Mill Locke on Liberty Essay Example for Free

Mill Locke on intimacy Es citeThrough out history, many philosophers have discussed the rights of earth such(prenominal) as existence, liberty and especially blank space. In the ready The Second Treatise of Civil G oern custodyt write by John Locke, man kinds raw(a) rights ar critically examined one by one. This screen aims to discuss whether John Stuart Mills harm formula that he man mighttions in On Liberty can be exercised while not violating the cancel rights of mankind or not. First of all, in orderliness to find out the consistency of Mills harm article of faith with Lockes natural rights, concisely one should examine Lockes definitions of advance of nature and state of war. For Locke, when men live to dismounther middling and have right to judge all(prenominal) other, without a general authority such as a government it is called state of nature. For Locke, state of nature is a reasonable state that mankind live peacefully. And when men use force, or asser t a design of force over other men and scourge their lives, where also no common authority is present it is called state of war. Apart from the state of nature, in the state of war, Locke says that every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature which drags men into continuous and endless wars and quarrels.Consequently, because of living in state of war, men could not make use of their natural rights such as right of existence, liberty, plaza, health, and punishment and judgment. One whitethorn instantly, without giving you a chance of defend, hide you, take away your emancipation, seize you property and can do many other evil and iniquitous actions. In order to prevent the brutal outcomes of state of war, Locke highlights the need of common legislative authority over the members of the community which will lead men to state of society where possessing natural rights would have a heart and soul and use.From these points, with a general su rvey, one can establish relations with Mills harm principle in consistency with natural rights. Mills harm principle lets government or such common legislative authority use power, force or other instruments over persons against their will in order to prevent someone to harm any other. And what Locke is seeking by introducing common legislative power is not much different with Mills presentation of harm principle. Let me support my spatial relation by explaining the close relation between the natural rights of mankind and the principle.Right of existence and right of freedom cannot be secured in the state of war. The stronger members of the community would take hold of the others liberty which naturally have to be free from all superior powers and make them his slaves by at the same time threaten their lives, rack and killing them. And putting forward that they can do anything they want and live in fully pleasant because of the natural right of liberty. But that is not the libe rty of men.In such cases, rights of existence and liberty are attached to the willpower of the strongest although they are natural and given by god. True liberty is as Locke defines the freedom of men to follow their own wills and make their choices under the supervision of common legislative powers. So that for Locke such wills and actions that threatens others right of existence will not considered as natural right of freedom and not defend by government and vice-versa government will apply sanctions over whom uses right of freedom in boastful faith.Then one shall say that Mills harm principle is put into practice over Lockes natural rights of liberty. They joined together in the state of civilized society holding each other. Another very significant natural right that Locke talks about is property right. Firstly, he says that everything which lies on the earth created by god or nature belongs to the mankind in common. But mankind involve to use those unpossessed crops and frui ts of earth in order to satisfy their needs and support and comfort of their being. Inevitably, concept of property is compulsory.Locke, at that point, says that whoever puts his or her labor movement on something that belongs to nature and community becomes the owner of that thing and constitutes title on it. The apples which in nature and owned by everybody, when gathered from trees by someone by mixing labor into, becomes the apples of the laborer or gatherer. By that way, I recollect by mixing labor on something as Locke signifies, natural right of property can be established over something which is before common. However the school principal is, can one use Mills harm principle without violating Lockes natural property right?The process of mixing effort on something is unclear. One may exert any kind of force and work to get the property of anything and may say I have put my work on it although actions may not legal, unjust, unfair and not protected by government. Another aspect is how someone can know and set apart the common and the owned property? Again he may put his effort on something which is already owned by another. The rule, first come, first served is not so determining and in practice many conflicts may occur.In both cases someone may get hurt by anothers actions. So in a sense, it seems harm principle is needed to be accepted by the government in order to prevent such harmful actions performed by ones who try to own something. In my opinion, in such cases putting into practice the harm principle is not a violation over property right, seems more like a limitation on behalf of mankind. Moreover, as Locke also explains everyone should not labor more than he could make use of, otherwise indirectly others may be affected by scarcity and lack of resources.At that point again harm principle can step in, and in order to prevent someone to acquire more than what he needs, common authority may exercise power on selfish ones. In conclusion, one ma y say that harm principle generally can be exercised by community while not violating the natural rights but limiting it on behalf of members of the society. Because as I tried to show that without such instruments, I mean harm principle, people who had bad faith in, can use natural rights in evil things.