Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:55:28.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Punishment, Property, and the Limits of Altruism: Locke's International Asymmetry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

ALEX TUCKNESS
ALEX TUCKNESS*
Affiliation:
Iowa State University
*
Alex Tuckness is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Iowa State University, 503 Ross Hall, Ames, IA 50011 (tuckness@iastate.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The standard interpretation of Locke assumes symmetry between punishment by individuals in the state of nature and punishment by states in the state of nature. The standard interpretation is incorrect because in cases where the punishment is altruistic, the state is not the functional equivalent of a person, having a more restricted power to punish. The asymmetry arises from Locke's contractualism because individuals in the state of nature might reasonably refuse to give governments the power to punish altruistically. This interpretation clarifies some ongoing puzzles about Locke's theory of property where questions about coerced sacrifices to benefit others also arise. Locke's argument is vulnerable to important objections, specifically that he equivocates on the meaning of the word “body,” that he places too much emphasis on the right of self-preservation, and that he legitimates nearly unlimited appropriation by states.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 102 , Issue 4 , November 2008 , pp. 467 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arneil, Barbara. 1996. John Locke and America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashcraft, Richard. 1986. Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashcraft, Richard. 1987. Locke's Two Treatises of Government. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen. 1999. “The Internal Legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention.” Journal of Political Philosophy 7 (1): 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coby, Patrick. 1987. “The Law of Nature in Locke's Second Treatise: Is Locke a Hobbesian?” Review of Politics 49 (1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Richard H. 1960. Locke on War and Peace. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cumberland, Richard. 2005. A Treatise of the Laws of Nature. New York: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Dunn, John. 1994. “The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention: The Executive Power of the Law of Nature, after God.” Government and Opposition 29 (2): 248–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Richard. 1985. Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentili, Alberico. 1933. De Jure Belli Libi Tres. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Goldie, Mark. 1991. “The Theory of Religious Intolerance in Restoration Europe.” In From Persecution to Toleration: the Glorious Revolution and Religion in England, ed. Grell, Ole Peter, Israel, Jonathan, and Tyacke, Nicholas. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Grotius, Hugo. 2005. The Rights of War and Peace. Trans. Barbeyrek, Jean. Ed. Richard Tuck. New York: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1991. Leviathan. Ed. Tuck, Richard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kirk, Linda. 1987. Richard Cumberland and Natural Law: Secularization of Thought in Seventeenth-Century England. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1963 [reprint of 1823]. Works. 10 vols. Germany: Scienta Verlag Aalen.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1979. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Nidditch, Peter. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1983. Letter Concerning Toleration. Ed. Tully, James. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1988. Two Treatises of Government. Ed. Laslett, Peter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John. 1996. Some Thoughts Concerning Education and the Conduct of the Understanding. Ed. Grant, Ruth W. and Tarcov, Nathan. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1997. Political Essays. Ed. Goldie, Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macpherson, C.B. 1962. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, John. 1994. John Locke: Religion, Resistance, and Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClure, Kirstie M. 1996. Judging Rights: Lockean Politics and the Limits of Consent. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Liam. 2000. Moral Demands and Nonideal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pangle, Thomas L., and Ahrensdorf, Peter J.. 1999. Justice Among Nations: On the Moral Basis of Power and Peace. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Parry, Geraint. 1978. John Locke. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Pogge, Thomas W. 2002. World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Pufendorf, Samuel. 1934. De Jure Naturae et Gentium. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pufendorf, Samuel. 2002. The Divine Feudal Law: Or, Covenants with Mankind, Represented. Ed. Zurbuchen, Simone. New York: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Schiller, Marvin. 1972. “Political Authority, Self-Defense, and Pre-emptive War.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1 (4): 409–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, John T. 2000. “The Sovereignless State and Locke's Language of Obligation.” American Political Science Review 94 (3): 547–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Niall, and Seglow, Jonathan. 2007. Altruism. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Seliger, Martin. 1968. The Liberal Politics of John Locke. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Simmons, A. John. 1992. The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sreenivasan, Gopal. 1995. The Limits of Lockean Rights in Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, Leo. 1953. Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Suarez, Francisco. 1944. Selections from Three Works. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tuck, Richard. 1999. The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tuckness, Alex. 2006. “The US, the ICC, and the Demands of Impartiality.” In Bringing Power to Justice? The Prospects of the International Criminal Court, ed. Harrington, Joanna, Milde, Michael, and Vernon, Richard. Montreal and Kingstone: McGill and Queens University Press.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 1980. A Discourse on Property: John Locke and His Adversaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tully, James. 1993. Locke in Contexts: An Approach to Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitoria, Francisco de. 1991. Political Writings. Ed. Pagden, Anthony and Lawrence, Jeremy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1988. The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1999. The Dignity of Legislation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Lee. 2006. “Locke on the Moral Basis of International Relations.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 691–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar