Rationality In John Locke's Analysis

1475 Words6 Pages
Does rationality actually lead individuals to this conclusion, though? If it doesn’t, it seems as though Locke’s entire foundation of natural rights falls apart, bringing down the tower of the social contract with it. The most obvious counter to the idea that rationality would lead to a preservation of “life, health, liberty, and possessions” is that it may not actually be rational for every individual to respect these foundational right. In a world of David and Goliath (negating the religious connotations from the story), it may be entirely rational for a Goliath-type figure to trample upon Locke’s foundational rights. Someone bigger and stronger than the rest of men can take anything he wants. Therefore, so long as Goliath can get away with it, then it is actually within Goliath’s best interest to take other people’s food in order to fulfill his own needs. The obvious counter to this is that in a world with a Goliath, it would be rational for the other many Davids who have been victimized by Goliath to join together and fight back against Goliath, overwhelming him and ultimately defeating him. Therefore it is still within…show more content…
He has joined in a social contract with the community and people surrounding him. Therefore, Negan is hardly an example of rationality in the state of Nature. The issue with this is that Negan and his group exist in the state of Nature in relation to the other communities in the area. While they are certainly in a state of War with surrounding communities, they are still nonetheless within a state of Nature. And this argument speaks to whether the state of Nature ever has or can ever exist. While Locke’s formulations are purely hypothetical and represent an ancient time, even in the age of Locke, the state of Nature still
Open Document