Lecture 1: Spinoza, Locke, Cugoano
Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)
● dutch philosopher
● radical metaphysics: God=nature
● kicked out of Jewish community
● biblical criticism
● author of theological political treatise
● against Hobbes: free speech
Theological political treatise
● remarkable defence of freedom of thought and speech
○ main argument is not grounded in value of free speech
○ practically impossible and hence counter-productive to try to restrict free speech→
any attempt to regulate what to think will lead to more dispute
● liberal conclusion built on Hobbesian principles
Spinoza and Hobbes
● their social contract theories agree on many points:
○ both of them believe that humans have natural right to everything outside of the state
○ state of nature is full of hostility→ conflict, violence
○ a legally unbounded sovereign must be empowered to secure trust and settle conflict
○ in their actions, citizens must obey the civil law in all things
○ government power extends over religious affairs as well
○ peace and self-preservation are main reasons for entering a state
■ for spinoza, security involves ‘freedom from fear’
Spinoza on right
● Hobbes’s right to everything
○ in a condition of war, the right of self-defence permits individuals to do everything→
radical (war of all against all) ex) enslaving, dominating
● Spinoza’s right to everything
○ God is nature(the things that exist)
○ everything in nature “has a sovereign right to everything that it can do; the right of
nature extends as far as its power extents; the power of nature is the very power of
God who has the supreme right to do all things”
○ whatever we do we have a right to do, no limits other than our own power
○ if I engage something i do so by the power of my nature=god’s power
○ we act by our own power we act upon God, animations of God
○ brings out the idea that right and power are equivalent
○ rights are bounded by power
No free speech in Hobbes
● rulers have a duty to secure peace and stability
○ this requires rooint evil doctrines which incite people to sedition out of the citizens’
mind and gently instil others→ censorship
, ● Spinoza: controlling freedom of thought and speech is impossible→ main claim
○ don’t indoctrinate people but let them freely think
○ people will always have the power and right to think freely
○ it is human nature
○ citizens cannot renounce the ability to make up their own minds→ we inevitably
communicate their thoughts to others
○ repressing free speech is counter-productive since it undermines trust and inspires
spirited resistance
○ rulers lack the power and right to control civil opinions
● toleration is the best policy given to human nature
Compare rights-based arguments
● Locke’s argument for religious toleration
○ political rulers have not been authorized by the people to take care of our spiritual
welfare
○ people cannot be compelled to believe things by force; religious compulsion is in vain
● Hobbes: political control over religion for reasons of social stability
● Spinoza: any regulation of religious beliefs is counter-productive
Upshot
● Spinoza formulates an internal critique of Hobbes
○ given Hobbes’s own principles and goals, he ought to allow free speech
■ human nature + peace requirement is not complete state control
● Locke voices external criticisms against Hobbes
○ arguments based on principles not shared by opponent
■ possibility of private property outside the state
● Liberal conclusions ←→ liberal principles
Locke (1632-1704)
● English philosopher and scientist
● personal secretary of Shaftesbury
● had to flee England because he was involved in revolution, plotting regicide
● exciled in Holland
● Author of Two treatises of government
● belief in property rights and rights in ourselves outside of state (not dependent on gov.)
Locke’s state of nature
● freedom means independence not licence
○ rejects Hobbes’ idea of freedom: true freedom is limied by morality
○ humans are free by nature but not to do whatever we want
● norms of justice still apply
○ the state of nature is not always a state of war
○ it can be a peaceful condition because morality applies
Main differences with Hobbes:
● right to use force is heavily curtailed
, ○ no right to invade and kill preventively for personal defence
○ morality determines when we can use force; we can only use it when someone else
harms you first
● Freedom is not licence
○ no general right to do what you think is right
○ all have the right to punish injustices
○ outside of the state, if someone uses violence without justification, we all have the
right to punish wrongdoers
● state of nature is not necessarily state of war
○ some extent a system of law enforcement outside the state
○ make sure people act socially
● property and binding contracts exist outside of the state
Locke on meaning of property
● respect person’s property
● property: includes both life, liberty and estates
● rights in their persons and external goods (I owe my actions, my freedom, my reputation,
myself etc.)
