Thomas Hobbes and John Locke provide a multitude of ideals regarding life in their pieces. Hobbes, in his novel, "Leviathan" stresses his beliefs in an absolute authority over citizens, as to ensure their safety of an untimely death. This concept of death is very prevalent in Hobbes’ workings, as he believes this is our one, ultimate fear. Locke asserts the preservation of three things: life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (this notion of life being similar to Hobbes.) In his piece, "Second Treatise" Locke states:
“sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention… reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction.” (Pg.14)
In this, Locke proclaims that one has the absolute right to preserve this one, coveted life.
 |
| Fictional John Locke exercising his right to defending his life |
This ideal makes complete sense as the conservancy of one’s life being the focal point
for any organism, so one should always be able
to defend these lives. However, Michael Walzer, in his piece "Just and Unjust Wars" brings about an interesting
argument that caused me to challenge this notion. He brings about the scenario in which a thief
is conducting an armed robbery. The
thief is in the process of his escape when the guard pulls out his gun, ready
to shoot. In this case, the guard is threatening the thief's life, and essentially putting him (according to Locke) in "a state of war," giving the thief the ability to defend himself and fight back. Does the thief have the right to defend the one, most important thing him, his own life? In this instance, I would have to argue with Locke and say no, individuals do not always have this right. Once one commits a crime, especially one in this magnitude I would assert that the individual loses this inherent right.
This brings me to the issue of the death penalty, a hot topic in society today. Some argue against it, they argue in favor of the innate right to life, and essentially take Locke's side. Some contend that the death penalty is classified as cruel and unusual punishment. My assertion, however, as I previously stated, is not very criminal friendly; if one commits a serious crime, they lose their right to defend their lives. If a criminal murdered a civilian, they lose out on this right and the victim's family desserves compensation, and concrete assurance that it will never happen again. The implementation of capitol punishment, may also act as a further crime deterrent and a solution to overcrowded prisons.
Locke's ideal of innate and absolute right to life and the preservation of it sounds agreeable on the surface, but has its faults. Criminals lose this right, and deserved to be punished to the furthest extents.
Images Sources: John Locke, Robbers, Death Penalty
 |
| Still have the right to defend their lives? |
Locke's ideal of innate and absolute right to life and the preservation of it sounds agreeable on the surface, but has its faults. Criminals lose this right, and deserved to be punished to the furthest extents.
Images Sources: John Locke, Robbers, Death Penalty
I agree in the fact that criminals lose rights, but not necessarily the right to defend their life. I don't necessarily think the thief in your senario deserves to lose his or her right to defend their life. However, I'm not saying that the crime should go unpunished either. If a security officer pulled a gun on me I know that I would choose flight or simply give up assuming I can't escape over fight. If the thief didn't choose fight, I believe that they haven't lost the right to defend their life. A murderer is much different than a thief though.
ReplyDeleteYou definitely make some interesting points here. When we consent to be governed, we are agreeing that we will abide by the laws of society in order to protect our own life, liberty and property. By abiding by these laws, we are also acknowledging that we will not threaten the life, liberty and property of our fellow citizens. That being said, I agree that when someone breaks that promise and threatens someone else's rights, they deserve some form of punishment. However, I do think that one's right to life is, in fact, inalienable. When we look back to the days of beheadings and gallows, we can't fathom the idea that they were involved in civil society. How could a government cut the heads off of their own citizens? While forms of the death penalty may be more civilized today (or as civilized as intentional death could possibly be), it is still death by the government. It doesn't feel right to me that an institution put in place to protect you could just as easily kill you (given that you violated the law in a severe way of course). We live in a time where it is very unlikely that one can provoke a state of nature by breaking the law. That being said, I think execution is a drastic measure, as the fear that one's disobeying of the law will lead to widespread unrest is really not a possibility anymore.
ReplyDelete