|
John
Locke: The Nature and Necessity of the
Family
Concerning Civil
Government, Second Essay, Chap.
VI
56. Adam was created a perfect man, his body and
mind in full possession of their strength and
reason, and so was capable, from the first instant
of his being to provide for his own support and
preservation, and govern his actions according to
the dictates of the law of reason which God had
implanted in him. From him the world is peopled
with his descendants, who are all born infants,
weak and helpless, without knowledge or
understanding: but to supply the defects of this
imperfect state, till the improvement of growth and
age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them
all parents were, by the law of nature, under an
obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the
children they had begotten; not as their own
workmanship, but the workmanship of their own
maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be
accountable for them.
57. The law, that was to govern Adam, was the
same that was to govern all his posterity, the law
of reason. But his offspring having another way of
entrance into the world, different from him, by a
natural birth, that produced them ignorant and
without the use of reason, they were not presently
under that law; for no body can be under a law,
which is not promulgated to him; and this law being
promulgated or made known by reason only, he that
is not come to the use of his reason, cannot be
said to be under this law; and Adam's children,
being not presently as soon as born under this law
of reason, were not presently free: for law, in its
true notion, is not so much the limitation as the
direction of a free and intelligent agent to his
proper interest, and prescribes no farther than is
for the general good of those under that law: could
they be happier without it, the law, as an useless
thing, would of itself vanish; and that ill
deserves the name of confinement which hedges us in
only from bogs and precipices. So that, however it
may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish
or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom:
for in all the states of created beings capable of
laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom:
for liberty is, to be free from restraint and
violence from others; which cannot be, where there
is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a
liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who
could be free, when every other man's humour might
domineer over him?) but a liberty to dispose, and
order as he lists, his person, actions,
possessions, and his whole property, within the
allowance of those laws under which he is, and
therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of
another, but freely follow his own.
58. The power, then, that parents have over
their children, arises from that duty which is
incumbent on them, to take care of their
off-spring, during the imperfect state of
childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the
actions of their yet ignorant nonage, till reason
shall take its place, and ease them of that
trouble, is what the children want, and the parents
are bound to: for God having given man an
understanding to direct his actions, has allowed
him a freedom of will, and liberty of acting, as
properly belonging thereunto, within the bounds of
that law he is under. But whilst he is in an
estate, wherein he has not understanding of his own
to direct his will, he is not to have any will of
his own to follow: he that understands for him,
must will for him too; he must prescribe to his
will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes
to the estate that made his father a freeman, the
son is a freeman too.
59. This holds in all the laws a man is under,
whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of
nature? What made him free of that law? what gave
him a free disposing of his property, according to
his own will, within the compass of that law? I
answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be
supposed capable to know that law, that so he might
keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he
has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how
far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may
make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it;
till then, some body else must guide him, who is
presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty.
If such a state of reason, such an age of
discretion made him free, the same shall make his
son free too. Is a man under the law of England?
What made him free of that law? that is, to have
the liberty to dispose of his actions and
possessions according to his own will, within the
permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that
law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of
one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If
this made the father free, it shall make the son
free too. Till then we see the law allows the son
to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will
of his father or guardian, who is to understand for
him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute
a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a
tutor, to govern his son, during his minority,
during his want of understanding, the law takes
care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a
will to him, till he hath attained to a state of
freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the
government of his will. But after that, the father
and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil
after nonage; equally subjects of the same law
together, without any dominion left in the father
over the life, liberty, or estate of his son,
whether they be only in the state and under the law
of nature, or under the positive laws of an
established government.
60. But if, through defects that may happen out
of the ordinary course of nature, any one comes not
to such a degree of reason, wherein he might be
supposed capable of knowing the law, and so living
within the rules of it, he is never capable of
being a free man, he is never let loose to the
disposure of his own will (because he knows no
bounds to it, has not understanding, its proper
guide) but is continued under the tuition and
government of others, all the time his own
understanding is uncapable of that charge. And so
lunatics and ideots are never set free from the
government of their parents; children, who are not
as yet come unto those years whereat they may have;
and innocents which are excluded by a natural
defect from ever having; thirdly, madmen, which for
the present cannot possibly have the use of right
reason to guide themselves, have for their guide,
the reason that guideth other men which are tutors
over them, to seek and procure their good for them,
says Hooker, Eccl. Pol. lib. i. sec. 7. All which
seems no more than that duty, which God and nature
has laid on man, as well as other creatures, to
preserve their offspring, till they can be able to
shift for themselves, and will scarce amount to an
instance or proof of parents regal authority.
