This letter
was completed in 1685, though not published at the time; and, before he left for
England, in February 1689, the Essay concerning Human Understanding seems to have
attained its final form, and an abstract of it was published in LeclercsBibliotheque
universelle in 1688.

The new government recognized his services to the cause of freedom by the offer of the
post of ambassador either at Berlin or at Vienna. But Locke was no place hunter; he was
solicitous also on account of his health; his earlier experience of Germany led him to
fear the cold air and warm drinking; and the high office was declined. But he served
less important offices at home. He was made commissioner of appeals in May 1689,
and, from 1696 to 1700, he was a commissioner of trade and plantations at a salary of
L1000 a year. Although official duties called him to town for protracted periods, he was
able to fix his residence in the country. In 1691 he was persuaded to make his
permanent home at Oates in Essex, in the house of Francis and Lady Masham. Lady
Masham was a daughter of Cudworth, the Cambridge Platonist; Lock had manifested a
growing sympathy with his type of liberal theology; intellectual affinity increased his
friendship with the family at Oates; and he continued to live with them till his death on
October 28, 1704.

2. Writings

With the exception of the abstract of the Essay and other less important contributions to
the Bibliotheque universelle, Locke had not published anything before his return to
England in 1689; and by this time he was in his fifty-seventh year. But many years of
reflection and preparation made him ready at that time to publish books in rapid
succession. In March 1689 his Epistola de Tolerantia was published in Holland; an
English translation of the same, by William Popple, appeared later in the same year, and
in a corrected edition in 1690. The controversy which followed this work led, on
Lockes part, to the publication of a Second Letter (1690), and then a Third Letter
(1692). In February 1690 the book entitled Two Treatises of Government was published,
and in March of the same year appeared the long expected Essay concerning Human
Understanding, on which he had been at work intermittently since 1671. it met with
immediate success, and led to a voluminous literature of attack and reply; young fellows
of colleges tried to introduce it at the universities, and heads of houses sat in conclave to
devise means for its suppression. To one of his critics Locke replied at length. This was
Edward Stillingfleet, bishop of Worcester, who, in his Vindication of the Doctrine of the
Trinity (1696), had attacked the new philosophy. It was the theological consequences
which were drawn from the doctrines of theEssay, not so much by Locke himself as by
Toland, in his Christianity not Mysterious, that the bishop had chiefly in view; in
philosophy for its own sake he does not seem to have been interested. But his criticism
drew attention to one of the least satisfactory (if also one of the most suggestive)
doctrines of the Essay its explanation of the idea of substance; and discredit was
thrown on the new way of ideas in general. In January 1697 Locke replied in A Letter
to the Bishop of Worcester. Stillingfleet answered this in May; and Locke was ready
with a second letter in August. Stillingfleet replied in 1698, and Lockes lengthy third
letter appeared in 1699. The bishops death, later in the same year, put an end to the
controversy. The second edition of the Essay was published in 1694, the third in 1695,
and the fourth in 1700. The second and fourth editions contained important additions.
An abridgement of it appeared in 1696, by John Wynne, fellow of Jesus College,
Oxford; it was translated into Latin and into French soon after the appearance of the
fourth edition. The later editions contain many modifications due to the authors
correspondence with William Molyneux, of Trinity College, Dublin, a devoted disciple,
for whom Locke had a worm friendship. Other correspondents and visitors to Oates
during these years were Isaac Newton and Anthony Collins, a young squire of the
neighborhood, who afterwards made his mark in the intellectual controversies of the
time.

Other interests also occupied Locke during the years following the publication of his
great work. The financial difficulties of the new government led in 1691 to his
publication of Some Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering of Interest, and
Raising the Value of Money, and of Further Considerations on the latter question, four
years later. In 1693 he published Some Thoughts concerning Education, a work founded
on letters written to a friend, and in 1695 appeared The Reasonableness of Christianity,
and later A Vindication of the same against certain objections; and this was followed by
a second vindication two years afterwards. Lockes religious interest had always been
strongly marked, and, in he later years of his life, much of his tie was given to theology.
Among the writings of his which were published after his death are commentaries on
the Pauline epistles, and a Discourse on Miracles, as well as a fragment of aFourth
Letter for Toleration. The posthumously published writings include further An
Examination of Father Malebranches Opinion of Seeing all things in God, Remarks on
Some of Mr Norriss Books, and most important of all the small treatise on The
Conduct of the Understanding which had been originally designed as a chapter of the
Essay.

a. Plan of the Essay

Lockes greatest philosophical contribution is his Essay, and we have his own account
of the origin of that work. In the winter of 1670, five or six friends were conversing in
his room, probably in London. The topic was the principles of morality and revealed
religion, but difficulties arose and no progress was made. Then, he goes on to say, it
came into my thoughts that we took a wrong course, and that before we set ourselves
upon inquiries of that nature, it was necessary to examine our own abilities, and see
what objects our understandings were, or were not, fitted to deal with. At the request of
his friends, Locke agreed to set down his thoughts on this question at their next meeting,
and he expected that a single sheet of paper would suffice for the purpose. Little did he
realize the magnitude of the issue which he raised, and that it would occupy his leisure
for nearly twenty years.

Lockes interest centers on traditional philosophical topics: the nature of the self, the
world, God, and the grounds of our knowledge of them. We reach these questions only
in the fourth and last book of the Essay. The first three books are preliminary, though
they have, and Locke saw that they had, an importance of their own. His introductory
sentence makes this plain:

Since it is the understanding that sets man above the rest of sensible beings, and gives
him all the advantage and dominion which he has over them; it is certainly a subject,
even for its nobleness, worth our labour to inquire into. The understanding, like the eye,
while it makes us see and perceive all other things, takes no notice of itself; and it
requires art and pains to set it at a distance and make it its own object. But whatever be
the difficulties that lie in the way of this inquiry; whatever it be that keeps us so much in
the dark to ourselves; sure I am that all the light we can let in upon our minds, all the
acquaintance we can make with our own understandings, will not only be very pleasant,
but bring us great advantage, in directing our thoughts in the search of other things.

