Locke

Locke does not understand the nature of humankind—some sentences contradict themselves. Particularly when he writes, “ the damnnified person has this power of appropriating to himself the goods or service of the offender, by right of self-preservation, as every man has a power to punish the crime, to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of preserving all mankind. Self preservation seems here to be a restraint of power. But locke claims that men have the right to implement power to justify a disruption of rights the he claims are inherent: “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants

The ephemeral and exhaustive truth of power gives it value and seems to drive men in the first place; to ‘preserve’ it would only mean to watch humankind decay. In order to preserve, power must be exercised. Hobbes makes the mistake that Nietzsche points out when he writes, “A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength—life itself is will to power; self preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results” (Nietzsche 211). It would be a mistake to make the assumption that virtue, intelligence, and morality is parceled out equally at birth. Locke seems to think so. Equality is a necessary illusion to maintain and promote a society, a civilization. If a society is to progress, even the most base must feel that they are discharging their power, so to say, in a meaningful way because that is the aim of all men. Yet, society must be controlled as Locke writes, “God hath certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men.” but only because society is a greater force Then, virtues of “compassion” and “empathy” are still rooted in power, and maybe morality? Because without a society there is no gradation and no understanding of “individual.”