61. Thus we are born free, as we are born
rational; not that we have actually the exercise of
either: age, that brings one, brings with it the
other too. And thus we see how natural freedom and
subjection to parents may consist together, and are
both founded on the same principle. A child is free
by his father's title, by his father's
understanding, which is to govern him till he hath
it of his own. The freedom of a man at years of
discretion, and the subjection of a child to his
parents, whilst yet short of that age, are so
consistent, and so distinguishable, that the most
blinded contenders for monarchy, by right of
fatherhood, cannot miss this difference; the most
obstinate cannot but allow their consistency: for
were their doctrine all true, were the right heir
of Adam now known, and by that title settled a
monarch in his throne, invested with all the
absolute unlimited power Sir Robert Filmer talks
of; if he should die as soon as his heir were born,
must not the child, notwithstanding he were never
so free, never so much sovereign, be in subjection
to his mother and nurse, to tutors and governors,
till age and education brought him reason and
ability to govern himself and others? The
necessities of his life, the health of his body,
and the information of his mind, would require him
to be directed by the will of others, and not his
own; and yet will any one think, that this
restraint and subjection were inconsistent with, or
spoiled him of that liberty or sovereignty he had a
right to, or gave away his empire to those who had
the government of his nonage? This government over
him only prepared him the better and sooner for it.
If any body should ask me, when my son is of age to
be free? I shall answer, just when his monarch is
of age to govern. But at what time, says the
judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol. l. i. sect. 6. a man
may be said to have attained so far forth the use
of reason, as sufficeth to make him capable of
those laws whereby he is then bound to guide his
actions: this is a great deal more easy for sense
to discern, than for any one by skill and learning
to determine.
62. Commonwealths themselves take notice of, and
allow, that there is a time when men are to begin
to act like free men, and therefore till that time
require not oaths of fealty, or allegiance, or
other public owning of, or submission to the
government of their countries.
63. The freedom then of man, and liberty of
acting according to his own will, is grounded on
his having reason, which is able to instruct him in
that law he is to govern himself by, and make him
know how far he is left to the freedom of his own
will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained liberty,
before he has reason to guide him, is not the
allowing him the privilege of his nature to be
free; but to thrust him out amongst brutes, and
abandon him to a state as wretched, and as much
beneath that of a man, as their's. This is that
which puts the authority into the parents hands to
govern the minority of their children. God hath
made it their business to employ this care on their
offspring, and hath placed in them suitable
inclinations of tenderness and concern to temper
this power, to apply it, as his wisdom designed it,
to the children's good, as long as they should need
to be under it.
Concerning Civil
Government, Second Essay, Chap.
VII
77. God having made man such a creature, that in
his own judgment, it was not good for him to be
alone, put him under strong obligations of
necessity, convenience, and inclination to drive
him into society, as well as fitted him with
understanding and language to continue and enjoy
it. The first society was between man and wife,
which gave beginning to that between parents and
children; to which, in time, that between master
and servant came to be added: and though all these
might, and commonly did meet together, and make up
but one family, wherein the master or
mistress of it had some sort of rule proper to a
family; each of these, or all together, came
short of political society, as we shall see, if we
consider the different ends, ties, and bounds of
each of these.
78. Conjugal society is made by a voluntary
compact between man and woman; and tho' it consist
chiefly in such a communion and right in one
another's bodies as is necessary to its chief end,
procreation; yet it draws with it mutual support
and assistance, and a communion of interests too,
as necessary not only to unite their care and
affection, but also necessary to their common
off-spring, who have a right to be nourished, and
maintained by them, till they are able to provide
for themselves.
79. For the end of conjunction, between male and
female, being not barely procreation, but the
continuation of the species; this conjunction
betwixt male and female ought to last, even after
procreation, so long as is necessary to the
nourishment and support of the young ones, who are
to be sustained even after procreation, so long as
is necessary to the nourishment and support of the
young ones, who are to be sustained by those that
got them, till they are able to shift and provide
for themselves. This rule, which the infinite wise
maker hath set to the works of his hands, we find
the inferior creatures steadily obey. In those
viviparous animals which feed on grass, the
conjunction between male and female lasts no longer
than the very act of copulation; because the teat
of the dam being sufficient to nourish the young,
till it be able to feed on grass, the male only
begets, but concerns not himself for the female or
young, to whose sustenance he can contribute
nothing. But in beasts of prey the conjunction
lasts longer: because the dam not being able well
to subsist herself, and nourish her numerous
off-spring by her own prey alone, a more laborious,
as well as more dangerous way of living, than by
feeding on grass, the assistance of the male is
necessary to the maintenance of their common
family, which cannot subsist till they are
able to prey for themselves, but by the joint care
of male and female. The same is to be observed in
all birds, (except some domestic ones, where plenty
of food excuses the cock from feeding, and taking
care of the young brood) whose young needing food
in the nest, the cock and hen continue mates, till
the young are able to use their wing, and provide
for themselves.
