For Wednesday, October 8Can't We all Just Get Along?
For Friday, October 10
I think that all you bright people probably are beginning to recognize that several themes have been emerging in the discussions of this course:
We've examined various concepts of Human Rights.
We've seen, Cicero, argue that all humans have the capability of participating in one way or by putting forth the idea that our universal ability to apply reason (rigorous, systematic thought) allows us to discover (not invent) the universal moral and ethical principles upon which a good society is built.
We've seen how different concepts of equality and different attitudes toward human nature and human responsibility lead to different concepts of the purpose of governments. You're working on a paper on that right now.
We need to meet one more person from "the age of enlightenment, before we're ready to start our trek back to our own era. In the selection we're reading for today, we'll look at how these ideas influence the idea of government. Locke, like a few philosophers before him, understands that humans are "equal". But there are limits on what equality means, and we'll spend some of the period exploring what those limits are.
Then we have our first "right" to explore, and that's the right to own property.
One new idea you'll encounter in this essay is the commons. You may be somewhat familiar with the term. Bristol has a commons. Boston has a commons. Roger Williams has several: most of you encounter the Upper Commons and the Lower Commons several times a day. For that matter, Massachusetts is a Commonwealth and so is Pennsylvania.
After exploring what government means in a state of equality, locke goes on to explore the idea of Property. Locke asks what gives a person the right to claim to own something. The discussion which follows from this question is at the core of liberal capitalism and the democratic institutions which are related to it.
Note:
Locke comes from a world where farming is known and understood by most everyone. The great landed estates of the lords and ladies of the nobility drew their profits and income largely from the work of tenant farmers who paid rents on the lands they farmed. Even many city folk kept a kitchen garden. Thus it is understandable that Locke would draw his example from the world of nature. Most of us don’t live that way now, and for us other examples to explain how “property” is formed might be easier to understand.
Come prepared to give ONE example of a way “property” is created which doesn’t involve acorns or apples or other agricultural products.
Learn a Little More . . .
John Locke, like all good enlightenment figures, believed that things humans made were superior to things as found in the world of nature. This includes hair, which explains the dress wig you see in his portrait to the right. Click on his portrait for biographical information. You'll also see another image of him, this time in his natural hair.
Download andRead, Markup, and and write reflections on
Reminder: If you're planning on taking advantage of the Optional preview for Paper One, it must be submitted on Bridges by Midnight, tonight.
Boston Common (above) looks pretty park-like now. 150 years ago families living nearby would graze cattle, goats, and sheep on it. The children would take them down to the Common on the way to school, and pick them back up on the way back home.
Download andRead, Markup, and and write reflections on
Roger Williams’ Letter to the Town of Providence is most often seen as a plea for freedom of conscience, and it certainly does make a powerful statement in that regard. Notice, however, that along with a strong regard for the rights of individual freedoms, Williams offers some guidelines regarding an individual’s responsibilities to the community, as well. The metaphor Williams uses is one which sailors would all understand. We’ll see if we can fathom it out as well.
In our own day, within our nation and among the other nations we see many controversies which are religious in nature, and these controversies have political repercussions. (Think, for example about the current political campaign’s issues regarding abortion, or the present of what many call islamophobia in our society.
1.To what extent should a government enforce religious conformity? This is the question Locke raises in this essay. Is it legitimate to use the force of government to make people conform: either positive force (rewards) or negative force (punishments)? Why, or why not?
2.Locke defines civil authority this way: “The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests,” which he goes on to define as “life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.” Does this leave society any role in repressing ideas?
3.Taking the argument one step further, does any private individual have the right to deprive a person of his/her civil interest because of that person’s religion?
4.And finally, does Locke’s argument extend to everyone? Or are there some classes of individuals whose religion is such that it is appropriate to discriminate against them. Is Locke correct about this? What do you think?
God requireth not an uniformity of Religion to be inacted and inforced in any civill state...true civility and Christianity may both flourish in a state or Kingdome, notwithstanding the permission of divers and contrary consciences, either of Jew or Gentile.
Roger Williams
Learn a Little More. . . .
No reliable likeness of Roger Williams has been found. His exact birth and death dates are also not known. What we see is an idealized vision based upon the artist's attitude toward the subject. Click on the statue of Roger Williams to the left and find out about his importance in the history of religious freedom and freedom of conscience in this country.
Locke's concerns weren't just academic. England had undergone generations of civil strife with religious undertones. A woodcut from Fox's Book of Martyrs, an early account of the religious persecution is presented above. Click on it to locate other similar illustrations.
Once we establish that there are certain roles for Government, whether these are active or passive, positive, or negative, then the question remains where the rights of the individual and the rights of government intersect. What can the government legitimately require of its citizens, and when is it appropriate to coerce them?
A Change of Plans
We've come to a turning point in the course. We've investigated reason, remembering that Cicero argued that all humans were capable of thinking critically and rationally about things, and Kant argued that it takes couraged to do this. We've invistigated the idea of rights, natural and civil, and traced thinking about rights back to the 17th century. We've seen theories that government has functions regarding both the preservation of rights from those who would use their strength to abuse individuals (Hobbes) and also responsibilties to assist those in need (Winthrop) or as FDR called it "Freedom from Want". And we've also studied declarations that these rights are Unversal, a suggestion which Cicero suggested more than two millenia ago.
From time to time, I've asked "how are we doing"? with regard to rights in our day. We're going to spend a few weeks taking a look at two groups which have had their rights abused within the American Culture, and perhaps elsewhere in the world: Slaves, and women. We'll begin by taking a look towards emancipation and the slow march toward equal rights for African Americans. Shortly, after, we'll see women take up the cause for their rights, starting just before the 19th century. To prepare for this, I've decided to show us a video Journey through Slavery ep 1/4 - Terrible Transformation. It takes longer than our period allows, so we'll continue it on Tuesday.