John Locke's Concept of Justice

Ismailov Nurmagomed ORCID: 0000-0003-4935-4902 PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor of the Department of Humanities of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation 125167, Russia, Moscow, Leningradsky Prospekt str., 49/2, office 0617 NOIsmailov@fa.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction. The problem of justice in world philosophy has been relevant in all epochs. In the context of the prevailing historical realities, various aspects of this problem have become particularly acute. If Russia has always given priority to the moral side of this problem, then its political and legal aspect prevailed in Western European public thought. Therefore, the realization of justice in Russian philosophy was associated mainly with moral influence on a person, and in Western European public thought - with political and legal.

When studying the problem of justice in world philosophy and its influence on modern social thought, the views of one of the prominent representatives of Modern philosophy, D. Locke, are of great interest, who expressed a number of valuable ideas on this problem and significantly enriched it.

In this article, we will consider only those moments of Locke's philosophy that arouse our greatest interest within the framework of the problem under study. Let's analyze Locke's concept of justice as a typical representative of his era, expressing his views on the realities of public life of this historical period. But in his teaching there are thoughts that can be used in the socio-political practice of modern society.

The main part. The exposition of Locke's views seems appropriate in the context of the views of T. Hobbes. Both philosophers had a significant influence on subsequent world philosophy, including modern socio-philosophical teachings, philosophical problems of politics and law. At the same time, researchers note the complexity of Locke's reconstruction and interpretation of justice ^{[6, 8, 10]}.

Locke is a proponent of the contractual theory of the origin of the state and the concept of justice. But his understanding of this process differs from the interpretation, for example, of Hobbes. In the natural state, according to Hobbes, people are in a state of constant hostility and war of all against all, their interests do not coincide. The state and the laws in this case are the only means of ending this war, and justice is compliance with the treaty ^[5]. And the natural state for Locke lies in freedom for man from "whatever power is above him on earth." In this state, he "does not obey the will or legislative authority of another person, but is guided only by the law of nature" ^{[7, p. 274]}. In this case, only the law of nature can limit a person, which does not mean permissiveness. And human freedom in the presence of the state and laws is possible only within the framework of subordination to the legislative power. It is established in the state by consent, "is not subject to anyone's will and is not limited by any law, except for those that will be established by this legislative body" ^{[7, p. 274]}.

Locke's divergence from Hobbes can also be observed in their understanding of the origin of moral norms. Locke denies the contractual nature of the occurrence of the latter. He does not share the views of people who claim that the whole law of nature is reduced to the self-preservation of everyone, to their safety and well-being. The obligation imposed by the law of nature is indeed eternal and comprehensive, but it does not come down to the above factors ^{[7, pp. 36-40]}.

Locke unequivocally asserts that the personal benefit of each person cannot serve as the basis of the law of nature. In this case, virtue will not be interpreted as a human duty and moral value, but will depend on personal gain. But this does not mean the incompatibility of private property and virtue, despite the fact that he does not allow the personal benefit of everyone as a criterion of justice and truth ^{[7, pp. 47-49]}.

Private gain leads to the destruction of all justice, friendship and nobility in life, Locke believes. It cannot be the basis of the law of nature, but must obey the law and obligations. People are initially equal, independent and free. And only within the framework of such an understanding of people can we talk about the causes of the emergence of the state and the norms of justice ^{[7, pp. 47-53]}.

Locke's understanding of the natural state leads him to the conclusion that a person's moral duty is not only to try to preserve his own freedom and well-being, but also to strive to preserve the well-being of other people. This is their original equality, independence and freedom. He emphasizes that in this case it is not about equality of abilities, merits and merits. In this regard, some people may have a fair superiority over others. We are talking about the equal right "to one's natural freedom, which every person has, without being obliged to obey the will or authority of any other person" ^{[7, p. 292]}.

Thus, a person in the original natural state is not just free, Locke believes. His reasonable position presupposes a rational life in harmony with other people and moral guidelines. For this reason, the state and the concept of justice arise, and not because he has a fear for his life, safety and well-being, as stated earlier, for example, Glaucon and Hobbes. A person, being a rational being, in his relations with others should rely on the principle of justice even in the pre-state state. It can be argued that it is for this reason that justice appears to him as the main law of nature and the basis of every society. This is one of the fundamental differences between the views of Locke and, for example, the views of Glaucon, Hobbes ^{[2, pp. 24-25, 5]}.