Locke will not meddle with the physical consideration of the mind; he has no theory
about its essence or its relation to the body; at the same time, he has no doubt that, if
due pains be taken, the understanding can be studied like anything else: we can observe
its object and the ways in which it operates upon them. The Essay is divided into four
books; the first is a polemic against the doctrine of innate principles and ideas. The
second deals with ideas, the third with words, and the fourth with knowledge.
i. Ideas in General

All the objects of the understanding are described as ideas, and ideas are spoken of as
being in the mind (Intro. 2; Bk. 2:1:5; Bk. 2:8:8). Lockes first problem, therefore, is to
trace the origin and history of ideas, and the ways in which the understanding operates
upon them, in order that he may be able to see what knowledge is and how far it
reaches. This wide use of the term idea is inherited from Descartes. The contemporary
term which corresponds with it most nearly is presentation. But presentation is,
strictly, only one variety of Lockes idea, which includes also representation and image,
perception, and concept or notion. His usage of the term thus differs so widely from the
old Platonic meaning that the danger of confusion between them is not great. It suited
the authors purpose also from being a familiar word in ordinary discourse as well as in
the language of philosophers. Herein, however, lays danger from which he did not
escape. In common usage idea carries with it a suggestion of contrast with reality; this
is not supposed in Lockes use.

In the first book of the Essay, on the subject of innate ideas, Locke points to the variety
of human experience, and to the difficulty of forming general and abstract ideas, and he
ridicules the view that any such ideas can be antecedent to experience. All the parts of
our knowledge, he insists, have the same rank and the same history regarding their
origin in experience. It is in its most extreme form that the doctrine of innate ideas is
attacked; but he cannot seen any middle ground between that extreme doctrine and his
own view that all ideas have their origin in experience. Indeed, it is difficult to
determine against whom the argument is directed. But when we note Lockes polemical
interest in the question, and remember the significance for him of the empirical origin of
all the elements of human knowledge, we can be content to see in it an earnest protest
against the principle of authority, a vindication of our right to examine critically all the
so-called principles of human knowledge.

Locke wishes to avoid any presupposition about matter, or mind, or their relation. It is
not difficult to see that the notions which he has expelled often re-enter. But the peculiar
value of his approach consists in his attempt to keep clear of them. He begins neither
with ind nor matter, but with ideas. Their existence needs no proof: everyone is
conscious of them in himself, and mens words and actions will satisfy him that they are
in others. His first inquiry is how they come into the mind; has next business is to
show that they constitute the whole material of our knowledge. In his answer to the
former question we discover the influence of traditional philosophy, or rather of
ordinary common sense views of existence, upon his views. All our ideas, he says, come
from experience. The mind has no innate ideas, but it has innate faculties: it perceives,
remembers, and combines the ideas that come to it from without; it also desires,
deliberates, and wills; and these mental activities are themselves the source of a new
class of ideas. Experience is therefore twofold. Our observation may be employed either
about external sensible objects, or about the internal operations of our minds. The
former is the source of most of the ideas which we have, and, as it depends wholly
upon our senses, is called sensation. The latter is a source of ideas which every man
has wholly in himself, and it might be called internal sense; to it he gives the name
reflection.
ii. Simple and Complex Ideas

There are no innate ideas stamped upon the mind from birth; and yet impressions of
sense are not the only source of knowledge: The mind furnishes the understanding with
ideas (Bk. 2:1:5). No distinction is implied here between mind and understanding,
so that the sentence might run, the mind furnishes itself with ideas. As to what these
ideas are, we are not left in doubt: they are ideas of its own operations. When the
mind acts, it has an idea of its action, that is, it is self-conscious, and, as such, is
assumed to be an original source of our knowledge. Hume and Condilac both refused to
admit reflection as an original source of ideas, and both, accordingly, found that they
had to face the problem of tracing the growth of self-consciousness out of a succession
of sensations. According to Locke, reflection is an original, rather than an independent,
source of ideas. Without sensation mind would have nothing to operate upon, and
therefore could have no ideas of its operations. It is when he first has any sensation
that a man begins to have any ideas (Bk. 2:1:23). The operations of the mind are not
themselves produced by sensation, but sensation is required to give the mind material
for working on.

The ideas which sensation gives enter by the senses simple and unmixed (Bk. 2:2:1);
they stand in need of the activity of mind to bind them into the complex unities required
for knowledge. The complex ideas of substance, modes, and relations are all the product
of the combining and abstracting activity of mind operating upon simple ideas, which
have been given, without any connection, by sensation or reflection. Lockes account of
knowledge thus has two sides. On the one side, all the material of knowledge is traced
to the simple idea. On the other side, the processes which transform this crude material
into knowledge are activities of mind which themselves cannot be reduced to ideas.
Lockes metaphors of the tabula rasa, white paper (Bk. 2:2:1), and dark room
misled his critics and suggested to some of his followers a theory very different from his
own. The metaphors only illustrate what he had in hand at the moment. Without
experience, no characters are written on the tablets of the mind; except through the
windows of sensation and reflection, no light enters the understanding. No ideas are
innate; and there is no source of new simple ideas other than those two. But knowledge
involves relations, and relations are the work of the mind; it requires complex ideas, and
complex ideas are mental formations. Simple ideas do not, of themselves, enter into
relation and form complex ideas. Locke does not, like Hobbes before him and Hume
and Condillac after him, look to some unexplained natural attraction of idea for idea as
bringing about these formations. Indeed, his treatment of the association of ideas is an
afterthought, and did not appear in the earlier editions of the Essay.

Starting from the simple ideas which we get from sensation, or from observing mental
operations as they take place, Locke has two things to explain: the universal element,
that is, the general conceptions with which knowledge is concerned or which it implies;
and the reference to reality which it claims. With the former problem Locke deals at
great length; and the general method of his exposition is clear enough. Complex ideas
arise from simple ideas by the processes of combination and abstraction carried out by
the mind. It would be unfair to expect completeness from his enterprise: but it cannot be
denied that his intricate and subtle discussions left many problems unsolved. Indeed,
this is one of his great merits. He raised questions in such a way as to provoke further
enquiry. Principles such as the causal relation, apart from which knowledge of nature
would be impossible, are quietly taken for granted, often without any enquiry into the
grounds for assuming them. Further, the difficulty of accounting for universals is unduly
simplified by describing certain products as simple ideas, although thought has
obviously been at work upon them.

