John Locke’s Second Treatise on
Civil Governm ent
(Com plete Notes)
Pr eface & Chapter s 1 & 2
Sum m ar y
In the brief Preface to the Second Treatise, Locke expresses the hope that his text will
justify the rule of King William, and speaks against the intellectual and moral failings of
Sir Robert Filmer's writings (please see Analysis).
In Chapter 1, Locke first reiterates his arguments from the First Treatise against Sir
Robert Filmer's writings. His points refute Filmer as follows:
Adam was not given absolute authority over the world and his children by God
Adam's heirs, therefore, did not have this authority
No one can claim rights since it is impossible to identify Adam's heirs today.
Locke aimed to refute Filmer's theory of the divine right of sovereignty. Locke finishes
the chapter by noting that one must not confuse different types of power—paternal,
familial, and political—for each has very different characteristics. He defines political
power as the right to make laws for the protection and regulation of property; these laws
are backed by the community, for the public good.
Locke addresses the natural instincts of people, or the state of nature, in order to define
political power. In Chapter 2, Locke explains the state of nature as a state of equality in
which no one has power over another, and all are free to do as they please. He notes,
however, that this liberty does not equal license to abuse others, and that natural law
exists even in the state of nature. Each individual in the state of nature has the power to
execute natural laws, which are universal. Locke then posits that proof of this natural
law lies in the fact that, even though a person cannot reasonably be under the power of a
foreign king, if a person commits a crime in a foreign country they can still be punished.
Locke states that natural law simply demands that punishment fit the crime—a person
in the state of nature can redress any crime to discourage the offender from repeating it.
Locke concludes by noting that all people are in a state of nature until a special compact
or agreement between them (which he promises to describe later) makes them members
of a political society.
,An alysis
In the Second Treatise, Locke rises above the specifics of the political situation
described in the Introduction to outline a coherent theory of liberal political
government, based on the sanctity of individual property and the state of nature. In
Locke's state of nature, no person has control over another, natural law governs and
renders all people equal, and every individual holds the executive power of natural law.
Locke's theory includes many assumptions. First is the assumption of a system of
morality—the natural law derives from a theory of justice, a set of rights. No one would
have any "rights" at all in the absence of a moral code applicable to human actions, nor
would there be any standard of "just" punishment. Locke frequently uses the term
"rights" and appeals to conscience and "calm reason," all of which reflect his
assumptions about justice and morality.
Since this is our first encounter with the text, let's take this as an entry-point to talking a
bit about Locke's writing itself, his syntax, word choice, and so on. Oddly enough, John
Locke, the great Treatise writer and political philosopher, had a fairly cautious
relationship with language. Book III of his famous Essay Concerning Human
Understanding is all about language, and expresses the idea that language should only
be used to convey ideas and meanings as simply, clearly, and economically as possible.
Locke's Second Treatise is actually quite simple to read, because he moves directly from
point to point, and is not given to hyperbole or repetition. Locke is not a rhetorician;
rather than play with words or language to compel the reader, he states his ideas as
strongly and clearly as possible. He notes in the Preface that "railing" responses to his
work will not refute his ideas—only rational arguments will. This simplicity of Locke's
writing gives his ideas a sense of compelling empirical clarity, which can often cause one
to overlook flaws in his philosophy (which we will address later).
Chapter s 3 & 4
Sum m ar y
Locke starts off by defining war as a state of "enmity and destruction" brought about by
one person's pre-meditated attempts upon another's life. The law of self-preservation,
integral to the law of nature, dictates that a person may kill another person in self-
defense. This definition rests upon the presumption that any aggression by one person
against another constitutes a challenge to that person's freedom. By this reasoning, one
can justifiably kill a thief since an attack on one's property represents a threat to one's
liberty.
Locke then outlines the differences between the state of nature and the state of war,
noting that the two are NOT the same. The state of nature involves people living
together, governed by reason, without a common superior, whereas the state of war
occurs when people make designs of force upon other people, without a common
, authority. In this case, the attacked party has a right to war. Want of a common judge or
authority is the defining characteristic of the state of nature; force without right is
adequate basis for the state of war.