Locke's law of nature for all people does not speak of a sharp confrontation between the natural and political state. The pre-political state is by no means characterized by its complete absence of any order. Society could not exist in a state of complete absence of any norms of justice, since justice initially presupposes a certain treatment of a person or certain benefits for people in accordance with a certain order. The fundamental difference between the natural and political state is expressed by the presence or absence of special bodies established by the state for the implementation of justice, justice. Before the advent of laws and the state, each person could act both as a judge, determining the measure of the damage done against him, and as a punishing body, punishing the guilty. Man was guided by his own understanding of justice. Of course, his administration of justice was conditioned by the level of his knowledge and actual capabilities. As D.I. Kiryukhin notes, "for Locke, the close connection between justice and force is obvious" ^{[6, p. 87]}. Locke is aware that people's level of knowledge does not always correspond to a proper assessment of the situation. For this reason, people are often unable to subordinate their emotions, desires, and aspirations to reason. Therefore, in the situation of the absence of state bodies, there is also no legal provision for the realization of justice. Also, we should not forget that people tend to consider legitimate those social norms and rules of life that meet their objective interests. At the same time, they may not realize the true reasons for such a preference ^{[4, p. 746]}.

One of the fundamental concepts in Locke's concept of justice is the concept of property. This concept is largely based on it. He believes that each individual is the owner of some property, which is at least "in his own personality, to which no one except himself has any rights" ^{[7, p. 277]}. The labor and work of a person belong to him. Man combines the gifts of nature with his work. And the result of this activity becomes his property. By removing a certain object from the natural state, combining it with his work, a person turns the object into his property. Such a situation cannot contradict justice ^{[7, p. 277]}. It is labor that is the beginning of property. However, the main object of property is no longer the gifts of nature and the fruits of the earth, but the land itself, capable of containing everything else. A person can use a certain piece of land for his own purposes, invest his labor in it, certain means and consume the products of his labor. The result of labor is his property. He is fenced off "by his work from the common property" ^{[7, p. 279]}.

Locke emphasizes the role of work and diligence in establishing and fixing property. He compares the lands lying uncultivated in common ownership, which are not cultivated by people, with plots of land where the property of specific individuals is fixed, with lands in which labor and necessary funds are invested, and comes to the conclusion "that improvement through labor is a much larger part of the cost" ^{[7, p. 285]}.

No State can exist and function if it does not have the right to protect property and, for this purpose, punish those who encroach on someone else's property. It should have the power, the right to establish laws and types of punishment, to resolve issues of war and peace, ultimately, for the sake of preserving the property of all members of this society ^{[7, pp. 310-311]}.

We believe that a person, being in a pre-political state, has no guarantees of preserving his freedom, life, and the benefits necessary for his life. He receives such guarantees by becoming a member of the political community. True, he cannot receive these guarantees to the extent that he would like, because no state is capable of providing a person with his absolute security in relation to his freedom, life and possessions, in relation to what Locke calls by one common name "property". However, in a just state, in a situation of law and laws, a person has greater guarantees of his security than in the so-called natural state. For this fundamental reason for him, a person wants and strives to live in the state.

As Locke points out, there are no laws established by common consent in the natural state, which most people assume to be fair. There are also no competent and impartial judges capable of passing a fair sentence, there are no appropriate executors of the latter, that is, there may often not be enough strength and means to execute it. Locke considers the imaginary advantage of the natural state to be an illusion. The same conclusion, he believes, is reached by people suffering from initially apparent advantages. For this reason, they are forced to "seek refuge under the shadow of ... laws, and here they seek to find the preservation of their property" ^{[7, p. 335]}. Thus, the most important and ultimate goal of people entering this state can be considered their desire to safely use and dispose of their goods, their property. The famous researcher John Rawls (Rawls) theoretically assumed that in the initial contractual situation (if such a situation had taken place), people should have accepted the principles of justice through rational discussion ^{[3, p. 352]}. However, if we assess the situation adequately, we understand that such democratic procedures, characteristic of not all representatives of even modern society, were excluded at the early stages of human history. And the theoretical reasoning of D. Rawls remains only good wishes.

Of course, much in this matter is due to how fair these laws are, how much they can guarantee the life, freedom, security and property of all members of this society. If a person as a representative of a given society cannot, in accordance with the laws established in it, fully dispose of his property, then it will be difficult to call it property at all. At the same time, we note once again that Locke considers not only material goods as property, but also other, higher values, such as life, freedom, and personal qualities of a person.

G.A. Zaichenko points out that Locke relied on the great mission of new social institutions liberating humanity, on new social orders, on the well-known role of law and laws in the life of people, ^{[1, p. 164]}. It should be noted that these views of Locke require their interpretation in the context of specific economic, social, and political realities, it is necessary to consider these views concretely-historically, in the light of the principles of dialectics. "The internal consistency of the Locke doctrine of natural law is that it justifies a specific concept of the political process and the participation of the people in this process, which must be maintained in accordance with reason" ^{[9, p. 45]}. Such reasoning, taking into account historical realities, does him credit. But at the same time, he tries to justify the inequality in property and even the lack of property among some social strata with varying degrees of reasonableness, diligence and diligence of people. The world, of course, is given to all people, to all social strata for their benefit, but it is not given to them for common possession, but in order "for the diligent and prudent to use it" ^{[7, p. 165]}. In the light of such views, Locke's conclusion about the need for legal protection of private property, which is the guarantor of equal freedoms and opportunities for all members of a given society as one of the fundamental functions of the state, cannot be accidental.

Thus, according to Locke's views, complete social equality is possible only in a natural state in conditions of complete freedom of people regarding their actions and disposal of property within the framework of the law of nature. In this state of equality, all power and obligations can only be mutual, and no one in this respect can stand out. For Locke, it is an absolute fact that in a situation where "creatures of the same breed and species, at their birth without distinction, receiving the same natural advantages and using the same abilities, should also be equal among themselves without any subordination or suppression" ^{[7, p. 263]}.

It can be concluded that in matters of equality and distribution, Locke in his concept of justice does not try to achieve any property equality, but suggests creating appropriate conditions in society for the adequate possession, use and disposal of this property. He suggests creating equal conditions for the realization of individual rights. And as D.I. Kiryukhin points out in this regard, "and he takes the problem of distribution beyond the sphere of justice, assigning this function to the duty of charity" ^{[6, p. 87]}.

At the same time, Locke is honored that he proposed equality of all social groups before the law. The powers of the legislature should come from the society under all forms of government. Laws should not be interpreted in different ways. "There should be one law for the rich and the poor, for the favorite at court and for the peasant" ^{[7, p. 346]}. At the same time, representatives of the legislative power, and those who establish laws, and those who enforce them, must themselves obey these laws, because the latter should not be created for their personal benefit, but for the good of society ^{[7, p. 347]}. According to Locke's contractual theory, a person in a natural state could not subordinate himself to despotic power, but obeyed only the law of nature. Consequently, when transferring the relevant powers to the state and the legislature, people were guided by the fact that power should initially be limited to the public good in any form of government. It can have no other purpose. Otherwise it will be contrary to justice. Any actions of the authorities and laws must comply with the law of nature. And since "the basic law of nature is the preservation of humanity, then no human sanction can be beneficial or justified if it contradicts that" ^{[7, p. 341]}. Highly appreciating the law of the preservation of humanity in Locke's philosophy, G.A. Zaichenko believes that Locke in his views stepped into the distant future for him. Therefore, he considers Locke a wise ally of progressive forces and humanism ^{[1, p. 169]}.

Locke introduced a number of new points into the contractual theory of the origin of the state and the concept of justice. He divides the very concept of a contract and the consent of people into the concepts of expressed and tacit consent. Expressed consent takes place when a person, by joining a certain society, becoming a subject of its government, as Locke points out, becomes a full-fledged member of this society. This is his own choice, he takes this step consciously. The concept of tacit consent, according to Locke, is somewhat complicated and ambiguous. The difficulty lies in determining the degree of consent of a person to submit to any government, if he does not make any statements about it. Locke puts forward an assumption that boils down to the fact that every person who owns or uses any part of the territory of a certain state, who enjoys certain benefits in this country, thereby gives his tacit consent to obey the laws of this state. At the same time, it does not matter whether he uses these benefits temporarily or on a permanent basis. Also, when a person comes to the territory of another state, he gives tacit consent to obey its laws ^{[7, p. 322]}. It cannot be argued that this aspect of contract theory, at least indirectly, was not considered by Locke's predecessors. But they implied this moment, but did not designate it as unambiguously as Locke did.

Conclusion. So, in his concept of a just socio-political system, Locke proceeds, first of all, not from the private selfish interests of an individual, but from the idea of a common good for all people, while not forgetting about the life, freedom and property of the individual. Freedom and individual interests of the individual should not contradict reason. Human freedom cannot be unlimited.

Locke's concept of justice was a reflection of the new realities of society, a philosophical reflection on the development of bourgeois relations. Locke in his concept acts as a typical representative of the philosophical views of his era. The basis for such an assertion can be his views on public life in matters of justice, freedom and equality. As an example, one can point to his interpretation of fair equality, which, according to his views, consists in creating appropriate conditions in society for the most expedient possession, use and disposal of a person's property. It should also be pointed out that a special place in Locke's concept of justice is occupied by the concept of property. It seems that in the person of Locke, world philosophical thought has reached such a state when it considered it necessary to sanctify the right of ownership and the results of human labor.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.