Locke & the State of Nature

 Chapter II “Of the State of Nature” in Locke’s Second Treatise of Government is particularly interesting to me. Here’s to briefly summarize the chapter in a premise-conclusion form. Locke argues that all men are naturally born in a “state of perfect freedom”, where we have “uncontrollable liberty” to dispose of ourselves and our possessions, and a “state of equality”, wherein no more has more power or liberty over another (8-9). But Locke particularly distinguishes the state of perfect freedom from the state of license: people can dispose of themselves and their possessions but they cannot destroy themselves or their possessions. No one ought to harm not only others but also themselves. Because people can only choose to “wish to receive good” (8), we cannot do so unless we are careful about satisfying the “like desire” to receive good, given the premise that we are naturally in the state of equality and the nature of our desires are identical. If one does harm others, because we live under the state of equality, the imposer of harm must also look to suffer (9). Thus, we are naturally bounded by an obligation to mutually love each other amongst men. On the other hand, Locke acknowledges that we are all self-preservational creatures that might risk harming others to achieve our own ends and thus fall into a constant state of war. But also because we are bounded by the mutual obligation towards one another, to maximize humankind’s utility and thus our own, we are bounded to preserve the rest of mankind as well as ourselves. And the facility that we employ to bound ourselves and each other is the law of nature, which everyone has equal access to employ.

Two questions came to mind. First, I want to understand deeper why men do not have the equal right to destroy themselves and their possessions along with to dispose of them? It reminds me of the debate on abortion rights. If a woman chooses to get an abortion, she inevitably destroys themselves by harming their body and physical health in some way. But the fact that abortion harms health and thus disobeys this argument that Locke is making cannot invalidate a woman’s decision to get an abortion. After all, destroying oneself, as horrible as it sounds, is a part of one’s right to life.

Second, Locke argues that “in the state of nature, everyone has the executive power of the law of nature” (12). Because self-love will make men partial to themselves, it should be up to a civil government, not absolute monarchs to make decisions to rule by the law of nature. I understand Locke’s rejection of monarchy. But given his premises that argues that everyone is naturally in a state of equality and have equal right to preserve and punish each other and themselves, I am not quite sure how he is being skeptical here about the injustice that self-love might bring forth. If we have the equal right to preserve and punish others, shouldn’t we have the equal right to preserve and punish ourselves, under the natural state of equality? I might be overthinking Locke’s skepticism of self-love, but I do need some clarification here.