« John Locke and the Civil Government Debate » : différence entre les versions

De Baripedia
 
(5 versions intermédiaires par le même utilisateur non affichées)
Ligne 48 : Ligne 48 :
{{Translations
{{Translations
| fr = John Locke et le débat sur le gouvernement civil
| fr = John Locke et le débat sur le gouvernement civil
| es =  
| es = John Locke y el debate sobre el gobierno civil
}}  
}}  


Ligne 67 : Ligne 67 :
In 1689, he published the "Epistola de Tolerantia" - "Letter on Tolerance" - which was soon distributed on the continent. In 1690 he became famous with the publication of his main philosophical work, "An Essay concerning Human Understanding", which attacked the Cartesian doctrine of innate ideas and developed a theory of knowledge of an empirical - sensualist type. The same year, he published Two Treatises of Government, the first volume of which is a refutation of the theses set out in the "Patriarcha" by the absolutist writer Robert Filmer, and the second, better known under the title "Essay on Civil Government", proposes a vast reflection on the foundations and limits of the State.  
In 1689, he published the "Epistola de Tolerantia" - "Letter on Tolerance" - which was soon distributed on the continent. In 1690 he became famous with the publication of his main philosophical work, "An Essay concerning Human Understanding", which attacked the Cartesian doctrine of innate ideas and developed a theory of knowledge of an empirical - sensualist type. The same year, he published Two Treatises of Government, the first volume of which is a refutation of the theses set out in the "Patriarcha" by the absolutist writer Robert Filmer, and the second, better known under the title "Essay on Civil Government", proposes a vast reflection on the foundations and limits of the State.  


In 1695, he again published the "Reasonableness of Christianity", which formulated the main ideas of deism. Interested in monetary problems, he was a member of the new Council of Commerce from 1696 onwards; his health declining, he had to resign in 1700. Retired to Oates, he wrote his "Paraphrases of the Epistles of Saint Paul" before dying on 28th October 1704.
In 1695, he again published the "Reasonableness of Christianity", which formulated the main ideas of deism.<ref>Stuart, M. (Ed.). (2015). A companion to Locke: Stuart/companion. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell. Url: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118328705.ch25</ref><ref>Riano, N. (2019, March 15). John Locke on “The Reasonableness of Christianity” ~ the imaginative conservative. Retrieved November 19, 2020, from Theimaginativeconservative.org website: https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2019/03/john-locke-reasonableness-of-christianity-nayeli-riano.html</ref><ref>Rabieh, M. S. (1991). The Reasonableness of Locke, or the Questionableness of Christianity. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 933–957. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131861</ref><ref>Nuovo, V. (Ed.). (1996). John Locke and Christianity: Contemporary responses to the reasonableness of Christianity. South Bend, IN: St Augustine’s Press. Url: https://philpapers.org/rec/NUOJLA</ref> Interested in monetary problems, he was a member of the new Council of Commerce from 1696 onwards; his health declining, he had to resign in 1700. Retired to Oates, he wrote his "Paraphrases of the Epistles of Saint Paul" before dying on 28th October 1704.


Locke was the one who wrote the constitution of North Carolina, imbuing the American state with his trademark. The founder of Pennsylvania was William Penn, who inherited Pennsylvania as a British colony.
Locke was the one who wrote the constitution of North Carolina, imbuing the American state with his trademark. The founder of Pennsylvania was William Penn, who inherited Pennsylvania as a British colony.
Ligne 73 : Ligne 73 :
In 1683, Locke had to flee England, he was linked to a conspiracy, bound by Lord Ashley, he had to flee England and settle in Amsterdam, which along with Rotterdam are the Mecca of Protestantism and freedom of thought. In the 17th century, the Dutch empire was the great power of the moment.
In 1683, Locke had to flee England, he was linked to a conspiracy, bound by Lord Ashley, he had to flee England and settle in Amsterdam, which along with Rotterdam are the Mecca of Protestantism and freedom of thought. In the 17th century, the Dutch empire was the great power of the moment.


= Philosophie politique =
= Political Philosophy =
La pensée de Locke est contrairement à [[La naissance du concept moderne de l’État|Hobbes]] éminemment religieuse.
Locke's thought is, unlike Hobbes, eminently religious.