In this connection an important inconsistency becomes apparent in his account of the

primary data of experience. It is, indeed, impossible even to name the mere particular
the this, here, and now of sense without giving it a flavor of generality. But, at the
outset, Locke tries to get as near it as possible. Simple ideas (of sensation) are
exemplified by yellow, white, heat, cold, soft, hard, and so forth (Bk. 2:1:3). But,
towards the end of the second book (Bk. 2:21:75), a very different list is given:
extension, solidity, and mobility (from sensation); perceptivity and motivity (from
reflection); and existence, duration, and number (from both sensation and reflection).
These are said to be our original ideas, and the rest to be derived form or to
depend on them. It is difficult to compare the two lists, instance by instance; but one
example may be taken. According to the first list, hard is a simple idea; according to the
second list, solidity is the original (and therefore simple) idea, and hard will be derived
from it and depend on it. It is clear that, in making the former list, Lock was trying to
get back to the primary data of our individual experience; whereas, in the second list, he
is rather thinking of the objective reality on which our experience depends and which,
he assumes, it reveals. But he does not observe the difference. He seems to forget his
view that the original of all knowledge is to be found in the particular, in something
simple and unmixed. Thus he says without hesitation, If any one asks me, what this
solidity is, I send him to the senses to inform him. Let him put a flint of a football
between his hands, and then endeavour to join them, and he will know (Bk. 2:4:4). But
he will not know without going a long way beyond the simple idea. The simple ideas in
the case are certain muscular and tactual sensations; and he interprets these by other
means (including knowledge of external objects and his own organism) when he says
that the flint or the football is solid.

His doctrine of modes is also affected by this same inattention of the fact that a simple
idea must be really simple. Thus he holds that space and extension is a simple idea
given both by sight and by touch (Bk. 2:4). One would expect, therefore, that the
original and simple idea of space would be the particular patch seen at any moment or
the particular feel of the exploring limb. But we are told that each idea of any
different distance, or space, is a simple mode or the idea of space (Bk. 2:8:4). Here
again the simple idea is generalized. He professes to begin with the mere particulars of
external and internal sense, and to show how knowledge which is necessarily general
is evolved from them. But, in doing so, he assumes a general or universal element as
already given in the simple idea.

Having gone so far, he might almost have been expected to take a further step and treat
the perceptions of particular things as modes of the simple idea substance. But this he
does not do. Substance is an idea regarding which he was in earnest with his own
fundamental theory (however, he was perplexed about the origin of the idea of
substance in general as well as of the ideas of particular sorts of substances; Bk.
2:23:2-3). He admits that substance is a complex idea; that is to say, it is formed by the
minds action out of simple ideas. Now, this idea of substance marks the difference
between having sensations and perceiving things. Its importance, therefore, is clear; but
there is no clearness in explaining it. We are told that there is a supposed or confused
idea of substance to which are joined, for example, the simple idea of a dull whitish
colour, with certain degrees of weight, hardness, ductility and fusibility, and, as a
result, we have the idea of lead.

A difficulty might have been avoided if substance could have been interpreted as simply
the combination by the understanding of white, hard, etc., or some similar cluster of
ideas of sensation. But it was not Lockes way thus to ignore facts. He sees that
something more is needed than these ideas of sensation. They are only joined to the
supposed or confused idea of substance, which is there and always the first and chief
(Bk. 2:12:6). He holds to it that the idea is a complex idea and so mad by the mind; but
he is entirely at a loss to account for the materials out of which it is made. We cannot
imagine how simple ideas can subsist by themselves, and so we accustom ourselves to
suppose some substratum wherein they do subsist, and this we call substance. In one
place, he even vacillates between the assertions that we have no clear idea of substance
and that we have no idea of it at all (Bk. 1:3:19). It is a supposition of he knows not
what. This uncertainty, as will appear presently, throws its shadow over our whole
knowledge of nature.

iii. Primary and Secondary Qualities

The new way of ideas is thus hard put to it in accounting for the universal element in
knowledge; it has even greater difficulties to face in defending the reality of knowledge.
And, in the latter case, the author does not see the difficulties so clearly. His view is that
the simple idea is the test and standard of reality. Whatever the mind contributes to our
ideas removes them further from the reality of things; in becoming general, knowledge
loses touch with things. But not all simple ideas carry with them the same significance
for reality. Colours, smells, tastes, sounds, and the like are simple ideas, yet nothing
resembles them in the bodies themselves; but, owing to a certain bulk, figure, and
motion of their insensible parts, bodies have a power to produce those sensations in
us. These, therefore, as called secondary qualities of bodies. On the other hand,
solidity, extension, figure, motion or rest, and number are also held by Locke to be
simple ideas; and these are resemblances of qualities in body; their patterns do really
exist in the bodies themselves; accordingly, they are primary qualities of bodies. In
this way, by implication if not expressly, Locke severs, instead of establishing, the
connection between simple ideas and reality. The only ideas which can make good their
claim to be regarded as simple ideas have nothing resembling them in things. Other
ideas, no doubt, are said to resemble bodily qualities (an assertion for which no proof is
given and none is possible); but these ideas have only a doubtful claim to rank as simple
ideas. Lockes prevailing tendency is to identify reality with the simple idea, but he
sometimes comes close to the opposite view that the reference to reality is the work of
thought.

iv. Knowledge of Mathematics, Ethics, the Self, and God

In the fourth book of his Essay Locke applies the results of the earlier books to
determine the nature and extent of knowledge. As ideas are the sole immediate objects
of the mind, knowledge can be nothing else than the perception of the connexion of
and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy, or any of our ideas. This agreement
or disagreement is said to be of four sorts: identity or diversity; relation; co-existence or
necessary connection; real existence. Each of these kinds of knowledge raises its own
questions; but, broadly speaking, one distinction may be taken as fundamental. In the
same paragraph in which he restricts knowledge to the agreement or disagreement of
our ideas, he admits one kind of knowledge which goes beyond the ideas themselves to
the significance which they have for real existence. When the reference does not go
beyond the ideas in the mind, the problems that arise are of one order; when there is a
further reference to real things, another problem arises.

Locke also distinguishes between two degrees of knowledge: intuition and

demonstration. In the former case, the agreement or disagreement is immediately
perceived; in the latter, it is perceived through the mediation of a third idea, but each
step in the demonstration is itself an intuition, the agreement or disagreement between
the two ideas compared being immediately perceived. He believes that mathematics and
ethics are demonstrable. When ideas are together in the mind, we can discover their
relation to one another; so long as they are not taken to represent archetypes outside the
mind, there is no obstacle to certainty of knowledge. All relation terminates in, and is
ultimately founded on, those simple ideas we have got from sensation or reflection
(Bk. 2:28:18). but general and certain truths, are only founded in the habitudes and
relations of abstract ideas (Bk. 4:12:7). In this way Locke vindicates the certainty of
mathematics: although instructive, the science is merely idea, and its propositions do not
hold of things outside the mind. He thinks also that morality is capable of
demonstration as well as mathematics. But, in spite of the request of his friend
Molyneux, he never set out his ethic doctrine in detail. In Book II he reduced moral
good and evil to pleasure and pain which as reward and punishment come to us
from some lawgiver; thus they point to a source outside the mind. But his ground for
maintaining the demonstrative character of morality is that moral ideas are mixed
modes, and therefore mental products, so that their precise real essence may be
perfectly known. He ventures upon two examples only of this demonstrative morality;
and neither of them is more than verbal or gives any information about good or evil. Yet
the doctrine is significant as showing the influence upon Locke of another type of
demonstrative thought.

