Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:57:30.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hunger, Need, and the Boundaries of Lockean Property

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2018

DAVID G. DICK
DAVID G. DICK*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
*
*<dgdick@ucalgaryco.ca>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Locke’s property rights are now usually understood to be both fundamental and strictly negative. Fundamental because they are thought to be basic constraints on what we may do, unconstrained by anything deeper. Negative because they are thought to only protect a property holder against the claims of others. Here, I argue that this widespread interpretation is mistaken. For Locke, property rights are constrained by the deeper ‘fundamental law of nature,’ which involves positive obligations to those in need and confines the right to excess property within circumstances where it is not needed to preserve human life.

Le droit de propriété tel que défini par Locke est généralement considéré comme fondamental et strictement négatif. Il est fondamental car il détermine ce que nous pouvons faire, sans être lui-même contraint par des normes plus profondes. Il est négatif car on considère qu’il ne fait que protéger les propriétaires contre les prétentions des autres. Je souhaite démontrer que cette interprétation est erronée, le droit de propriété étant soumis chez Locke à une loi plus profonde, la «loi fondamentale de la nature», qui suppose des obligations envers les plus vulnérables et limite le droit à l’excès de propriété s’il entre en conflit avec la préservation de la vie humaine.

Keywords

Lockepropertycharityhungerrightspovertywealth
Type
Original Article/Article original
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 527 - 552
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2018 

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

Forde, Steven 2009 “The Charitable John Locke.” Review of Politics 71 (03): 428–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelfarb, Gertrude 1984 The Idea of Poverty: England in the Early Industrial Age. London and Boston: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Locke, John 1975 An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Nidditch, Peter H. (Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published in 1690.)Google Scholar
Locke, John 1980 Second Treatise of Government. Macpherson, C.B. (Ed.). Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published in 1690.)Google Scholar
Locke, John 1993 “Venditio,” in John Locke: Political Writings, edited by Wooton, David. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, pp. 442–446. (Original work written in 1695.)Google Scholar
Locke, John 1997 “An Essay on the Poor Law,” in Political Essays, edited by Goldie, Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182–198. (Original work written in 1697; published 1789.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John 1999 Two Treatises of Government. Laslett, Peter (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1690.)Google Scholar
Mack, Eric 2009 John Locke. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Macpherson, C.B. 1962 The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Macpherson, C.B. 1980 “Editor’s Introduction,” in Second Treatise of Government, edited by Macpherson, C.B.. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, pp. vii-xxi.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert 1974 Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Railton, Peter 1985 “Locke, Stock, and Peril: Natural Property Rights, Pollution, and Risk,” in To Breathe Freely: Risk, Consent, and Air, edited by Gibson, Mary. Totawa, New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld Publishers, pp. 89–123.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya 1988 “Property and Hunger.” Economics and Philosophy 4 (1): 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin 1993 “Locke and Limits on Land Ownership.” Journal of the History of Ideas 52 (1): 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, Peter 1972 “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (3): 229–243.Google Scholar
Singer, Peter 2009 The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Sreenivasan, Gopal 1995 The Limits of Lockean Rights in Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tully, James 1980 A Discourse on Property: John Locke and His Adversaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winfrey, John C. 1981 “Charity Versus Justice in Locke’s Theory of Property.” Journal of the History of Ideas 42 (3): 423–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar