Philosophy
The book the republic two presents three kinds of good. The first category of good is the good that is accepted for its own sake paying no attention to the consequences of this good. The second kind of good is good desirable in its self and on account of its consequences. The third kind of good is good that is accepted on account of its consequences only. John Locke defines a just society as a society in which individuals are allowed their three basic rights that is the right to liberty, right to life and right to own property. John Locke however adds that in a just society the government has the capacity to tax citizens and send them to war. John Locke would consider the first kind of good as justice. The following essay examines john Locke’s just society and its similarities with the first definition of good.
Despite his emphasis on liberty being part of justice john Locke provides a loop hole. This loop hole involves the government being able to take the property of citizens through the various forms of taxation. John Locke fully embraces the concept of taxation and asserts that every government has the right to tax its people irrespective of whether they offer their approval of this taxation or whether they are against it. In the context of republic two taxation is good in itself. It is useful to the government as it enables the government to carry out its activities effectively and have the adequate funding for its effective running. The consequences of taxation on the citizens who are taxed heavily seem to have absolutely no significance. This concept advocated by john Locke does not take into account the plight of the citizens who are heavily taxed by their governments. Citizens are forced to part with large amounts of money and property in the form of taxation all for the government and in certain instances the citizens to not get their money’s worth in form of service for the government. What john Locke is advocating is the concept that as long as it has been established that taxation is good it should by all means be upheld. The consequences of taxation on the citizens are negligible and every citizen is therefore liable to pay taxes to their government. This is clearly in line with the first kind of good as displayed in republic two which emphasizes on intrinsic good turning a blind eye to the consequences of this so called good.
According to john Locke a just society is one which affords all its citizens perhaps the most fundamental and basic of all the human rights, the right to life. John Locke however further adds that a just government has the capacity to require of its citizens that they lay their lives on the line for their country in situations of war. Clearly dying for one’s country in a war is an act of bravery and perhaps the ultimate act of patriotism and sacrifice. John Locke however rules out the voluntary nature with which citizens can lay their lives for their country in a war. He asserts that citizens have this responsibility. It is no longer a matter of voluntarily sacrificing oneself for the love of one’s country. According to john Locke it is mandatory for every citizen in a situation of war. John Locke further asserts that a key element in a government being just its capability and capacity to call upon its citizens to lay their lives for their country in a situation of war. The concept of sacrificing one’s life in a war for one’s country is by all means a good concept, a brave one and a very commendable one. John Locke however rules out the concept of choice and free will of the citizens on the matter. He gives the government all the rights to call upon its citizens to go to war. He fails to take into account the impact going to war will have on the citizens actually going to war. He also completely ignores the impact the families left behind experience both in terms of psychology and emotions as their members are on the frontline laying their lives in the balance for their country. This concept is a good concept in itself, it is intrinsically good. It however leaves absolutely no room for the consequences this act by the government has on both the citizens back at home and the citizens at war with their lives on the line.
John Locke also provides a vague definition of liberty that asserts to the notion that according to john Locke liberty is relative and subject to convenience, especially the convenience of the government. John Locke’s definition of liberty is especially vague when it comes to the liberty of citizens to choose whether or not to go to war. The conventional definition of liberty means being able to act as one pleases as long as these actions conform to a certain code of conduct approved by the larger society or in simple terms a set of rules. This means that by definition citizens should have the luxury of choosing whether or not they want to go to war for their country. John Locke makes a complete U-turn on this issue when he further states that a just government holds the capacity to send its citizens to war. If a particular citizen was not willing to go to war the government would then be violating the liberty rights of this particular citizen by forcing this citizen to go to war. This is in pure agreement with the first kind of good as brought out in republic two. It is a good thing for a government to have a stable army. It is also a good thing for a government to have substantial manpower on the ground during situations of war. The consequences of this good are not evaluated in the sense that it remains insignificant whether the liberties if the citizens was violated by the government which sent them to war. The concept is good and is thus acceptable as just and it is acceptable to turn a blind eye to the consequences of the concept.
John Locke also claims that a just society is one in which the powers of the government are limited. In this just society every act and decision made by the governing authority has to be based on consent.in this just society, according to john Locke, the majority rules. This majority however has limits in as far as the ruling powers go. This majority is devoid of the right to violate the fundamental rights of the people be they members of the majority or members of the minority. If john Locke had stopped there his philosophical assertion of a just society would be in line with the second definition of good as depicted in republic two. This second definition of good asserts that a good act is considered just based on the intrinsic nature of this good deed and the consequences this good deed has on the greater society. John Locke however proceeds to violate the sanctity of this second definition of good. The emphasis point of this second definition of good is that it takes into account the effect these so called good accts have on society. Further analysis of john Locke’s definition of justice reveals that consequences do not have that much gravity with him.as long as an action is in itself a good action it passes john Locke’s measuring bar of justice. Consequences of these actions on the society are inconsequential as far as john Locke is concerned.
The third kind of good as it appears in republic two is directly contradictory to john Locke’s definition of justice and a just society. This definition of good assets that a good deed is acceptable based on the consequences this good deed has on the larger society. The intrinsic nature of the goodness of this good deed is of minimal importance. All that matters is the consequences of this good deed. A deed may be evil in its conception and nature but as long as the deed brings into fruition positive consequences for the greater society then this deed is by all means acceptable. This is directly contrary to the definition of a just society as put forward by john Locke. According to john Locke an act has to be good in its nature and conception. This makes it acceptable in a just society. The second type of good however emphasizes that a deed is god based on the consequences it has on society. These two points of view are directly contradictory of each other.
It is clear that john Locke would agree with the first type of good as brought out in republic two. Of all the three kinds of goon in republic two john Locke would consider the first kind of good as being just. This definition emphasizes on the inconsequentiality of a good deed. The teachings of john Locke also turn a blind eye to the consequences of actions that are considered just.in john Locke’s just society the government reserves certain rights irrespective of their consequences on the people. These include taxation and forcing citizens to serve in war. These powers of the government are good but their consequences on the citizens is not brought into account. This is much like the first definition of good where the consequences of the good are not considered.as long as an action is good it is thus acceptable irrespective of its consequences.
