In the previous post I introduced John Locke’s theory of the state of nature, and his defence of property, and I began to critique it, if you haven’t yet read the previous post, I suggest you do, as it might be difficult to follow this one otherwise. Let’s Leave the economic realm let’s talk about the Lockean philosophy and how it applies to relations between the sexes. What is the logic of the one nightstand? Or of the feminist idea of harassment? The one nightstand takes the idea of sex as an individual and autonomous act between two individuals. Reciprocal exchange is the norm here, Person A meets person B, they find each other physically attractive, and they contract a sexual encounter, which is mutually pleasurable (hopefully), and then the contract is over, no rights have been violated, autonomy is maintained. It seems to fit perfectly with John Locks idea of the state of nature and humans rights he says:
John Locke is probable the most important enlightenment thinker when it comes to modern Anglo-American Liberalism, which has come to dominate the world. The second book of his “treatises of government” is one of the seminal works of Liberalism, creating a philosophical framework on which both Democracy, Capitalism, and Liberalism have built upon. John Locke is, in my opinion, hugely mistaken when it comes to the nature of man and the nature of rights (especially property), this mistake shakes the entire foundation of John Locke’s Liberalism and I think it is unfortunate that modern ideology more or less takes John Locke’s political philosophy as axiomatic, despite it being extremely problematic when examined. Anyone interested in modern Liberal ideology should examine John Locke’s “two treatises of government,” since it is so important to the development of Liberal ideology. In this post, I’ll be critiquing what I find problematic in his political theory found in “Two Treatises of Government – Book 2”, specifically on the nature of man and rights.
To start with let’s take a look at his concept of a “state of Nature,” he says in Chapter 2:
The Book by Alain Badiou called in Praise of love is one I think everyone should read, it’s short, concise and explains in a non-reductive but thoughtful way what love is and why it is important, not from a Christian standpoint, but in fact from a French Atheist Marxist’s standpoint, which in fact happens to coincide with the Christian standpoint in many respects. With soaring divorce rates, the rise of buisinesses that commodify sex and love (such as tinder, to give an obvious example), more and more people becoming permanently single and lonely, and with a general growing attitude of egotism and a growing alienation the topic of love is becoming something that needs to be dealt with.
It’s unfortunate that in much of the west today certain things are taken as axioms, for example it’s taken for granted that individual rights and private property are sacred untouchables, whereas the common good and moral obligations are secondary and at best individual choices. It’s also taken for granted that the realm of the sacred (beyond those axioms), or the realm of morality have no place in public life, “keep your morality to yourself,” is one of the mottos of today.
John Milbank’s (Anglican Theologian and founder of the Radical Orthodoxy Movement) article, How Liberalism Is Undoing Itself, is a wonderful short analysis on some of the ideological effects of liberalism (economic, social and cultural). He points out wonderfully that the 2 liberalisms (economic and social/cultural) although very often on different sides of the political table, share a common understanding: