Nick just brought up Utilitarianism---
And it reminded me of how while we're bashing Locke right now for undercutting liberalism with a Christian ethic, didn't Mill keep implying that the yardstick for liberal decisions was utilitarianism? It's the problem we keep coming to with the harm principle--there are infinite actions that can harm one party by being performed and another by not. I wouldn't be tempted to try to override Mill with Locke, though, because Mill's argument seems a lot broader to me. Locke is arguing for separation of church and state; Mill is arguing for a universal harm principle. Locke's supposed undercutting of his own argument might stem from that argument's scope--it is directed largely at a churchgoing society, concerning the church and the society. I won't weigh in on my feelings about this undercutting, but it seems to me like another case of "smuggled moralities."

I found a slightly different take on liberalism in Locke, perhaps because he wanted to find a way in which he could include Christian morality for discussion while not violating liberal principles. We kept coming back in class to the notion that the harm principle lacks independent strength, and needs prior morality as an input. Locke makes a big point about the state magistrate's ability to delegate power, and the dangerous consequences of using moral "for your own good"-type arguments to support the many brutal things done in the name of Christian conversion. In his discussions, he tends to note both the Christian and secular liberal explanations for his arguments; on p.224, for instance, he says "no private person has any right in any manner to prejudice another person in his civil enjoyments", based both on the "rights and franchises of men" and the Gospels. What I derived is that perhaps the harm principle is a translation tool, so that we may remove the effects of a decision from the individual moral or religious terms in which it's couched. Locke is most concerned with state action; no one can compel humans to behave nicely, only lawfully. I think his letter doesn't violate liberalism because it has utilitarian justification for its arguments. That it appeals to Christian morality seems a tolerable appeal to his Christian readers, and had some non-religious value in pointing out the disparity between the church's teachings and actions.

I dont think that Locke's appeal to Christian morality undercuts the liberal foundations by any means. In the begining, Locke separates the church from civil society, but this does not mean that they cant complement each other. Christians can still have a liberal outlook on life, and simply because he is relating to them does not mean that he is abandoning the liberal foundations. A lot of Christian morality goes hand in hand with liberal views, and I believe that he is simply trying to make his Christian audience understand this.
If you are tolerant towards people of other religions because of your own Christian morality, I think you are stil behaving as a good liberal. Just because you are a liberal doesnt mean that you cant have your own beliefs. Here is an example of where Christian morality and liberal beliefs coincide. It is both of their beliefs to accept and be tolerant of others; both Christian morality and liberalism apply. I also think that if you get others to be tolerant by appealing to their Christian morality, you are somewhat applying the harm principle either way. When you think about it, the Christian morality to be tolerant of others and respect them is to not offend and cause them harm. Though the reasoning behind it might seem different, the truth is that the morality principle teaches Christians to not enflict harm on others.

I would have to say that his appeal to christian morality does undercut the liberal foundations of his argument if he was making this argument at present time, but we have to keep in mind that hindsight is 20/20 and at one time christianity was religion like Rome was the center of the Universe. If we think of it in this way then does his appeal to christian morality not fall parallel to the harm principle? if so, then his argument would fall under the liberal sphere of its time.

Locke's argument to appeal to Christians reminds me of Martin Luther's criticism of the then dominating Catholic Church for its hypocrisy. His argument against the church stay within the logic of a good liberal when he addresses the doctorines directly in conflict with the extreme ways which Christians try to convert non-believers as opposed to the peaceful ways of tolerance. However, tying this in to his argument for tolerance, Locke's reasoning is grounded in his own interpretation of the Gospels to which he oversteps the bounds between using the principles of Christianity to show Christians their shortcomings versus trying to convince them of his interpertation of the Gospels. If Locke would have stuck to his argument against Christians for not "practicing what they preach," he would have had a better argument for tolerance based on Christian views because he could use their principles to reprimand and guide them. Yet Locke cannot stay within the confines of liberal logic because he wants appeal to the part of Christianity he likes - tolerance for all and God-given free will - but also tries to assert his own interpretation. Locke tries to manipulate christian doctorine to strengthen his argument which is the same thing that he accuses other Christians of doing: "Whatsoever is not done with that assurance of faith, is neither well in itself, nor can it be acceptable to God. To impose such things, therefore upon people, contrary to their own judgment, is, in effect, to command them to offend God; which, considering that the end of all religion is to please him, and that liberty is essentially necessary to that end, appears to be absurd beyond expression" (p. 233). Locke slips past the realm of logical reasoning for which tolerance is desirable to christian principles, and tries to debate and philosophize the doctorines of religion which he asserts God wants to eventually end. Here Locke also tries to assert this absolute idea that trying to convert others to Christianity is not what God intended. However this is contrary to other scripture which Christ instructs his followers to go out and teach others: "Then Jesus came to them and said 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you'"(Matthew 28:18-20). Moreover, Locke is just like the hypocrites he is criticizes. Locke takes the doctorine he uses out of context to pick and chooses what best fits his arguments. As in the above quote, Locke asserts this idea of death to religion but then tries to circumvent this with reasoning for why tolerance is a good thing Christians are obligated to practice based on their own beliefs. How can Locke assert his own ideas of what God really intended for how Christians should spread their beliefs, but then turn around to argue for tolerance being a part of Christianity as evident (without interpretation) in the text? Locke vears from the strength of his argument against the methods which Christians use to "transform" believers and how this inhibits a key principles of their faith which they ignore, like tolerance, which Locke can contradict with textual examples involving Christ and other followers. Locke would have been safe in his argument had he distanced himself from the ideology of Christianity and argued for the inconsistent methods used to spread their beliefs in addition to their inconsistencies in actions and preached doctorines. Yet as it was stated before, people have hard time seperating themselves from their beliefs whether you ascribe to christianity, the harm-principle, or no faith at all. Locke's argument for tolerance seems to argue for watered-down Christian ideals which promote happiness and liberty but do not enforce any rules or require obedience.

I can't decide whether or not Locke undercuts the liberal foundation of his argument by appealing to Christian morality. He understands that it's not his position to convert anyone to his system of morality, but he appeals to it all the same, and that's supposedly off-limits in the liberal tradition. Based on that, I'd say he's doing what he tells us we shouldn't. But as we've talked about in class, is it really possible to discuss civic gov't without discussing our personal systems of morality? How do you separate morality from legislation? Perhaps we could separate religion from legislation, but morality? Law must have a basis in morality. It can't always be completely practical and utilitarian. Would it be possible for Locke to make this argument about religion without appealing to his knowledge of religion--in this instance, Christian morality?

Sorry for my tardiness… First I was having some technical difficulties with my Internet connection and then I couldn’t get the Forum page to work, but I’m back up and running. On to the discussion…

This is a tough subject. I agreed with a lot of what Locke had to say about the separation between public and private sphere, and I found it interesting that he appealed to a Christian morality to arrive at a similar liberal end that Mill did. But, I have to say that even though we end on a good liberal thought, the problem arises for me when public debate is to take place between two people who feel their liberties have been compromised and come from different backgrounds. It’s hard to separate a man from his faith, but one thing that I feel the harm principle does decently well is give people from all backgrounds an even playing field to debate from. If basically all we can agree on is that all humans desire liberty, then all we can argue about is how we are or are not being allowed to live under that liberty. Then at least we are arguing from one common definition and goal: you’re stepping on my right to do this or that because of such and such... Here in Locke’s piece, he argues from his personal morality that happens to desire the same liberty for all people, and requires a tolerance of all individual’s personal choices, and that’s grand, but at times I felt like his ideas were idealistic. Tolerance is a lot to ask from some people and in those situations the harm principle takes its necessary place in a liberal society. This system of religious moral precepts being the reasoning behind respecting a person’s liberty just doesn’t work in a “salad bowl” society, this being because not everyone is coming from the same set of precepts. It’s much easier to operate on a harm principle where society has set the bar for what is right and wrong, granted even those standards probably came from some kind of religious-based thought, they are upheld and widely accepted by society and are more flexible with changing times than a standard of right and wrong that is forever based upon lets say, a Christian ethic. Which may or may not waiver on certain topics that are relevant to a changing society, take for example a gay lifestyle. So, for me… respect people’s liberties for what ever personal reasons that get the job done, but debating anything but the harm principle just seems futile.
amy_lee

I find the liberal tradition very confusing because I cannot for the life of me draw a line anywhere. I think that this perspective likes to believe that through the harm principle everything stays in a neat category: private or public. Furthermore, this would indicate that church and freedom of religion fit in nicely - nicely within the private sphere. This may be true in many large cities with diverse populations, but can these nice separations remain in a small Texas town that is predominantly Baptist? The non-Baptist citizen certainly has their rights on paper, which I believe Locke to be arguing in favor of. There will not be a written law to mandate that citizen become a Baptist. And yet, if you've ever been in this situation you realize that it is not this simple. Religion cannot be separated because it will be a way of life and an accepted culture in this town. Written law will not be as strong as the widely held belief of the town. If everyone wants to pray before a football game, then the atheist citizen can either: comply and go against his personal belief, become non-compliant and risk being looked down upon, or sue to get everyone to not pray. I know that it's okay for the Baptist citizens to have a private belief that this atheist should be looked down upon, but this blurs the lines a bit as well.

