On Locke's State Of Nature

Normally, when mention Locke's state of nature, people are almost ready to call it"a state of perfect freedom"; or, at most to cite the decription given in the《Second Treatise》by Locke himself :"Men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of Nature"(sec 19). However, these comprehensions are far from enough to decipher the very essence of this important concept.On one hand, for Locke's"defintion", the meaning of"a common superior"or"a judge with authority"is blur; sometimes it equals to a state of government which is to say, a state without"a judge with authority"is equal to the state of anarchy; and this is saying nothing at all. On the other hand, even though,"a judge with authority"is weaker condition than state, that is, people joint voluntarily into a contract to transfer the authority to a third party, in order to introduce"a judge with authority", it is not a strict definition but only a sufficient not even a necessary condition. Because, as it is for Locke, not all contract can enable a man to disengage from the state of Nature, while only a contract that is stronge and complicated enough to bind people together in order to establish a state can do perform such a function.The core of the modern state of Nature theory is a combination of social contract,natural rights and natural law. And Locke himself had asserted that: all men are naturally in the state of nature. Why all men are naturally in the state of nature? Obviously, it does not seem to be very persuasive, if we apprehend this concept as a certain society or some historical facts existed once upon a time. So, the essence of this concept is the moral fiction it contains, which is expressed in the form of natural rights and natural law. By all those evidence available, I tried to give a definition to the state of Nature: An individual, as long as he did not join a political community voluntarily, he would remain in the state of Nature in which he is free and equal with anyone else, meanwhile doomed with all the natural rights endowed by the natural law.By this definition(if it is correct), many confusing problems can be easily resovled. For example, is state of Nature a"perfect freedom"or a condition"full of fears and continual dangers"? According to our definition, the concept of state of Nature is not a description on society or historical facts, rather, it is only a moral fiction; it differs from the reality of social affairs. Whether peaceful or full of dagers, they are only two poles of the sociaty under the state of Nature and are nonrelated to the core of this concept.As we have proved, state of Nature is a moral fiction, or, exactly those rights and obligation endowed by natural law. Thus, in order to give a full image of this concept, we must do some basic studies on natural rights and natural law. Although, it is not Locke's purpose to enter into the particulars of the law of Nature, he presented several of these. This essay focused on the three most important ones, namely: self-preservation,preservation of others and the right of property. Self-preservation as a natraul law, is also a natural right. Like Hobbes, self-preservation is the presuppostion of Locke's natural law and natural rights. For a rational creature, a rational self-reservation require that one do not harm another, as assultation upon others leads to revenge; it is where the second natural law—preservation of others is deduced. Meanwhile, self-preservation is only guaranteed when the means of it—right to property is available which is how the property right be justified.Justification of property right, is essential for the《Second Treatise》. And this also the major concern of this essay. It is assumed that Locke's theory of appropriation is based on the"labor theory". However, the"labor theory"can not explain all the examples such as picking up acorns given by Locke: obviouly, picking up a acorn under the oak did not add any value into it. Thus, the theory that appropriation is justified by the fact the labor paid on item added the value of that item and consequently made the item one's property would not make any sense here. So, it is only by the explaination given by natural law can we fully and intensively under Locke's theory of appropriation.After the clarification of the concept itself, this essay also tries to demonstrate the significance of state of Nature from an overall perspective of Locke's political thoughts. As it is noted by Robert Nozick, the fundamental understanding of the political realm can only be gained by a"non-political"expanatory theory. While the state of Nature is the very"non-political"element which served as the presupposition of the whole deductive system. At the end of this essay, there is some illumination on the confusing question of whether state of Nature are historical facts. As for the moral and relative nature of this concept, state of Nature can exist in the past,now and in the future. While as for the existence of a society under the state of Nature, the answer may not be affirmative. Locke's blur use of state of Nature is origin of misunderstandings.In conclusion, Locke's state of Nature is moral fiction, an understanding by which we can cast away all those misinterpretion and further intensify our understandings of Locke's whole political philosophy.