The difference between war in Society and war in Nature depends on when they
conclude. In Society, war ends when the "actual force is over," because both parties can
then resort to the common authorities for arbitration of past wrongs. In Nature, war
does not end until the aggressive party offers peace and reparations for the damage
done; until then, the innocent party has a right to try to destroy the aggressor. Locke
notes that in the presence of a common authority that fails to act justly, the only possible
state is a state of war, because the arbitrating power in place to stop war is itself in
violation of the laws of nature and justice. Locke ends the chapter by noting that one of
the major reasons people enter into society is to avoid the state of war, for the presence
of a supreme power limits the necessity for war and increases stability and security.
Locke starts Chapter 4 by defining natural liberty as a person's right to be ruled solely
by the laws of nature, and social liberty as the right to be under no legislative power
other than that founded by the consent of the commonwealth, functioning for the
commonwealth's benefit.
Locke bases his ideas about slavery on the idea that freedom from arbitrary, absolute
power is so fundamental that, even if one sought to, one could not relinquish it; it is
therefore impossible for one to enlist into slavery voluntarily. The only possible state of
slavery is the extension of the state of war, between a lawful conqueror and a captive,
when the captive has been forced into obedience. Locke notes that even in Exodus, the
Jews did not sell themselves into slavery, but simply into drudgery, for their masters did
not have full power over their lives, and therefore, did not have full control over their
liberty.
An alysis
We should note that Locke's use of the term "war" really means "conflict," since he
addresses clashes between individuals rather than nations. In the state of nature, the
absence of authority requires individuals to protect themselves. In society, victims can
appeal to a common authority for the resolution of disputes, when possible (there are
times that this is impossible, as in Locke's justification for killing the thief). Locke's
definition of what constitutes, justifies, and ends a state of war continues his explication
of the natural foundation of government. We can see more and more how fundamentally
all of Locke's ideas rest on the right to personal liberty, and in the next section we will
see that he directly equates that libertywith property, making property the Treatise's
most important subject.
Civil Governm ent
(Com plete Notes)
Pr eface & Chapter s 1 & 2
Sum m ar y
In the brief Preface to the Second Treatise, Locke expresses the hope that his text will
justify the rule of King William, and speaks against the intellectual and moral failings of
Sir Robert Filmer's writings (please see Analysis).
In Chapter 1, Locke first reiterates his arguments from the First Treatise against Sir
Robert Filmer's writings. His points refute Filmer as follows:
Adam was not given absolute authority over the world and his children by God
Adam's heirs, therefore, did not have this authority
No one can claim rights since it is impossible to identify Adam's heirs today.
Locke aimed to refute Filmer's theory of the divine right of sovereignty. Locke finishes
the chapter by noting that one must not confuse different types of power—paternal,
familial, and political—for each has very different characteristics. He defines political
power as the right to make laws for the protection and regulation of property; these laws
are backed by the community, for the public good.
Locke addresses the natural instincts of people, or the state of nature, in order to define
political power. In Chapter 2, Locke explains the state of nature as a state of equality in
which no one has power over another, and all are free to do as they please. He notes,
however, that this liberty does not equal license to abuse others, and that natural law
exists even in the state of nature. Each individual in the state of nature has the power to
execute natural laws, which are universal. Locke then posits that proof of this natural
law lies in the fact that, even though a person cannot reasonably be under the power of a
foreign king, if a person commits a crime in a foreign country they can still be punished.
Locke states that natural law simply demands that punishment fit the crime—a person
in the state of nature can redress any crime to discourage the offender from repeating it.
Locke concludes by noting that all people are in a state of nature until a special compact
or agreement between them (which he promises to describe later) makes them members
of a political society.
,An alysis
In the Second Treatise, Locke rises above the specifics of the political situation
described in the Introduction to outline a coherent theory of liberal political
government, based on the sanctity of individual property and the state of nature. In
Locke's state of nature, no person has control over another, natural law governs and
renders all people equal, and every individual holds the executive power of natural law.
Locke's theory includes many assumptions. First is the assumption of a system of
morality—the natural law derives from a theory of justice, a set of rights. No one would
have any "rights" at all in the absence of a moral code applicable to human actions, nor
would there be any standard of "just" punishment. Locke frequently uses the term
"rights" and appeals to conscience and "calm reason," all of which reflect his
assumptions about justice and morality.
Since this is our first encounter with the text, let's take this as an entry-point to talking a
bit about Locke's writing itself, his syntax, word choice, and so on. Oddly enough, John
Locke, the great Treatise writer and political philosopher, had a fairly cautious
relationship with language. Book III of his famous Essay Concerning Human
Understanding is all about language, and expresses the idea that language should only
be used to convey ideas and meanings as simply, clearly, and economically as possible.
Locke's Second Treatise is actually quite simple to read, because he moves directly from
point to point, and is not given to hyperbole or repetition. Locke is not a rhetorician;
rather than play with words or language to compel the reader, he states his ideas as
strongly and clearly as possible. He notes in the Preface that "railing" responses to his
work will not refute his ideas—only rational arguments will. This simplicity of Locke's
writing gives his ideas a sense of compelling empirical clarity, which can often cause one
to overlook flaws in his philosophy (which we will address later).
Chapter s 3 & 4
Sum m ar y
Locke starts off by defining war as a state of "enmity and destruction" brought about by
one person's pre-meditated attempts upon another's life. The law of self-preservation,
integral to the law of nature, dictates that a person may kill another person in self-
defense. This definition rests upon the presumption that any aggression by one person
against another constitutes a challenge to that person's freedom. By this reasoning, one
can justifiably kill a thief since an attack on one's property represents a threat to one's
liberty.
Locke then outlines the differences between the state of nature and the state of war,
noting that the two are NOT the same. The state of nature involves people living
together, governed by reason, without a common superior, whereas the state of war
occurs when people make designs of force upon other people, without a common
, authority. In this case, the attacked party has a right to war. Want of a common judge or
authority is the defining characteristic of the state of nature; force without right is
adequate basis for the state of war.
The difference between war in Society and war in Nature depends on when they
conclude. In Society, war ends when the "actual force is over," because both parties can
then resort to the common authorities for arbitration of past wrongs. In Nature, war
does not end until the aggressive party offers peace and reparations for the damage
done; until then, the innocent party has a right to try to destroy the aggressor. Locke
notes that in the presence of a common authority that fails to act justly, the only possible
state is a state of war, because the arbitrating power in place to stop war is itself in
violation of the laws of nature and justice. Locke ends the chapter by noting that one of
the major reasons people enter into society is to avoid the state of war, for the presence
of a supreme power limits the necessity for war and increases stability and security.
Locke starts Chapter 4 by defining natural liberty as a person's right to be ruled solely
by the laws of nature, and social liberty as the right to be under no legislative power
other than that founded by the consent of the commonwealth, functioning for the
commonwealth's benefit.
Locke bases his ideas about slavery on the idea that freedom from arbitrary, absolute
power is so fundamental that, even if one sought to, one could not relinquish it; it is
therefore impossible for one to enlist into slavery voluntarily. The only possible state of
slavery is the extension of the state of war, between a lawful conqueror and a captive,
when the captive has been forced into obedience. Locke notes that even in Exodus, the
Jews did not sell themselves into slavery, but simply into drudgery, for their masters did
not have full power over their lives, and therefore, did not have full control over their
liberty.
An alysis
We should note that Locke's use of the term "war" really means "conflict," since he
addresses clashes between individuals rather than nations. In the state of nature, the
absence of authority requires individuals to protect themselves. In society, victims can
appeal to a common authority for the resolution of disputes, when possible (there are
times that this is impossible, as in Locke's justification for killing the thief). Locke's
definition of what constitutes, justifies, and ends a state of war continues his explication
of the natural foundation of government. We can see more and more how fundamentally
all of Locke's ideas rest on the right to personal liberty, and in the next section we will
see that he directly equates that libertywith property, making property the Treatise's
most important subject.