Locke, dans toute sa philosophie tente de répondre à quatre questions :  
Locke, in all his philosophy tries to answer four questions:  
#comment penser un gouvernement qui ne conduit ni à la guerre civile ni à l’oppression ? Un gouvernement qui est un autre modèle que celui proposé par Hobbes.
#How can you think of a government that leads neither to civil war nor to oppression? A government that is another model than the one proposed by Hobbes.
#comment aménager les rapports entre le pouvoir politique et le pouvoir religieux ? Dans les Lettres sur la Tolérance il se pose la question entre le religieux et le politique.
#How can the relationship between political and religious power be arranged? In the Letters on Tolerance the question is asked between the religious and the political.
#comment penser un gouvernement compatible avec une nouvelle forme de société que l’on peut qualifier de société marchande ? Locke s’intéresse non seulement à un gouvernement qui puisse ne pas tomber dans la guerre civile et l’oppression, mais il développe aussi une réflexion de type économique.
#How can we think of a government that is compatible with a new form of society that can be described as a market society? Locke is not only interested in a government that can avoid falling into civil war and oppression, but he also develops an economic type of reflection.
#quel est le statut épistémologique de la connaissance ? comment connaissons-nous ce que nous connaissons ? Par quel mécanisme apprenons-nous ?  
#what is the epistemological status of knowledge? how do we know what we know? By what mechanism do we learn?  


La première question est au fond la réponse à Thomas Hobbes : quel est le bon gouvernement ? Comment et sur quels principes est-il fondé pour qu’il ne verse ni dans la guerre civile ni dans l’oppression ?
The first question is basically the answer to Thomas Hobbes: what is good government? How and on what principles is it based so that it does not slide into civil war and oppression?


[[Image:Locke treatises of government page.jpg|thumb|right]]
[[Image:Locke treatises of government page.jpg|thumb|right]]


C’est dans le ''Traité sur le Gouvernement Civil'' de 1690 que Locke répond à Hobbes et à la première question. Locke est fasciné par les sciences tout comme [[La naissance du concept moderne de l’État|Hobbes]], il va partir des mêmes prémisses : il ne sert à rien de réfléchir au bon gouvernement si on ne sait pas de quoi sommes-nous faits. Il se replonge dans la question de l’état de nature.  
It is in the "Treaty on Civil Government" of 1690 that Locke answers Hobbes and the first question. Locke was as fascinated by science as Hobbes, and he started from the same premise: there is no point in thinking about good government if we don't know what we are made of. He goes back to the question of the state of nature.  


C’est à partir d’une réflexion sur l’état de nature que Locke arrive à ses conclusions.
It is from a reflection on the state of nature that Locke arrives at his conclusions.


Dans ses Deux traités sur le Gouvernement Civil de 1690, Locke construit son système juridique également à partir d’un exposé de la condition de l’homme à l’état de nature. Il y énonce quatre principes :
In his Two Treaties on Civil Government of 1690, Locke also constructs his legal system from an exposition of the condition of man in relation to the state of nature. He set out four principles:
#tous les hommes sont naturellement égaux : il n’y a pas de hiérarchie naturelle qui contraindrait l’un à se mettre au service de l’autre.
#all men are naturally equal: there is no natural hierarchy which would compel one to put himself at the service of the other.
#l’homme est d’une nature libre : il n’est pas conflictuel par essence, l’homme n’est pas de nature belliqueuse et encore moins craintive.
#Man is of a free nature: he is not inherently conflictual, man is not of a belligerent nature and even less fearful.
#l’homme est un être profondément rationnel : l’homme est animé par le besoin de la raison, qui le pousse à se rapprocher de ses semblables, il défend la vision d’Aristote qui est que l’homme est profondément social. C’est également sa raison qui lui fait comprendre (à l’homme) la nécessité de l’échange (biens matériels et immatériels)
#Man is a profoundly rational being: man is driven by the need for reason, which pushes him to get closer to his fellow men, he defends Aristotle's vision that man is profoundly social. It is also his reason that makes him (man) understand the necessity of exchange (material and immaterial goods).
#l’état de nature est un état paisible où règnent la liberté, l’égalité et la propriété : les hommes naissent libres, égaux, et propriétaires ; à l’époque, Dieu est propriétaire du corps de l’homme. Lorsque Locke affirmera en 1790 que nous sommes le propriétaire exclusif de notre corps et de notre esprit, il pense à la propriété de nous-mêmes. C’est une loi naturelle qui aura des conséquences politiques très importantes.
#The state of nature is a peaceful state where freedom, equality and property reign: men are born free, equal and owners; at that time, God is the owner of man's body. When Locke asserted in 1790 that we are the sole owners of our bodies and minds, he was thinking of the ownership of ourselves. This is a natural law that will have very important political consequences.


L’homme, bien que paisible, rationnel, libre, égal à son semblable et propriétaire de son corps est dans un état instable, cela ne permet pas le vivre ensemble de manière harmonieuse, on ne peut pas bien échanger, l’ordre social n’est pas bien organisé, l’ordre politique n’est pas mis en place ; il faut quitter l’état de nature afin de mettre en place l’état de société.
Man, although peaceful, rational, free, equal to his fellow man and owner of his body, is in an unstable state, this does not allow us to live together harmoniously, we cannot exchange well, the social order is not well organised, the political order is not established; we have to leave the state of nature in order to establish the state of society.


Les hommes à l’état de nature ne sont pas malheureux, mais la raison des hommes les amène à quitter l’état de nature vers l’état de société. Il faut un consentement afin de constituer un État et un gouvernement légitime.
Men in the state of nature are not unhappy, but the reason of men leads them to leave the state of nature towards the state of society. Consent is required in order to establish a state and a legitimate government.


Nous nous donnons des lois afin de mettre en place un gouvernement légitime construit autour de quatre grands principes importants :
We give ourselves laws in order to set up a legitimate government built around four important principles :
#le consentement : l’acceptation du vivre-ensemble, il faut consentir afin de mettre en place un État. Hobbes concevait le pouvoir comme un pouvoir descendant, chez Locke il y a l’idée d’un pouvoir légitime ascendant, le consentement permet d’assoir cette légitimité. Il faut que l’acte d’instauration de l’État soit un acte consenti.  
#consent: the acceptance of living together, consent is necessary in order to set up a state. Hobbes conceived power as a top-down power, at Locke there is the idea of a legitimate bottom-up power, consent allows this legitimacy to be established. The act of establishing the state must be a consensual act.  
#un gouvernement légitime, un gouvernement acceptable, un gouvernement moderne est un gouvernement qui consacre le principe de la séparation des pouvoirs : Locke écrit au moment de la restauration, le pouvoir doit se partager entre le roi et le parlement.
#A legitimate government, an acceptable government, a modern government is a government that enshrines the principle of the separation of powers: Locke writes at the time of restoration, power must be shared between the king and parliament.
#le pouvoir est situé dans le pouvoir législatif : le cœur même d’un pouvoir légitime est le pouvoir de légiférer, de faire et de défaire la loi.  
#power is located in the legislative branch: the very heart of legitimate power is the power to legislate, to make and break the law.  
#Notion de trust (confiance) : fondamentalement, le pouvoir politique est un dépôt aux mains du parlement au nom de la confiance (trust) que l’on fait à ce parlement, c’est parce qu’on a confiance envers le parlement qu’il est autorisé à représenter. Il y a l’idée que le pouvoir législatif est dépositaire de la légitimité parce que la confiance lui a été attribuée, parce qu’il a la confiance des individus.  
#Notion of trust: fundamentally, political power is a deposit in the hands of parliament in the name of the trust placed in that parliament, it is because one has confidence in the parliament he is authorised to represent. There is the idea that legislative power is a repository of legitimacy because it has been entrusted with trust, because it has the trust of individuals.  


Un gouvernement légitime est un gouvernement qui consacre le pouvoir du parlement, la séparation des pouvoirs, la confiance des individus, et le respect de la liberté religieuse et la liberté de culte ; ce gouvernement qui respecte l’égalité, la liberté et surtout la propriété est à l’antithèse de Thomas Hobbes.
A legitimate government is a government that enshrines the power of parliament, the separation of powers, the confidence of individuals, and respect for religious freedom and freedom of worship; a government that respects equality, freedom and above all property is the antithesis of Thomas Hobbes.


= John Locke, Traité du Gouvernement Civil, 1690 =
= John Locke, Treatise on Civil Government, 1690 =
Cet ouvrage répond à la première question à savoir quel gouvernement est légitime et les conditions d’existence à un gouvernement légitimité permettant à la liberté, l’égalité et la propriété de s’établir.  
This book answers the first question about which government is legitimate and the conditions for legitimate government to exist that allow freedom, equality and property to be established.  


À l’époque le terme gouvernement signifie État, un gouvernement légitime est un gouvernement qui réussit ou a réussi à garantir les droits à l’égalité, la liberté et la propriété.  
At the time the term government meant state, a legitimate government is a government that succeeds or has succeeded in guaranteeing the rights to equality, freedom and property.  


Le souci de [[La naissance du concept moderne de l’État|Hobbes]] était un souci de sécurité et d’autorité, le souci de Locke est de garantir les principes de liberté, d’égalité et de propriété ; il va proposer un État de séparation des pouvoirs qui garantit ces droits fondamentaux.  
Hobbes' concern was a concern for security and authority, Locke's concern was to guarantee the principles of liberty, equality and property; he would propose a state of separation of powers that guaranteed these fundamental rights.  


{{citation bloc|Cependant, quoique l'état de nature soit un état de liberté, ce n'est nullement un état de licence. Certainement, un homme, en cet état, a une liberté incontestable, par laquelle il peut disposer comme il veut, de sa personne ou de ce qu'il possède: mais il n'a pas la liberté et le droit de se détruire lui-même, non plus que de faire tort à aucune autre personne, ou de la troubler dans ce dont elle jouit, il doit faire de sa liberté le meilleur et le plus noble usage, que sa propre conservation demande de lui. L'état de nature a la loi de la nature, qui doit le régler, et à laquelle chacun est obligé de se soumettre et d'obéir : la raison, qui est cette loi, enseigne à tous les hommes, s'ils veulent bien la consulter, qu'étant tous égaux et indépendants, nul ne doit nuire à un autre, par rapport à sa vie, à sa santé, à sa liberté, à son bien : car, les hommes étant tous l'ouvrage d'un ouvrier tout-puissant et infiniment sage, les serviteurs d'un souverain maître, placés dans le monde par lui et pour ses intérêts, ils lui appartiennent en propre, et son ouvrage doit durer autant qu'il lui plait, non autant qu'il plait à un autre. Et étant doués des mêmes facultés dans la communauté de nature, on ne peut supposer aucune subordination entre nous, qui puisse nous autoriser à nous détruire les uns les autres, comme si nous étions faits pour les usages les uns des autres, de la même manière que les créatures d'un rang inférieur au nôtre, sont faites pour notre usage. Chacun donc est obligé de se conserver lui-même, et de ne quitter point volontairement son poste pour parler ainsi.}}
{{citation bloc|However, although the state of nature is a state of freedom, it is by no means a state of licence. Certainly, a man in this state has an unquestionable liberty by which he may dispose as he wishes of his person or of what he possesses: but he has no liberty and no right to destroy himself, nor to harm any other person, or to disturb him in what he enjoys, he must make the best and noblest use of his liberty, which his own preservation requires of him. The state of nature has the law of nature, which must regulate it, and to which everyone is obliged to submit and obey: reason, which is this law, teaches all men, if they wish to consult it, that, being all equal and independent, no one must harm another, in relation to his life, his health, his liberty, his property...: For since all men are the work of an all-powerful and infinitely wise worker, the servants of a sovereign master, placed in the world by him and for his interests, they belong to him in their own right, and his work must last as long as it pleases him, not as long as it pleases another. And being endowed with the same faculties in the community of nature, no subordination can be supposed between us that would allow us to destroy each other, as if we were made for each other's use, in the same way that creatures of a rank inferior to ours are made for our use. Everyone is therefore obliged to preserve himself, and not to leave his post voluntarily to speak thus.}}


L’homme est propriétaire de son corps et de son esprit, toutefois l’ultime propriétaire est quand même Dieu nous interdisant de disposer de notre existence. Nous sommes propriétaires de notre corps et de notre esprit, mais Dieu en est copropriétaire. Dieu est dans nos vies selon Locke.  
Man is the owner of his body and his spirit, however the ultimate owner is still God forbidding us to dispose of our existence. We are owners of our body and mind, but God is co-owner. God is in our lives according to Locke.  


C’est l’ambiguïté de Locke qui affirme la propriété de notre corps et de notre esprit, mais nous ne pouvons pas tout faire.  
It is Locke's ambiguity that asserts ownership of our body and mind, but we cannot do everything.  


On voit très bien aux paragraphes 7, 8, 9 et 10 l’origine du principe de séparation des pouvoirs chez Locke qui divise le pouvoir en deux :  
Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 clearly show the origin of Locke's principle of the separation of powers, which divides power in two:  
*pouvoir d’exécuter
*power to execute
*pouvoir de juger
*power to judge


La réflexion de Locke repose sur l’idée qu’à l’état de nature nous avons deux pouvoirs essentiels :  
Locke's thinking is based on the idea that in the state of nature we have two essential powers:  
*pouvoir de se conserver
*power to preserve ourselves
*pouvoir de punir
*power to punish


C’est l’idée de la séparation des pouvoirs que Locke transpose à l’état de nature.  
It is the idea of the separation of powers that Locke transposes to the state of nature.  