Thus, knowledge of mathematics and ethics may be firmly establish, particularly as

these subjects involve relations between ideas, and thus make no claims about matters
of real existence. When it comes to knowledge of real existence, though, ultimately
there are only two certainties: the existence of ourselves (by intuition) and that of God
(by demonstration).

Concerning the self, Locke agrees with Descartes that the existence of the self is
implied in every state of consciousness. Every element of our experience, every idea of
which we are conscious, is a certificate of our own existence, as the subject of that
experience:

As for our own existence, we perceive it so plainly and so certainly, that it neither needs
nor is capable of any proof. For nothing can be more evident to us than our own
existence. I think, I reason, I feel pleasure and pain: can any of these be more evident to
me than my own existence? If I doubt of all other things, that very doubt makes me
perceive my own existence, and will not suffer me to doubt of that. For if I know I feel
pain, it is evident I have as certain perception of my own existence, as of the pain I feel:
or if I know I doubt, I have ascertain perception of the existence of the thing doubting,
as of that thought which I call doubt.
However, Locke fails to point out how the self can be an idea and thus belong to the
material of knowledge. An idea of the self cannot come from sensation; and the simple
ideas of reflection are all of mental operations, and not of the subject or agent of these
operations. On the other hand, when he had occasion to discuss personal identity, he
followed his new way of idea, and made it depend on memory.

Concerning Gods existence, his proof is a cosmological-type argument. From the

certainty of our own existence that of the existence of God immediately follows. A
person knows intuitively that he is something that actually exists. Next a person
knows with intuitive certainty, that bare nothing can no more produce any real being,
than it can be equal to two right angles. it is, therefore, an evident demonstration, that
from eternity there has been something. And since all the powers of all beings must be
traced to this eternal Being, it follows that it is the most powerful, as well as the most
knowing, that is, God. Eternal ind alone can produce thinking, perceiving beings, such
as we find ourselves to be (Bk. 4:10). Locke here assumes, without question, the
validity of the causal principle even beyond the range of possible experience.

v. Sensitive Knowledge of the External World

Below the rank of knowledge proper (intuitive and demonstrative), Locke recognizes a
third degree of knowledge, not strictly entitled to the name. This is our sensitive
apprehension of external things, or of real objects other than ourselves and God:

These two, namely, intuition and demonstration, are the degrees of our knowledge;
whatever comes short of one of these, with what assurance soever embraced, is but faith
or opinion, but not knowledge, at least in all general truths. There is, indeed, another
perception of the mind, employed about the particular existence of finite beings without
us, which, going beyond bare probability, and yet not reaching perfectly to either of the
foregoing degrees of certainty, passes under the name of knowledge. There can be
nothing more certain than that the idea we receive from an external object is in our
minds: this is intuitive knowledge. But whether there be anything more than barely that
idea in our minds; whether we can thence certainly infer the existence of anything
without us, which corresponds to that idea, is that whereof some men think there may be
a question made; because men may have such ideas in their minds, when no such thing
exists, no such object affects their senses. (Bk. 4:14)

Does not the very definition of knowledge, as the perception of the agreement or
disagreement of ideas with one another, preclude the perception of the agreement of
ideas with non-ideal reality?

Lockes argument for the objective validity of sensitive knowledge consists of several
considerations. First, he urges, our ideas of sensation differ from those of memory and
imagination, that is from mere ideas, in being produced in us without any action of our
own, and therefore must necessarily be the product of things operating on the mind, in
a natural way, and producing therein those perceptions which by the Wisdom and Will
of our Maker they are ordained and adapted to. They,

carry with them all he conformity which is intended; or which our state requires: for
they represent to us things under those appearances which they are fitted to produce in
us: whereby we are enabled to distinguish the sorts of particular substances, to discern
the states they are in, and so to take them for our necessities, and apply them to our
uses. (Bk. 4:4:4)

Secondly, pleasure or pain often accompanies the sensation, and is absent from the idea
as it recurs in memory or imagination; and this certainty is as great as our happiness or
misery, beyond which we have no concernment to know or to be (Bk. 4:2:14). Thirdly,
our several senses assist one anothers testimony, and thus enable us to predict our
sensational experience. On these grounds Locke concludes that,

the certainty of things existing in rerum natura when we have the testimony of our
senses for it is not only as great as our frame can attain to, but as our condition needs.
For, our faculties being suited no to the full extent of being, nor to a perfect, clear,
comprehensive knowledge of things free from all doubt and scruple; but to the
preservation of us, in whom they are; and accommodated to the use of life: they serve to
our purpose well enough, if they will but give us certain notice of those things, which
are convenient or inconvenient to us. (Bk. 4:2:14)

The certainty which Locke attributes to sensitive knowledge is thus seen to be practical,
rather than theoretical; and it is impossible to distinguish this degree of knowledge from
the belief or opinion which results from a balance of probabilities rather than from
certain perception.

