Locke on Prerogative

Philipp Schönegger, H. Sætra
{"title":"Locke on Prerogative","authors":"Philipp Schönegger, H. Sætra","doi":"10.5206/ls.2023.16399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"John Locke’s role in the advent of modernity has been debated widely. His work has been (ab)used by those arguing from libertarian, democratic, communitarian, socialist, feminist, or postcolonial points of view, either portraying him as a forefather of their preferred political theory or as an antagonist to their avowed political and philosophical goals. In this paper, we are primarily concerned with highlighting the importance of the executive’s prerogative in Locke’s philosophy, as we argue that this concept, often banished to the side-lines, is indeed central to Locke’s political theory. This partial neglect entails that some of the most popular readings of Locke are potentially based on faulty premises. We focus on how Locke’s prerogative is antithetical to the project of seeing Locke as a forefather of libertarianism. Furthermore, this paper’s arguments could also support challenges to interpretations of Locke as an early and important proponent of democracy. Rather than seeking to find support for modern theories through anachronistic and dubious readings of Locke, we focus on how he conceived of an exceedingly strong executive whose actions are exclusively restricted by the public good. We conclude that there is good reason to consider his philosophy proto-utilitarian, something that further highlights the conflict with libertarianism. As such, we conclude that libertarian or democratic theories postulating Locke as their direct predecessor should be re-examined to account for these findings.","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Locke Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5206/ls.2023.16399","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

John Locke’s role in the advent of modernity has been debated widely. His work has been (ab)used by those arguing from libertarian, democratic, communitarian, socialist, feminist, or postcolonial points of view, either portraying him as a forefather of their preferred political theory or as an antagonist to their avowed political and philosophical goals. In this paper, we are primarily concerned with highlighting the importance of the executive’s prerogative in Locke’s philosophy, as we argue that this concept, often banished to the side-lines, is indeed central to Locke’s political theory. This partial neglect entails that some of the most popular readings of Locke are potentially based on faulty premises. We focus on how Locke’s prerogative is antithetical to the project of seeing Locke as a forefather of libertarianism. Furthermore, this paper’s arguments could also support challenges to interpretations of Locke as an early and important proponent of democracy. Rather than seeking to find support for modern theories through anachronistic and dubious readings of Locke, we focus on how he conceived of an exceedingly strong executive whose actions are exclusively restricted by the public good. We conclude that there is good reason to consider his philosophy proto-utilitarian, something that further highlights the conflict with libertarianism. As such, we conclude that libertarian or democratic theories postulating Locke as their direct predecessor should be re-examined to account for these findings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
洛克论特权
约翰·洛克在现代性到来中所扮演的角色一直备受争议。他的著作被那些主张自由意志主义、民主主义、社群主义、社会主义、女权主义或后殖民主义观点的人所使用,要么将他描绘成他们偏爱的政治理论的先驱,要么将他描绘成他们公开宣称的政治和哲学目标的反对者。在本文中,我们主要关注的是强调行政特权在洛克哲学中的重要性,因为我们认为这个经常被边缘化的概念确实是洛克政治理论的核心。这种部分的忽视导致对洛克的一些最流行的解读可能是基于错误的前提。我们关注的是洛克的特权是如何与将他视为自由意志主义之父的观点相对立的。此外,本文的论点也可以支持对洛克作为民主的早期和重要支持者的解释的挑战。我们不是通过对洛克的不合时宜和可疑的解读来寻求对现代理论的支持,而是关注他是如何设想一个极其强大的行政长官,他的行为完全受到公共利益的限制。我们的结论是,有很好的理由认为他的哲学是原始功利主义的,这进一步突出了他与自由意志主义的冲突。因此,我们的结论是,假设洛克是其直接前辈的自由意志主义或民主理论应该被重新审视,以解释这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Review of Locke on Persons and Personal Identity by Ruth Boeker Locke on Prerogative Sameness, Persons, and the Resurrection "Wholly Useless and Unserviceable to Knowledge" Locke, Active Power, and a Puzzle about Ascription
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1