Seventeenth century philosopher John Locke, born in England as the son of an attorney, was one of the first political advocates to espouse the benefits of individual freedoms and of a tolerant liberal justice. For Locke, the sole purpose of political institutions was to insure basic rights and peaceful security under the watchful eye of forbearance. He further believed that everything beyond this institutionalized security resides in a persons’ private domain, and so therefore, lies beyond the reach of government and public scrutiny. For this reason, Locke believed that government arises from the free consent of free individuals, and that, furthermore, civil society is merely a means by which to secure these natural freedoms. Consequently, Locke considered this relationship to be an agreement of morality and equality within the confines of the Laws of Nature. By definition, the Laws of Nature dictated that no one should harm another in regards to his life, liberty, and possessions, and that one falls short in his or her moral obligations if they fail to do so. So, under these circumstances, it can be assumed that free consent is the sole legitimate source of political mandate and authority. So, importantly, it is imperative to examine the source and depth of this moral obligation if we are to understand Locke’s view of individual civil liberty.

The natural moral conditions of people define the political agreement for Locke. “To understand political power right…we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is a state of perfect freedom…within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.” (Locke, Second Treatise of Government) As such, these natural conditions, such as the right to punish and the right to own property, are at the base of his endorsement of civil liberty. No man or institution can interfere or eliminate these rights since they are intrinsic to our being. Subsequently, these liberties underlie his requirement of the aforementioned free consent, since we are maximizing our self-interest by creating a social contract defined by this mutual advantage. As such, the question remains, are these rights correlated to obligation? And, if they are, do our obligations trump our civil liberty? For Locke, moral obligations stem from the belief that we are created by God and are therefore God’s property. Consequently, we are free to do what we want as long as we do not harm another or their property and possessions. This entails that our moral obligations cannot override our liberty since our moral obligations require a commitment to equality and independence.

This ideology, absent the reference to God, is analogous to many modern secular theories of justice, and can be viewed as a precursor to contemporary liberal government. Moreover, since Locke takes a hands-off view of government’s interference with the practice of religion, his appeal to the will of God is not an incitement for intolerance. On the contrary, since he sees God as the reason for moral obligation and not as a forced entity of politics, every man should be free to worship as he sees fit. Within this context, secularity is an inclusive term not an exclusive promulgation. So, even though he argues that a belief in God is derived from reason, he also feels that a separation of church and state is a necessity for peace in a civil society. Why is this the case? Mainly because Locke feels that one’s religious beliefs are outside of a civil magistrates jurisdiction since it is irrational to place the salvation of one’s soul into another’s hands. He adds to this the conception that spiritual beliefs cannot be forced.

Concurrently, Locke understands that there should be an established and known law executed by an indifferent judge. This judge has no ties to the citizens and is authorized to govern by the declared laws so that each person’s peace, rights, and property will remain secure. Locke also believes that this judge is necessary in order to avoid a state of war. “Force without right, upon a man’s person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge…” (Locke, Second Treatise of Government) As such, this common judge provides something unavailable in the state of nature, and that is an impartial viewpoint from which to determine both the severity of a crime, and the punishment proportionate to that crime.

Conclusively, Locke bases his ideal political state on the equality and independence of humankind in the state of nature. Civil society exists only to protect and secure these freedoms and for the purpose of tolerance. Clearly, many of these notions, existant in our modern liberal government, are still held in deep regard today. As such, Locke’s viewpoint can be encapsulated and defined as forward thinking and unique for his time. As a contractualist, his belief that political power could only be legitimized via rational consent was a remarkable thought given the landscape of his era, and a precurser to the twentieth century ideology of civil liberty. He is undoubtedly
a philosophical maverick worthy of study within a contempory societal discourse.