preview

John Locke Tacit Consent

Better Essays

Consent plays a central role in Locke’s political theory, as described in his Second Treatise of Government. It is an integral part to how a legitimate political society can be formed, and how political obligation can arise. There is a key distinction between two types of consent, namely: express consent (that which is explicitly stated), and tacit consent (by enjoying a governments benefits, you are tacitly consenting). In this essay I will demonstrate how within Locke’s conception, consent allows the formation of government as a single body. The problems arising from this will be discussed, particularly in regards to tacit consent. Locke clearly states that any man by nature is ‘free, equal, and independent, no one can be…subjected to the …show more content…

This state is not necessarily immoral, as we are all the work of God, and thus natural law can guide our actions. The natural law can be arrived at through reason, and is in accordance with Gods’ will. The fundamental natural law is that mankind is bound to preserve itself as we are all Gods property. However, the state of nature is not the ideal place to do this, as there is no impartial authority to adjudicate disputes. This is problematic as disputes cannot truly be remedied fairly, as without a third party to adjudicate over a dispute, it is far more likely to descend into disagreement, or even violence. In order to remedy this, a group of individuals can band together and constitute themselves as a people, and then be considered a political society. Given that in the state of nature we are wholly free, how can one maintain ones liberty, while also living under government? The answer is that one can freely consent to be bound into a common united body with his kinsman. Further, this does not infringe …show more content…

The most obvious answer is express consent, that being which is explicitly stated. Whilst Locke did not give a clear cut definition of what he means as express consent, in the Second Treatise it can loosely be defined as one ‘agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe and peaceable living.’ It seems uncontentious to suppose such an obvious display of assent to a community is ample to generate some sort of obligation to abide by its rules. One issue with this however, that Locke himself recognised, is that it is by no means fact that a group of men ever did come together in such a way. Locke responds to this by giving historical examples that might demonstrate such an agreement, such as the birth of Rome and Venice. These seem to be good examples, but they only highlight certain societies. Is it not possible that some societies were not formed in such a fashion? Perhaps by a conqueror? In which case, does this not mean that the government was not, and possibly still is not justified? Considering how central this is to Locke’s whole theory, merely speculating on the matter seems somewhat damaging. Even IF it were the case that consent of this kind had been given, it would only have been the first generation of the society that had given it. Subsequent generations have given no such consent, so how does the government maintain its legitimacy? Locke gave an answer

Get Access