But even granting that our sensitive apprehensions of external reality possesses the
certainty which is the characteristic of knowledge, as distinguished from mere opinion,
we must observe within how very narrow limits it is confined:

When our senses do actually convey into our understandings any idea, we cannot but be
satisfied that there doth something at that time really exist without us, which doth affect
our senses, and by them give notice of itself to our apprehensive faculties, and actually
produce that idea which we then perceive: and we cannot so far distrust their testimony,
as to doubt that such collections of simple ideas as we have observed by our senses to
be united together, do really exist together. But this knowledge extends as far as the
present testimony of our senses, employed about particular objects that do then effect
them, and no further. (Bk. 4:11:9)

We cannot demonstrate the necessity of the co-existence of those ideas which constitute
the modes or qualities of substances; we cannot perceive their necessary connexion or
repugnancy. The connection between the secondary and the primary qualities remains
inexplicable. And therefore there are very few general propositions to be made
concerning substances, which carry with them undoubted certainty (Bk. 4:6:76). Our
knowledge in all these inquires reaches very little further than our experience (Bk.
4:3:13-14). Beyond the strict warrant of experience, or the testimony of our senses, we
may venture upon opinion or judgment as to the co-existence of the qualities of
substances, but we cannot strictly know. Possibly inquisitive and observing men
may, by strength of judgment, penetrate further, and, on probabilities taken from wary
observation, and hints well laid together, often guess right at what experience has not
yet discovered to them. But this is but guessing still; it amounts only to opinion, and had
not that certainty which is requisite to knowledge (Bk. 4:6:13)
Locke finds himself compelled, therefore, to conclude that the so-called science of
which Bacon had talked so proudly, and of whose achievements he had himself spoken
so respectfully in the opening pages of the Essay, is not, in the strict sense, science at
all; that, in his own words, there can be no science of bodies. It is vain to search for
the forms of the various material substances, or to seek to verify the corpuscularian
hypothesis as to the connection of the primary and the secondary qualities of things. I
am apt to doubt that, how far soever human industry may advance useful and
experimental philosophy in physical things, scientifical will still be out of our reach.
Certainty and demonstration are things we must not, in these matters, pretend to (Bk.
4:3:26).

If we cannot attain to a science of bodies, still less can we expect scientifical

understanding of spirits. Spiritual substance is, as we have seen, as unknown as material
substance; and Locke finds additional reasons for limiting our knowledge in this sphere.

If we are at a loss in respect of the powers and operations of bodies, I think it is easy to
conclude we are much more in the dark in reference to spirits; whereof we naturally
have no ideas but what we draw from that of our own, by reflecting on the operations of
our own souls within us, as far as they come within our observation. But how
inconsiderable rank the spirits that inhabit our bodies hold amongst those various and
possibly innumerable kinds of nobler beings; and how far short they come of the
endowments and perfections of cherubim and seraphim, and infinite sorts of spirits
above us, is what by a transient hint in another place I have offered to my readers
consideration.

vi. Judgment

The closing chapters of Book IV of the Essay are devoted to a consideration of that kind
of apprehension of reality which Locke calls judgment, as distinguished from
knowledge. The faculty which God has given man to supply the want of clear and
certain knowledge, in cases where that cannot be hand, is judgment: whereby the mind
takes its ideas to agree or disagree; or, which is the same, any proposition to be true or
false, without perceiving a demonstrative evidence in the proofs (Bk 4:19:1-2). So-
called scientific truths being generally of this kind, one would have expected Locke to
give here some account of the procedure of inductive science, some directions for the
careful and methodical study of the facts, and cautions against the temptations to hasty
and unwarranted generalization, such as we find in Bacons Novum Organum. But
instead of this, he contents himself with general observations on the degrees of assent,
on reason (and syllogism), on faith and reason, on enthusiasm, and on wrong assent,
or error. The treatment of, that is to say, is limited to general considerations regarding
the function of faith and the relations of faith and reason as guides of the human mind.

What is especially significant here is Lockes refusal to oppose faith and reason in the
fashion of Bacon and Hobbes, and his refusal to accept any authority which cannot
vindicate itself through reason. Even in his insistence upon the necessity of
supplementing our knowledge by faith, Locke emphasized the use of reason:

Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind: which, if it be regulated, as is our duty,
cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason; and so cannot be opposite to it.
He that believes without having any reason for believing, may be in love with his own
fancies; but neither seeks truth as he ought, nor pays the obedience due to his maker.
(Bk. 4:27:24)

Locke is at one with the rationalist theologians of his century in their antagonism to an
enthusiasm which would substitute for the insight of reason and of rational faith, the
so called revelation of private experience. Against such a view, he insists upon the
necessity of judging revelation by reason: God when he makes the prophet does not
unmake the man. He leaves all his faculties in the natural state, to enable him to judge
of his inspirations, whether they be of divine original or no. Reason must be our last
judge and guide in everything (Bk. 4:19:14).

Yet reason clearly limits the field of its own insight; it is only reasonable to believe
where we cannot know and yet must act. However, as morality and religion cannot be
compassed by reason, such knowledge must be supplemented by faith if we are to fulfill
our divine destiny. This is the point of view, not only of the closing chapters of the
Essay, but of his Resonableness of Christianity (1695). The aim of this treatise is to
recall men from the contentions of the theological schools to the simplicity of the gospel
as the rule of human life.:

The writers and wranglers in religion fill it with niceties, and dress it up with notions,
which they make necessary and fundamental parts of it; as if there were no way into the
church, but through the academy or lyceum. The greatest part of mankind have not
leisure for learning and logic, and superfine distinctions of the schools.

What people need is not intellectual insight or theological dogma, but practical
guidance. Locke seems less confident than he was in the Essay of the possibility of a
rational science of morals. It should seem, by the little that has hitherto been done in it,
that it is too hard a task for unassisted reason to establish morality, in all its parts, upon
its true foundation, with a clear and convincing light. It is plain, in fact, that human
reason unassisted failed men in its great and proper business of morality.

b. Two Treatises of Government

In Two Treatises of Government he has two purposes in view: to refute the doctrine of
the divine and absolute right of the Monarch, as it had been put forward by Robert
Filmers Patriarcha, and to establish a theory which would reconcile the liberty of the
citizen with political order. The criticism of Filmer in the first Treatise is complete. His
theory of the absolute sovereignty of Adam, and so of kings as Adams heirs, has lost all
interest; and Lockes argument has been only too effective: his exhaustive reply to so
absurd a thesis becomes itself wearisome. Although there is little direct reference to
Hobbes, Locke seems to have had Hobbes in mind when he argued that the doctrine of
absolute monarchy leaves sovereign and subjects in the state of nature towards one
another. The constructive doctrines which are elaborated in the second treatise became
the basis of social and political philosophy for generations. Labor is the origin and
justification of property; contract or consent is the ground of government and fixes its
limits. Behind both doctrines lies the idea of the independence of the individual person.
The state of nature knows no government; but in it, as in political society, men are
subject to the moral law, which is the law of God. Men are born free and equal in rights.
Whatever a man mixes his labour with is his to use. Or, at least, this was so in the
primitive condition of human life in which there was enough for all and the whole
earth was America. Locke sees that, when men have multiplied and land has become
scarce, rules are needed beyond those which the moral law or law of nature supplies.
But the origin of government is traced not to this economic necessity, but to another
cause. The moral law is always valid, but it is not always kept. In the state of nature all
men equally have the right to punish transgressors: civil society originates when, for the
better administration of the law, men agree to delegate this function to certain officers.
Thus government is instituted by a social contract; its powers are limited, and they
involve reciprocal obligations; moreover, they can be modified or rescinded by the
authority which conferred them. Lockes theory is thus no more historical than
Hobbess. It is a rendering of the facts of constitutional government in terms of thought,
and it served its purpose as a justification of the Revolution settlement in accordance
with the ideas of the time.

c. Economic Writings

Lockes writings on economic subjects do not rank in importance with his treatises on
government. They deal with particular questions raised by the necessities of the political
situation. No attempt had yet been made to isolate the fact of wealth and make it the
subject of a special science. The direction of industry and commerce was held to be part
of the statesmans duty; but, in the seventeenth century, it began to be carried out with
less thoroughness than before; and at the same time new problems were opened up by
the growth of the national life. The American colonies, the enterprise of the East India
Company, the planting of Ireland, the commercial rivalry with Holland and withy
France, as well as questions regarding the rate of interest and the currency, occupied the
attention of a crowd of writers in the second half of the century. Lockes own
contributions were occasioned be the financial problems which faced the new
government after the revolution. His reflections on the rate of interest show the growing
disfavor with which appeals for state interference were beginning to be met. He points
out the obstacles to trade that are caused when the rate of interest is fixed by law, and he
argues in favor of freedom for what he calls, in words which suggest Adam Smith, the
natural interest of money. Money turns the wheels of trade; therefore its course
should not be stopped. At the same time, he holds no general brief against the
interference of the state in matters of commerce; nor is the language of the mercantilist
foreign to him. Riches consist in plenty of gold and silver, for these command all the
conveniences of life. Now, in a country not furnished with mines, there are but two
ways of growing rich, either conquest or commerce. For us commerce is the only way;
and Locke condemns the amazing politics of some late reigns which had let in other
competitors with us for the sea. In the concluding portion of Some Considerations of
the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and Raising the Value of Money (1691),
Locke laid stress on the importance of a uniform and stable measure of values; four
years later, in hisFurther Considerations he defended his view against the proposals
involving a depreciation of the standard, which William Lowndes, secretary of the
treasury, had set forth in An Essay for the amendment of the silver coins (1695).

d. Letters on Religious Toleration

Lockes plea for toleration in matters of belief has become classical. His Common-
Place Book shows that his mind was clear on the subject more than twenty years before
the publication of his first Letter. The topic, indeed, was in the air all through his life,
and affected him nearly. When he was a scholar at Westminster, the powers of the civil
magistrate in religious matters were the subject of heated discussion between
Presbyterians and independents in the assembly of divines that held its sessions within a
stones throw of his dormitory; and, when he entered Christ Church, John Owen, a
leader of the independents, had been recently appointed to the deanery. There had been
many arguments for toleration before this time, but they had come from the weaker
party in the state. Thus Jeremy Taylors Liberty of Prophesying appeared in 1646, when
the fortunes of his side had suffered a decline. For Owen the credit has been claimed
that he was the first who argued for toleration when his party was uppermost. He was
called upon to preach before the House of Commons on January 31, 1649, and
performed the task without making any reference to the tragic event of the previous day;
but to the published sermon he appended a remarkable discussion on toleration. Owen
did not take such high ground as Milton did, ten years later, in his Treatise of Civil
Power in Ecclesiastical Causes affirming that it is not lawful for any power on
earth to compel in matters of religion. He abounds in distinctions, and indeed his
position calls for some subtlety. He holds that the civil magistrate has duties to the
church, and that he ought to give facilities and protection to its ministers, not merely as
citizens but as preachers of the truth; on the other hand he argues that civil or
corporeal penalties are inappropriate as punishments for offences which are purely
spiritual.

The position ultimately adopted by Locke is not altogether the same as this. He was
never an ardent puritan; he had as little taste for elaborate theologies as he had for
scholastic systems of philosophy; and his earliest attempt at a theory of toleration was
connected with the view that in religion, articles in speculative opinions [should] be
few and large, and ceremonies in worship few and easy. The doctrines which he held to
be necessary for salvation would have seemed to John Owen a meager and pitiful creed.
And he had a narrower view also of the functions of the state. The business of laws,
he says,

is not to provide for the truth of opinions, but for the safety and security of the
commonwealth, and of every particular mans goods and person. And so it ought to be.
For truth certainly would do well enough, if she were once left to shift for herself. She
seldom has received, and I fear never will receive, much assistance from the power of
great men, to whom she is but rarely known, and more rarely welcome. She is not
taught by laws, nor has she any need of force, to procure her entrance into the minds of
men. Errors, indeed, prevail by the assistance of foreign and borrowed succors. But if
truth makes not her way into the understanding by her own light, she will be but the
weaker for any borrowed force violence can add to her.

A church, according to Locke, is a free and voluntary society; its purpose is the public
worship of God; the value of worship depends on the faith that inspires it: all the life
and power of true religion consists in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and
these matters are entirely outside the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate. Locke therefore
(to use later language) was a voluntary in religion, as he was an individualist on
questions of state interference. There is an exception, however, to his doctrine of the
freedom of the individual in religious matters. The toleration extended to all others is
denied to papists and to atheists; and his inconsistency in this respect has been often and
severely criticized. But it is clear that Locke made the exception not for religious
reasons but on grounds of state policy. He looked upon the Roman Catholic as
dangerous to the public peace because he professed allegiance to a foreign prince; and
the atheist was excluded because, on Lockes view, the existence of the state depends
upon a contract, and the obligation of the contract, as of all moral law, depends upon the
divine will.

e. Theological Writings

Lockes theological writings exhibit the characteristic qualities which his other works
have rendered familiar. The traditions of theologians are set aside in them much as
philosophical tradition was discarded in the Essay. He will search the Scriptures for
religious doctrine just as he turned to experience for his philosophy, and he follows a
method equally straightforward. Locke does not raise questions of Biblical criticism,
such as Hobbes had already suggested and some of his own followers put forward soon
afterwards; and the conclusions at which he arrives are in harmony with the Christian
faith, if without the fulness of current doctrine. At the same time, his work belongs to
the history of liberal theology and is intimately connected with the deism which
followed; it treats religion like any other subject, and interprets the Bible like any other
book; and, in his view of the nature of religion, he tends to describe it as if it consisted
almost entirely in an attitude of intellectual belief a tendency which became more
prominent in the course of the eighteenth century.

f. Educational Writings

Lockes Thoughts concerning Education and his Conduct of the Understanding occupy
an important place in the history of educational theory, though only a scanty reference
can be made to them here. The subject had a right to prominence in his thought. The
stress he laid n experience in the growth of mind led him to magnify, perhaps overmuch,
the power of education. He held that the minds of children [are] as easily turned, this
way or that, as water itself. He underrated innate differences: we are born with
faculties and powers, capable almost of anything; and, as it is in the body, so it is in
the mind, practice makes it what it is. Along with this view went a profound conviction
of the importance of education, and of the breadth of its aim. It has to fit men for life
for the world, rather than for the university. Instruction in knowledge does not exhaust
it; it is essentially a training of character.

