Pre-class: Locke

My colleague and I are thinking along the same lines prior to Thursday's class. Would the logic of Locke's argument still hold if God were taken out of the equation? Well, I would have to answer "probably so" and "definitely not," depending on whether or not something replaces God in the equation.

If the logic of Locke's argument were to hold without the presence of God, one would need something to replace God in the equation. One could argue that humans are all equal based on secular grounds, and the logic could, it seems to me, still stand up. People argue for inalienable human rights on non-religious grounds quite often today. From there forward, one still obtains property the same way, still sets up society in the same way, and so on and so forth. While God is mentioned much more in Locke's argument than in Hobbes', God still seems to be passive beyond establishing the state of nature and endowing men with the natural law.

If one were to simply take God out of the equation without replacing it, I think the logic falls apart. Without some justification for the equality of all mankind, there's no reason to agree that political society is based on consent of the governed. If men aren't equal, who cares whether consent is given or not. Without the equality of all mankind as a basis, doesn't it just become about who has the most power?

The basis for Locke's argument that all people are equal as to the law of nature, as I see it, lies in the notion of imago dei. The notion posits that all people are equal because all are created in the image of God. Locke writes:

And Reason, which is that Law [of Nature], teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions. For Men being all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker; All the Servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the World by his order and about his business, they are his property, whose Workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one anothers Pleasure. (271)

Without the notion of imago dei, (or some similar basis that's non-religious), I don't think one can proceed to argue on Lockean grounds. It's all about equality, and the rights of people and necessity of consent because they're equal.

A couple ancillary thoughts:

• Locke spends a lot of time arguing for the supremacy of the legislative branch (Ch XIII) over the executive. This raises two questions: 1) Would Locke like the way America's social contract was formed? 2) Would Locke agree or disagree with how the relationship between the two branches has evolved over time?
  
• Locke clearly argues that it's okay (and perhaps even necessary) to revolt (396-397). Perhaps this stems from the idea that Locke's contract is a two-way proposition, where Hobbes' was only one-way.