David Hume, John Locke and John Rawls on Property Essay

All the three philosophers, whose work I am going to scrutinize on, have in truth specific, yet in most cases common views on seat. First of all, let me define what the term property means. Property, as I see it, is an object of reas aned rights that is possessed by an individual or a group of individuals who are directly responsible for this it. In his work Of saveice, David Hume puts capacious emphasis on distribution of property in society. Hume believes that only the conception of property gives society much(prenominal) social virtue as saveice.Justice, according to Hume, is an important social virtue the fillet of sole purpose of which is public utility. To prove his point of view about how property distribution defines the existence of justness in society, David Hume gives several examples. Take an example of utopian society where nature supplies human beings with every convenience in great copiousness. It is a evoke where everyone has any(prenominal)thing he/she des ires in great amounts. Consequently, there is no any conception of property, because there is no need for it ? you stomach have everything without putting labor on it.Of course, in such a state, Hume argues, every virtue im disassociate flourish, except justice. Why top separation of property, if everyone has much than enough where there is no need to label objects mine or yours, because both of us can have these objects in great amount without any physical or mental exercise? Hume also gives real life examples, of water and air because of their great amount, no one is trying to control over them, separate them. According to Hume, in such cases justice is no longer exists in the list of virtues. For property, Hume thinks, plays an requirement role in making justice useful for people.OK ? but you quote yourself from a previous paper John Locke, in his work help Treatise of Government, writes about his views on the conception of property. In the chapter which is titled Of Prope rty Locke makes significant points about private property. He, first of all, tells how the right to private property originated. Being a true protestant, Locke believes that the right for the private property is given to human beings from God or as Locke himself writes that God has given the earth to the children of men given to world in common. Since God gave earth (and creatures and plants living and growing on it) in common, there should be some regulations what exactly and when can be called someones private ownership. For instance, there is a great territory of uncultivated land. When can it (or part of it) be called ones private property? When one comes and says the rural area is his/her, or when one draws borders and claims for ownership? Locke proposes the idea of labor. That only a labor puts a distinction between common and private. And he gives examples of orchard apple trees picked up from the common apple tree.The apples become private right after they are picked up b y their owner, because the owner put labor on making them private property. Then, very just question arises what if others will non give their consent in making common resources private? Locke thinks that in this case mankind would starve despite the abundance of resources God gave them. OK There may be an objection to this that if putting labor is the only thing required turning common into private, why not people take advantage of it and put great efforts to gain more private ownership. The answer that Locke gives is very simple ??as much as one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by labor fix a property in whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Therefore, the property is whatever one puts his/her labor in and can possess it for his/her convenience, but if some part of this property spoils or perishes, it is great injustice towards other members of society. Lockes view on property very much resembles Humes th ought of justice and property. Just like as Hume believes, Lock says that if there is a great deal of some natural resource, let it be land, the inhabitant of land do not value it.Hume would say that if certain convenience is given in abundance by nature, there is no property, hence no justice. Locke thinks the alike that in such cases, the inhabitant do value the land until there is no room enough for them in that space ? problems with this sentence. Only in this case, people start, all in consent, distinguishing the property. So Locke says that one should not possess more than he can afford to possess, i. e. conveniences that will be enough for his comfort.And he says that if a person gains more, and as a consequence, some part of property perishes, then(prenominal) it is a crime towards others. It is very interesting that Locke says perishes or spoils. If it does not perish or spoil, then it is not a crime, as ? the exceeding of bounds of his just property not lying in the la rgeness of his possession, but the perishing of any thing uselessly in it. And then comes money, being the only mean by which a person can exceed property without spoiling it. Locke thinks that only money make it possible to a person to enlarge his/her possessions without hurting others. And only existence of money make people lust for more, as it was said, it never perishes.Locke makes a commentator imagine of a place, where one has a big fertile land with a lot of conveniences. It is so big that it may perish as it is more than he/she needs. If there is no chance to sell it for money, this person goes back to the common law of nature that is using of conveniences what is enough for one. According to Locke, money, i. e. everlasting matter, is a key factor in peoples act for gaining private property. In explaining social order, John Rawls also gives special emphasis on property as being a part of economic arrangements.In his work Theory of Justice, Rawls says that everyone is equa l in the politico-economic sphere of life. A right for private property is also included to this. Rawls justifies this right on the basis of individual autonomy and integrity, which are also basics of social justice. Rawlss famous ? two principle of justice dictate that everyone must have an access to the basic liberties. Among basic liberties, Rawls include the right to hold personal liberty. He also argues about the economic unlikeness among those who possess private property.Rawls, in general, is against some kinds inequalities in possessing property. However, he writes that as long as such inequalities are mutually advantageous and do not exclude on party from benefits, then economic in equivalence is consistent to what he calls justice as fairness. Summing all the views on property and justice, which, as Hume writes, inseparably bound two each other, I would like to say that the fair distribution of wealth, which is justice, is very important in making the socio-economic life of a state healthy.Once there is no fair access to property, the society is apt to collapse, as it happened with socialist society of USSR, where all conveniences were common, even those on which a person put his/her labor. This, in contrast to capitalism, does not lead to competition or in other words ? to putting labor on objects to make them property. In such cases, there is no any justice, because those who work and input their labor and those who do not work get the welfare in the same quantities. The idea of property and justice, in general, is closely attached to the capitalist thought.Capitalism says that everyone has equal access to propertyopportunity? But not outcome?. It is fair to have property more than others if it doesnt undermine others rights. However, unlike to other philosophers, Rawls in his works debates on capitalism. As an counter argument, he gives the idea of liberal democracy that seeks equality in the distribution of property-owning rights. The equal pro perty distribution (by equal I mean what a person deserves), which is basis of democracy, is substantial in create healthy society where all virtues, especially justice, will flourish.Property is what world progress. Hence, I think, the access to property and rights to equal distribution of property are essential in every society. References 1. Reading materials of the course Approaches and Issues in Political Theory 2. http//www. bu. edu/wcp/Papers/Poli/PoliJung. htm 3. http//www. independent. org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_taylor. pdf 4. http//links. jstor. org/sici? sici=0748-0814(1992)9%3A2%3C347%3AJLJATS%3E2. 0. CO%3B2-J 5. http//spectrum. troy. edu/sltaylor/theory/hume-selection. html.