3. References and Further Reading

Letter on Toleration (1689)
Second Letter on Toleration (1690)
Two Treatises of Government (1690)
Essay concerning Human Understanding (1690)
Some Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering of Interest, and Raising
the Value of Money (1691)
Third Letter on Toleration (1692)
Some Thoughts concerning Education (1693)
Further Considerations concerning Raising the Value of Money (1693)
The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695)
A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity (1695)
A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity (1695)
A Letter to the Bishop of Worcester (1697)
Discourse on Miracles (posthumous)
Fourth Letter for Toleration (posthumous)
 An Examination of Father Malebranches Opinion of Seeing all things in God
(posthumous)
Remarks on Some of Mr Norriss Books (posthumous)
Conduct of the Understanding (posthumous)

http://www.iep.utm.edu/locke/

Political Theory in the Declaration of Independence

December 14, 2009 by samancini

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence to assert Americas

independence from Britain. European philosophers, including John Locke and Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, heavily influenced this document, demonstrating the significance of
political theory because of its ability to inspire political action and affect the formation
of new societies.

Jeffersons justification for independence rested heavily on John Lockes theory of

natural rights because he believed that the British government was depriving the
colonists of natural equality and liberty. He claimed, All men are created equal
(Declaration of Independence); this idea is based on Lockes belief that the state of
nature is a state also of equality (Locke 287). Furthermore, Jefferson claims that
people are endowed with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness (Declaration of Independence). In Lockes Second Treatise of
Government, he claims that people have a right of self-preservation (Locke 292)(i.e.
the right to life), which extends to the right to things that affords for their subsistence
(Locke 293) therefore creating the right to property. The colonists believed that the
British government was violating the right to property because it was taxing American
colonists without allowing them representation in British Parliament. Additionally,
people living in Britain were allowed to vote for members of Parliament, but American
colonists were not. This violated Lockes theory of natural equality and liberty, which
influenced the colonists to rebel against the British government.

Thomas Jefferson also used Rousseaus social contract theory to justify his assertion of
independence. Jefferson stated, Governments are instituted deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed (Declaration of Independence). The idea of
consent stems from Rousseaus On the Social Contract. He stated that this contract was
a reciprocal commitment (Rousseau 433) between people in a society and the
government they create. He believed a social compact (Rousseau 432) was needed to
form a government in which people gave consent to the government being formed.
During the American Revolution, American colonists believed that they were being
subject to a government without their consent because of the virtual representation
that did not allow them to vote for Parliament. They subsequently believed the
government was not formed by a social contract as advocated by Rousseau so they
rejected it. Furthermore, when they formed their new government, they used a social
contract. They required at least nine out of the thirteen colonies to ratify the
Constitution before it was adopted, and they instituted a government that allowed
landowning males to vote for their representatives.

When the Americans decided to rebel against Britain, Jefferson justified the call for
independence using the ideas of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This shows
that these political theories are significant and help shape societies. In America, John
Lockes theory of natural liberty and equality influenced the colonists to rebel against a
government that denied them liberty by taxing them (taking away their property) and
did not grant them the equal right to vote for Parliament that it provided to British
citizens. Furthermore, they believed that they did not form a social contract with the
British government, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau advocated, so they formed a new
government based on the consent of the people.

Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Modern Political Thought. Ed.

David Wootton. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2008. 287-297. Print

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. On the Social Contract. Modern Political Thought. Ed.

David Wootton. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2008. 432-433. Print

 The Declaration of
Independence and
Natural Rights
Thomas Jefferson, drawing on
the current thinking of his
time, used natural rights
ideas to justify declaring
independence from
England.

Thomas Jefferson, age 33, arrived in

Philadelphia on June 20, 1775, as a
Virginia delegate to the Second
Continental Congress. Fighting at
Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill had
already broken out between the colonists Thomas Jefferson (Library of Congress)
and British troops. Even so, most in
Congress wanted to work out some mutual agreement with the mother country.

For more than a year, the Americans had sent petitions to England proclaiming their
grievances against the British government. Colonists even appealed to the British people,
pleading with them to elect different members of Parliament who would be more open to
compromise. But the "British brethren" refused to do this.

Soon after Jefferson arrived in Philadelphia, Congress assigned him to draft a document
explaining why the colonists had taken up arms against England. Even at this late date,
the Congress still blamed only Parliament and the king's government ministers, not King
George himself, for the growing conflict. Jefferson's Declaration of the Causes and
Necessity for Taking Up Arms stopped short of declaring independence, but pointed out
the folly of governing the American colonies from England.

Neither Parliament nor King George, however, were interested in negotiations to prevent
all-out war. In August 1775, King George issued a proclamation charging that the
Americans "had proceeded to open and avowed rebellion." A few months later,
Parliament passed a significant act that placed the American colonies outside the king's
protection. This act allowed the seizing of American ships, justified the burning of
colonial towns, and led to sending war ships and troops, including foreign mercenaries,
to put down the rebellion. Meanwhile, the royal governor of Virginia offered freedom to
slaves who joined the British cause. These actions by the British king and government
inflamed Americans who were undecided about independence and made war with
England all but certain.

In May 1776, the Continental Congress took a fateful step and passed a resolution that
attacked King George himself. This was not the first time in English history that such a
thing had occurred. In 1688, Parliament had similarly denounced King James II. This led
to the so-called Glorious Revolution, which drove James off the throne. Now, almost
100 years later, a formal declaration of independence by the Continental Congress was
the only thing standing in the way of a complete break with King George.

The Declaration of Independence

Even before the Continental Congress declared independence, most colonies along with
some towns, counties, and even private organizations had issued their own declarations.
In most cases, these statements detailed British abuses of power and demanded the right
of self-government.