80. And herein I think lies the chief, if not
the only reason, why the male and female in mankind
are tied to a longer conjunction than other
creatures, viz. because the female is capable of
conceiving, and de facto is commonly with child
again, and brings forth too a new birth, long
before the former is out of a dependency for
support on his parents help, and able to shift for
himself, and has all the assistance is due to him
from his parents: whereby the father, who is bound
to take care for those he hath begot, is under an
obligation to continue in conjugal society with the
same woman longer than other creatures, whose young
being able to subsist of themselves, before the
time of procreation returns again, the conjugal
bond dissolves of itself, and they are at liberty,
till Hymen at his usual anniversary season summons
them again to chuse new mates. Wherein one cannot
but admire the wisdom of the great Creator, who
having given to man foresight, and an ability to
lay up for the future, as well as to supply the
present necessity, hath made it necessary, that
society of man and wife should be more lasting,
than of male and female amongst other creatures;
that so their industry might be encouraged, and
their interest better united, to make provision and
lay up goods for their common issue, which
uncertain mixture, or easy and frequent solutions
of conjugal society would mightily disturb.
81. But tho'these are ties upon mankind, which
make the conjugal bonds more firm and lasting in
man, than the other species of animals; yet it
would give one reason to enquire, why this compact,
where procreation and education are secured, and
inheritance taken care for, may not be made
determinable, either by consent, or at a certain
time, or upon certain conditions, as well as any
other voluntary compacts, there being no necessity
in the nature of the thing, nor to the ends of it,
that it should always be for life; I mean, to such
as are under no restraint of any positive law,
which ordains all such contracts to be
perpetual.
82. But the husband and wife, though they have
but one common concern, yet having different
understandings, will unavoidably sometimes have
different wills too; it therefore being necessary
that the last determination, i. e. the rule, should
be placed somewhere; it naturally falls to the
man's share, as the abler and the stronger. But
this reaching but to the things of their common
interest and property, leaves the wife in the full
and free possession of what by contract is her
peculiar right, and gives the husband no more power
over her life than she has over his; the power of
the husband being so far from that of an absolute
monarch, that the wife has in many cases a liberty
to separate from him, where natural right, or their
contract allows it; whether that contract be made
by themselves in the state of nature, or by the
customs or laws of the country they live in; and
the children upon such separation fall to the
father or mother's lot, as such contract does
determine.
83. For all the ends of marriage being to be
obtained under politic government, as well as in
the state of nature, the civil magistrate cloth not
abridge the right or power of either naturally
necessary to those ends, viz. procreation and
mutual support and assistance whilst they are
together; but only decides any controversy that may
arise between man and wife about them. If it were
otherwise, and that absolute sovereignty and power
of life and death naturally belonged to the
husband, and were necessary to the society between
man and wife, there could be no matrimony in any of
those countries where the husband is allowed no
such absolute authority. But the ends of matrimony
requiring no such power in the husband, the
condition of conjugal society put it not in him, it
being not at all necessary to that state. Conjugal
society could subsist and attain its ends without
it; nay, community of goods, and the power
over them, mutual assistance and maintenance, and
other things belonging to conjugal society, might
be varied and regulated by that contract which
unites man and wife in that society, as far as may
consist with procreation and the bringing up of
children till they could shift for themselves;
nothing being necessary to any society, that is not
necessary to the ends for which it is made.
84. The society betwixt parents and children,
and the distinct rights and powers belonging
respectively to them, I have treated of so largely,
in the foregoing chapter, that I shall not here
need to say any thing of it. And I think it is
plain, that it is far different from a politic
society.
85. Master and servant are names as old as
history, but given to those of far different
condition; for a freeman makes himself a servant to
another, by selling him, for a certain time, the
service he undertakes to do, in exchange for wages
he is to receive: and though this commonly puts him
into the family of his master, and under the
ordinary discipline thereof; yet it gives the
master but a temporary power over him, and no
greater than what is contained in the contract
between them. But there is another sort of
servants, which by a peculiar name we call slaves,
who being captives taken in a just war, are by the
right of nature subjected to the absolute dominion
and arbitrary power of their masters. These men
having, as I say, forfeited their lives, and with
it their liberties, and lost their estates; and
being in the state of slavery, not capable of any
property, cannot in that state be considered as any
part of civil society; the chief end whereof is the
preservation of property.
86. Let us therefore consider a master of a
family with all these subordinate relations
of wife, children, servants, and slaves, united
under the domestic rule of a family; which,
what resemblance soever it may have in its order,
offices, and number too, with a little
commonwealth, yet is very far from it, both in its
constitution, power and end: or if it must be
thought a monarchy, and the paterfamilias the
absolute monarch in it, absolute monarchy will have
but a very shattered and short power, when it is
plain, by what has been said before, that the
master of the family has a very distinct and
differently limited power, both as to time and
extent, over those several persons that are in it;
for excepting the slave (and the family is
as much a family, and his power as
paterfamilias as great, whether there be any slaves
in his family or no) he has no legislative
power of life and death over any of them, and none
too but what a mistress of a family may have
as well as he. And he certainly can have no
absolute power over the whole family, who
has but a very limited one over every individual in
it. But how a family, or any other society
of men, differ from that which is properly
political society, we shall best see, by
considering wherein political society itself
consists.
Family
& Community Index
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy
Magazine...
|