Under circumstances similar to the above small Texas town, I do believe that Locke is perhaps bringing forth a more do-able liberal tradition. You can't keep religion out of the picture just because you are keeping it separate on the books, so in this case he's really bringing religion - which is going to be on the table anyway - into the liberal arena. He's making it worth Christians while to not look down upon their atheist brethren. It's not really for the good of society or for common good. It's still kind of about public/private, just within a Christian context.

I do not think that Locke's appeal to Christian morality devalues his liberal foundations in his argument. Of course a Christian is concerned with the well-being of society and the condition of the world in general. But, as stated, Locke believes the magistrate should only concern himself with perserving "individual liberty over life, property, health, the body, etc." If the magistrate were to impede upon these liberties 'on behalf of God or the church', he would actually be in violation of the "Higher Law" God has placed on his people... (God will serve justice where justice needs served). It is not our business as human beings to concern ourselves where God does not want us to be concerned (telling others what to do, how to change, how to be). Furthermore, as the Christian group is formed, most members seek leadership, and because of this natural effect in a group, a "Good Christian leader" will be able to impose God's law (hopefully) upon his people... (NOT the public at large). I believe it would be the hope of the church and Christians everywhere that people would naturally be compelled to the Christian faith out of the members' examples... referring back to the old "Actions speak louder than words" philosophy. So, I am in agreement with Locke because I feel he clearly defines the line between civil and public 'policy' ...or basic etiquette among the human sphere.

I think Locke did a very very good job of specifying what belongs to the public or private realms. I feel that his reliance on the Christian belief comes from a) his familiarity w/ them and b) it seems to me that he was taking a leaf from Socrates' book and 'tailoring his speech to the soul of his listener' which from the ending on heresy & schismI think is also a christian. I re-alley liked his ability to separate the two realm, he clarified things more thoroughly than Mill did through his use of specific examples

Locke argues that church and civil society are separate entities that should not interact with one another. He maintains that neither individuals, churches, or commonwealths can invade anothers civil rights in the name of religion. Religion is a private matter that each citizen can decide for him/herself, and no one else can say or do anything about their decision. In addition, churches have free and voluntary membership. After joining one religion, said person can leave that church just as easily as they joined it.

Locke’s reasoning for religious toleration are incredibly Christian-based reasons. He states that anyone who is “cruel and implacable towards those that differ from him in opinion” is not acting in the Christian faith and is not working towards entrance into the kingdom of God. He then goes on to argue that toleration is “so agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the genuine reason of mankind” that we should all view it as necessary and engage in said practice (p. 217). Although these are compelling reasons, they are not based upon a secular mode of reasoning and thus do undercut the liberal foundations or his argument. He might be using Christianity as an example because that is the faith with which he is the most familiar, but his laziness in researching another religion to provide varying examples leaves the reader believing that religious toleration is a Christian principle that all should follow regardless of their personal religious beliefs.

He argues that those who follow this practice should also tell others of the duties of peace and good-will towards all men (p. 227). These are good qualities that all should have, but isn’t this breaching the public/private realm and telling others what to do? What if someone wants to be mean and nasty towards others? Do we have the right to tell him/her they should be a nicer person? And what about the religions that teach intolerance towards other religions? Some teach that only their religion is correct and others should be shunned for not following the ‘true religion.’ Should we force them to follow the tradition of toleration even though it goes against their beliefs and is based upon a Christian principle in this document? Locke states that outward worship cannot be limited so long that “it is believed by those that practise it to be acceptable unto him”. He then says anything done without “that assurance of faith” is to command them to “offend God” (p. 233). If a man or a woman believes that recoiling away from a woman who does not have her head covered is an acceptable practice and they would be willing to have the same done to them if they did not follow the rule, should we be able to force them to stop this practice? If we do, wouldn’t that be being intolerant of their religion and their beliefs?

This is an interesting slant to take in regards to this document, I’m interested in seeing what others have to say!