On June 8, 1776, the Continental Congress voted to write a declaration of independence

and quickly appointed a committee to draft a formal document. But the job of actually
writing the draft fell to Thomas Jefferson, mainly because John Adams and other
committee members were busy trying to manage the rapidly escalating war with
England.

Working off and on while attending to other duties, Jefferson completed his draft of the
declaration in a few days. He argued in his opening two paragraphs that a people had the
right to overthrow their government when it abused their fundamental natural rights over
a long period of time. Then in a direct attack on King George, Jefferson listed 20
instances when the king violated the rights of the American colonists. Having thoroughly
laid out his proof that the king was a "tyrant" who was "unfit to be the ruler of a people,"
Jefferson continued on to condemn the British people. "These unfeeling brethren," he
wrote, had reelected members of Parliament who had conspired with the king to destroy
the rights of the colonists. Jefferson ended his draft by stating, "we do assert and declare
these colonies to be free and independent states. . . ."

When Jefferson submitted his draft to the Congress on June 28, the delegates spent little
time on his opening paragraphs, which today are the most famous parts of the
Declaration of Independence. Instead, they concentrated on Jefferson's list of grievances
against King George and the British people.

The delegates made some small changes to improve the Declaration's clarity and
accuracy. But they also ripped apart the last sections of Jefferson's draft, deleting about
25 percent of it. They eliminated most of his harsh language directed against the British
people and totally cut out Jefferson's passionate assault on slavery and the slave trade.

The removal of the section on slavery, Jefferson's last grievance against the king,
probably resulted from objections by Southern slave-holding delegates. But Jefferson's
argument was weakened when he blamed the king alone for continuing the slave trade
and then condemned him for offering freedom to slaves who joined the British in
fighting the American rebels.

Jefferson grew depressed as more and more of his words were cut or changed. He later
wrote that the Congress had "mangled" his draft.

On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted to declare the independence of the
American colonies from English rule. On the Fourth of July, they approved the final
edited version of the Declaration of Independence. There would be no turning back now.

Natural Rights

The members of the Continental Congress made only two minor changes in the opening
paragraphs of Jefferson's draft declaration. In these two paragraphs, Jefferson developed
some key ideas: "all men are created equal," "inalienable rights," "life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness." Where did Jefferson get these ideas?

Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment. This was the period during the 17th and 18th
centuries when thinkers turned to reason and science to explain both the physical
universe and human behavior. Those like Jefferson thought that by discovering the "laws
of nature" humanity could be improved.

Jefferson did not invent the ideas that he used to justify the American Revolution. He
himself said that he had adopted the "harmonizing sentiments of the day." These ideas
were, so to speak, "in the air" at the time.

As a man of the Enlightenment, Jefferson was well acquainted with British history and
political philosophy. He also had read the statements of independence drafted by
Virginia and other colonies as well as the writings of fellow revolutionaries like Tom
Paine and George Mason. In composing the declaration, Jefferson followed the format of
the English Declaration of Rights, written after the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

Most scholars today believe that Jefferson derived the most famous ideas in the
Declaration of Independence from the writings of English philosopher John Locke.
Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government in 1689 at the time of England's
Glorious Revolution, which overthrew the rule of James II.

Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain
"inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or
even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty,
and property."

Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind.
To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve
their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the
law of reason.

Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct
their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore
believed liberty should be far-reaching.

By "property," Locke meant more than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or
even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred
to ownership of one's self, which included a right to personal well being. Jefferson,
however, substituted the phrase, "pursuit of happiness," which Locke and others had
used to describe freedom of opportunity as well as the duty to help those in want.
The purpose of government, Locke wrote, is to secure and protect the God-given
inalienable natural rights of the people. For their part, the people must obey the laws of
their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the rulers and the ruled. But, Locke
concluded, if a government persecutes its people with "a long train of abuses" over an
extended period, the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it,
and create a new political system.

Jefferson adopted John Locke's theory of natural rights to provide a reason for
revolution. He then went on to offer proof that revolution was necessary in 1776 to end
King George's tyranny over the colonists.

"All Men Are Created Equal"

Since 1776, no words in the Declaration of Independence have received more attention
than Jefferson's phrase, "All men are created equal." But how could Jefferson and the
other signers of the declaration believe this when slavery existed in the colonies? Some
slave owners argued that slaves would become equal and worthy of natural rights only
when they became civilized. For Jefferson, a life-long owner of slaves, this was a much
more complex issue.

At an early age, Jefferson concluded that slavery was wrong. To his credit, he attempted
to denounce slavery, or at least the slave trade, in the Declaration of Independence. Some
scholars believe that Jefferson agreed with the Scottish philosopher, Francis Hutcheson,
that all men are born morally equal to one another and that "Nature makes none masters,
none slaves." But, how does this explain that Jefferson kept most of his slaves
throughout his lifetime?

It appears that while Jefferson opposed slavery in principle, he saw no obvious way to
end it once it became established. If the slaves were freed all at once, Jefferson feared
that white prejudice and black bitterness would result in a war of extermination that the
whites would win. He fretted that if slaves were individually emancipated they would
have nowhere to go and no means to survive on their own. Of course, Jefferson along
with most other Southern plantation owners were also economically dependent on slave
labor.

The best Jefferson could come up with was a plan to take slave children from their
parents and put them in schools to be educated and taught a trade at public expense.
Upon becoming adults, they would be transported to a colony somewhere and given
tools and work animals to start a new life as a "free and independent people."

Nothing ever came of Jefferson's fanciful plan. Slavery in the new United States of
America would last another 89 years until the end of the Civil War. But even then, the
equality promised in the Declaration of Independence was denied not only to African
Americans, but also to other minorities and women. Even today, Americans are still not
certain what equality means in such areas as affirmative action, sex discrimination, and
gay rights.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal authority. It is not part of the basic law of
the United States like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But its words have
resonated as the ideals of the United States. Abolitionists in the 19th century asked
Americans to live up to the ideal of equality and eliminate slavery. The civil rights
movement of the 20th century pressured America to honor the commitment made in the
declaration. The document still speaks to us today about the rights of Americans, as it
did in 1776.

The complete text of the Declaration of Independence

For Discussion and Writing

1. List the main ideas in John Locke's theory of natural rights and revolution. Then
read Jefferson's first two paragraphs in the Declaration of Independence. What
similarities and differences do you see?
2. Write a letter to Thomas Jefferson expressing your views on his ideas about
equality and slavery.

3. "All men are created equal." What do you think this means for us today?