Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Locke Vs Hume on Property
60
Hume Vs Locke on Property
Taking everything for yourself is wrong, and take only what you can make use of.
HUME
Since property has never been defined by nature, the concept is man-made and artificial. Societies are made to establish these laws
He disagrees that there is a state of nature.
People acquiring personal property and constantly looking to improve object will lead to the growth of a society.
Natural Law: Morality that exists in the state of nature (as made by God). Since God made everything, all things belong to him. Therefore, we can use only what we make use of.
LOCKE
"What other reasons, indeed, could writers ever give, why this must be mine and that yours, since uninstructed nature, surely, never made such a claim?"
Example: if you catch a fish, it is yours to eat.
Hume writes that private property is a necessity. If it did not exist, people would be "exposed to the violence of others."
Question:
"Who sees not, for instance, that whatever is produced or improved by a mans art or industry ought, forever, to be secured to him, in order to give encouragement to such useful habits and accomplishment?"
Consider Robinson Crusoe, who grew up on an island and had never seen another human. What would Locke and Hume consider to be his personal property?
Locke: Every piece of land that Crusoe worked, as well as every object that he put labor into would be his
Hume: Crusoe has never known the concept of scarcity, and therefore would have no concept of property.
QUESTIONS?
Locke believes that each person owns their labor. Therefore, if you put any energy into an object, the object is yours.