Property in the state of nature
● the earth belongs to all of us
● every man has a property in his person
● i am my own master and also my labor (what i work on) → whatever i mix m y labor with
becomes mine
● unclear how this argument works exactly
● don’t need other’s approval
● if i start growing corn on a land, it becomes mine because i worked on it
Limits to appropriation
● Spoilage condition: when something goes to spoil, it is not mine it becomes everyone’s again
● Sufficiency condition: we need to leave enough for everyone else, not everything is mine;
important that we don’t take everything that exists; only enough to take as much resources
Money corrupts but doesn’t rot
● Pace Hobbes: no security, for labor is productive
● spoilage conditions overcome by money
○ money allows us to gain more property
Locke on inequality
● beloved by the right: inequality does not matter
○ limitation: whether I leave certain things to decay; if i save money i don’t leave
anything to waste
● he was not a laissez-faire thinker
Social contract theories
● Hobbes, Spinoza
Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)
● dutch philosopher
● radical metaphysics: God=nature
● kicked out of Jewish community
● biblical criticism
● author of theological political treatise
● against Hobbes: free speech
Theological political treatise
● remarkable defence of freedom of thought and speech
○ main argument is not grounded in value of free speech
○ practically impossible and hence counter-productive to try to restrict free speech→
any attempt to regulate what to think will lead to more dispute
● liberal conclusion built on Hobbesian principles
Spinoza and Hobbes
● their social contract theories agree on many points:
○ both of them believe that humans have natural right to everything outside of the state
○ state of nature is full of hostility→ conflict, violence
○ a legally unbounded sovereign must be empowered to secure trust and settle conflict
○ in their actions, citizens must obey the civil law in all things
○ government power extends over religious affairs as well
○ peace and self-preservation are main reasons for entering a state
■ for spinoza, security involves ‘freedom from fear’
Spinoza on right
● Hobbes’s right to everything
○ in a condition of war, the right of self-defence permits individuals to do everything→
radical (war of all against all) ex) enslaving, dominating
● Spinoza’s right to everything
○ God is nature(the things that exist)
○ everything in nature “has a sovereign right to everything that it can do; the right of
nature extends as far as its power extents; the power of nature is the very power of
God who has the supreme right to do all things”
○ whatever we do we have a right to do, no limits other than our own power
○ if I engage something i do so by the power of my nature=god’s power
○ we act by our own power we act upon God, animations of God
○ brings out the idea that right and power are equivalent
○ rights are bounded by power
No free speech in Hobbes
● rulers have a duty to secure peace and stability
○ this requires rooint evil doctrines which incite people to sedition out of the citizens’
mind and gently instil others→ censorship
, ● Spinoza: controlling freedom of thought and speech is impossible→ main claim
○ don’t indoctrinate people but let them freely think
○ people will always have the power and right to think freely
○ it is human nature
○ citizens cannot renounce the ability to make up their own minds→ we inevitably
communicate their thoughts to others
○ repressing free speech is counter-productive since it undermines trust and inspires
spirited resistance
○ rulers lack the power and right to control civil opinions
● toleration is the best policy given to human nature
Compare rights-based arguments
● Locke’s argument for religious toleration
○ political rulers have not been authorized by the people to take care of our spiritual
welfare
○ people cannot be compelled to believe things by force; religious compulsion is in vain
● Hobbes: political control over religion for reasons of social stability
● Spinoza: any regulation of religious beliefs is counter-productive
Upshot
● Spinoza formulates an internal critique of Hobbes
○ given Hobbes’s own principles and goals, he ought to allow free speech
■ human nature + peace requirement is not complete state control
● Locke voices external criticisms against Hobbes
○ arguments based on principles not shared by opponent
■ possibility of private property outside the state
● Liberal conclusions ←→ liberal principles
Locke (1632-1704)
● English philosopher and scientist
● personal secretary of Shaftesbury
● had to flee England because he was involved in revolution, plotting regicide
● exciled in Holland
● Author of Two treatises of government
● belief in property rights and rights in ourselves outside of state (not dependent on gov.)
Locke’s state of nature
● freedom means independence not licence
○ rejects Hobbes’ idea of freedom: true freedom is limied by morality
○ humans are free by nature but not to do whatever we want
● norms of justice still apply
○ the state of nature is not always a state of war
○ it can be a peaceful condition because morality applies
Main differences with Hobbes:
● right to use force is heavily curtailed
, ○ no right to invade and kill preventively for personal defence
○ morality determines when we can use force; we can only use it when someone else
harms you first
● Freedom is not licence
○ no general right to do what you think is right
○ all have the right to punish injustices
○ outside of the state, if someone uses violence without justification, we all have the
right to punish wrongdoers
● state of nature is not necessarily state of war
○ some extent a system of law enforcement outside the state
○ make sure people act socially
● property and binding contracts exist outside of the state
Locke on meaning of property
● respect person’s property
● property: includes both life, liberty and estates
● rights in their persons and external goods (I owe my actions, my freedom, my reputation,
myself etc.)
Property in the state of nature
● the earth belongs to all of us
● every man has a property in his person
● i am my own master and also my labor (what i work on) → whatever i mix m y labor with
becomes mine
● unclear how this argument works exactly
● don’t need other’s approval
● if i start growing corn on a land, it becomes mine because i worked on it
Limits to appropriation
● Spoilage condition: when something goes to spoil, it is not mine it becomes everyone’s again
● Sufficiency condition: we need to leave enough for everyone else, not everything is mine;
important that we don’t take everything that exists; only enough to take as much resources
Money corrupts but doesn’t rot
● Pace Hobbes: no security, for labor is productive
● spoilage conditions overcome by money
○ money allows us to gain more property
Locke on inequality
● beloved by the right: inequality does not matter
○ limitation: whether I leave certain things to decay; if i save money i don’t leave
anything to waste
● he was not a laissez-faire thinker
Social contract theories
● Hobbes, Spinoza
