Comments on: All Human Rights are "Religious Fundamentalism"

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 01:57:00 +0000

Micah, no, this is great. There's so much I don't know! Thanks for explaining.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:17:00 +0000

I agree that we as Christians can differentiate between our equality as being made in the imago dei and yet still hold different roles. The socialist can't seem to grasp that inequality need not mean that there cannot be hierarchy.
That said, the view that Locke is taking apart in the 1st Treatise (we all read the 2nd treatise if we read Locke at all in our undergrad), is the notion that kings get their right to rule from God's grant of power to Adam (Filmer is the most powerful exponent of this view then). Locke eviscerates this argument using Scripture and logic.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:11:00 +0000

There is an influential school of political philosphy who roughly follow the thinking and example of Leo Strauss. They are a varied bunch, even among themselves with various emphases and angles. One of the themes that they have in common, however, is a belief that there are “great questions” that have been with us since the Greeks, and that the great thinkers have been sort of in a conversation with each other about these things.
This isn't really all that controversial for most people, though there's a competing school (the Cambridge school) that thinks that a “great conversation” is a myth. But that's another story. Anyway, the more controversial theme of many Straussians is that they look for an esoteric meaning beneath the exoteric meaning, i.e. the really careful reader will be able to discern what a great thinker is saying between the lines.
Part of their rationale is that in times past great philosophers couldn't say outright what they really meant for fear of political authorities. Socrates' execution would be a chief example. So the truly great thinkers give a more mundane teaching that everyone gets, and hide a truly profound teaching within the mundane teaching. There's something to this, I would agree, as sometimes we can see pretty clearly that a theorist didn't really mean what they wrote (Rousseau could be very pious-sounding at times, as could Hobbes, but no one thinks they were sincere orthodox believers).
What's this have to do with Locke? The standard Straussian line on Locke is that deep down he's really Hobbes. All he cares about is peace and stability, but whereas Hobbes' attempt to make this possible (Leviathan, De Cive, etc). was too harsh and not subtle enough to have a good effect, Locke dresses up the value of survival with other nice sentiments such as life, liberty, and property, Christianity, etc.
So he doesn't really care about equality, he cares about avoiding a non-violent death. The other stuff is a smokescreen to keep him safe, and if it works for some of the masses (keeping them content with a sorry lot in life), so much the better.
Some Straussians really think this is the right way to read Locke, and they can provide powerful arguments for it. Others, I'm afraid, seem to have the sort of attitude that says: 1. So-and-so is a great philosopher. 2. Great philosophers can't possibly believe this religion nonsense, and thus 3. their religious writings must be a smokescreen.
This may be more of an answer than you wanted . . .

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 01:56:00 +0000

Micah, I have to add that it was absolutely fascinating to read responses to Waldron's work through Catholic and then through socialist eyes–what seemed important to them, how they interpreted it, etc.
This, I thought was interesting (from the socialist site):
“In John Locke

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 01:23:00 +0000

Thanks, Micah.
“there are some scholars who think all of his talk of God and religion is merely a smokescreen”
A smokescreen for what? Just a way to back up equality because he likes the idea?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:02:00 +0000

I'm guessing moral intuition might be a big factor, though to be honest I need to browse through the book again and see what Waldron says. I think one of the points Waldron is trying to make, both diplomatically and intelligently, is that we need to rethink what it would mean for humans to really have equality. In other words, true equality needs a higher bar than the arbitrary assigning of equality that you criticize in your post. I wonder if Waldron has started with a belief in equality and it has led him back to God, but that's pure speculation. Locke, on the other hand, speaks of both reason and revelation as sources of our knowledge of human equality (though there are some scholars who think all of his talk of God and religion is merely a smokescreen). As for pointing out the ripples, that's a tougher one as these folks don't blog much. I witnessed first-hand some of the debate over this at a conference here that had Waldron and his critics battling it out, and there was also a Review of Politics issue that had a symposium on this sort of stuff, but alas those are tougher to get online unless you have a university connection (i.e. I can dl a PDF but I can't link to anything). I take it back, there are a few places, a friendly review here, a more critical review from a socialist website here, etc. I found these on google. I can't find a lot of published reviews online yet from the academic presses. Anyone looking into it, though, should be forewarned that the Waldron stuff gets into the nitty gritty of Locke scholarship, some of which will seem arcane for folks just getting into it. And Locke is not unproblematic from an orthodox Christian view for these matters either. But I've gone on long enough.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:06:00 +0000

“He thinks Locke is correct that the existence of human equality depends on the existence of God? Or that Locke was correct that there is a God who endows us with rights?”
Both.
Though in the book he does not attempt to make this case. That he thinks there's a case to be made, made ripples. If he takes it up in his next book I'll be following closely.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:58:00 +0000

Micah, as always, thanks for the insight. I'm not as educated in philosophy as I'd like to be, so I do like getting the background information on these ideas–where they came from and where they're going.
“Waldron goes on to say that he thinks Locke is correct.”
He thinks Locke is correct that the existence of human equality depends on the existence of God? Or that Locke was correct that there is a God who endows us with rights?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:33:00 +0000

I couldn't agree more Amy (though an interesting side discussion might involve the epistemology of how folks come to grasp this basic truth about our equality, but I think my sidebar suggestion quota is full atm). I would also like to bring in a relevant quote or point from a person of historical significance. It's a commonplace that the point of view you espouse here is extremely rare in the academy, as opposed to the views put forth by Singer. While most academics don't take their reasoning as far as Singer does, they don't exactly denounce him either (and he is, at the least, consistent). But there is a great exception recently from Columbia professor Jeremy Waldron whose latest book is entitled, God, Locke, and Equality. Most folks probably know Jefferson borrowed some crucial parts of the Declaration from Locke. Waldron, unquestionably a leading contemporary political theorist and expert on Locke, makes the case in this book that Locke believed that only a belief in God can act as the foundation for true human equality (we are all "God's workmanship", Locke wrote in the 2nd treatise). What's shocking is not so much that interpretation of Locke, but that Waldron goes on to say that he thinks Locke is correct. Needless to say, this has brought to the table a viewpoint that had for decades been dismissed as superstitious baggage. Which is all to say that, not surprisingly, Amy's musings here are on the cutting edge of the best contemporary thinking going on in the academy.