{{citation bloc|J'assure donc encore, que tous les hommes sont naturellement dans cet état, que j'appelle état de nature, et qu'ils y demeurent jusqu'à ce que, de leur propre consentement, ils se soient faits membres de quelque société politique : et je ne doute point que dans la suite de ce Traité cela ne paraisse très évident.}}  
{{citation bloc|I therefore still assure you that all men are naturally in this state, which I call a state of nature, and that they remain there until, with their own consent, they have made themselves members of some political society: and I have no doubt that in the continuation of this Treaty this will not seem very obvious.}}  


On ne peut imposer aux uns de vivre avec les autres, il faut consentir à cette possibilité ; il n’y a pas d’État légitime s’il ne repose pas sur une volonté, un consentement assumé. Pour Hobbes, il fallait signer le contrat de soumission, l’acte par lequel nous donnions nos pouvoirs au Léviathan était un acte unique. La logique de Locke est différente.
One cannot be forced to live with others, one must consent to this possibility; there is no legitimate state if it is not based on a will, an assumed consent. For Hobbes, the contract of submission had to be signed, the act by which we gave our powers to Leviathan was a single act. Locke's logic is different.


Le titre du Chapitre III est ''De l’état de Guerre'' répondant à [[La naissance du concept moderne de l’État|Hobbes]].
The title of Chapter III is "On the State of War", in response to Hobbes.


{{citation bloc|L'état de guerre, est un état d'inimitié et de destruction. Celui qui déclare à un autre, soit par paroles, soit par actions, qu'il en veut à sa vie, doit faire cette déclaration, non avec passion et précipitamment, mais avec un esprit tranquille : et alors cette déclaration met celui qui l'a fait, dans l'état de guerre avec celui à qui il l'a faite.}}
{{citation bloc|The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction. Whoever declares to another, either by word or deed, that he is angry with his life, must make this declaration, not with passion and haste, but with a tranquil mind: and then this declaration puts the one who made it, in the state of war with the one to whom he made it.}}


Au chapitre VIII est la naissance de l’État, une fois l’État mis en place, il n’est plus nécessaire d’avoir le consentement de tous, mais le consentement de la majorité.  
In Chapter VIII is the birth of the State, once the State is established, it is no longer necessary to have the consent of all, but the consent of the majority.  


{{citation bloc|Les hommes étant nés tous également, ainsi qu'il a été prouvé, dans une liberté parfaite, et avec le droit de jouir paisiblement et sans contradiction, de tous les droits et de tous les privilèges des lois de la nature; chacun a, par la nature, le pouvoir, non seulement de conserver ses biens propres, c'est-à-dire, sa vie, sa liberté et ses riches¬ses, contre toutes les entreprises, toutes les injures et tous les attentats des autres; mais encore de juger et de punir ceux qui violent les lois de la nature, selon qu'il croit que l'offense le mérite, de punir même de mort, lorsqu'il s'agit de quelque crime énorme, qu'il pense mériter la mort. Or, parce qu'il ne peut y avoir de société politique, et qu'une telle société ne peut subsister, si elle n'a en soi le pouvoir de conserver ce qui lui appartient en propre, et, pour cela, de punir les fautes de ses membres; là seule¬ment se trouve une société politique, où chacun des membres s'est dépouillé de son pouvoir naturel, et l'a remis entre les mains de la société, afin qu'elle en dispose dans toutes sortes de causes, qui n'empêchent point d'appeler toujours aux lois établies par elle. Par ce moyen, tout jugement des particuliers étant exclu, la société acquiert le droit de souveraineté; et certaines lois étant établies, et certains hommes autorisés par la communauté pour les faire exécuter, ils terminent tous les différends qui peuvent arriver entre les membres de cette société-là, touchant quelque matière de droit, et punissent les fautes que quelque membre aura commises contre la société en général, ou contre quelqu'un de son corps, conformément aux peines marquées par les lois. Et par là, il est aisé de discerner ceux qui sont ou qui ne sont pas ensemble en société politique. Ceux qui composent un seul et même corps, qui ont des lois communes établies et des juges auxquels ils peuvent appeler, et qui ont l'autorité de terminer les disputes et les procès, qui peuvent être parmi eux et de punir ceux qui font tort aux autres et commettent quelque crime : ceux-là sont en société - mais ceux qui ne peuvent civile les uns avec les autres ; appeler de même à aucun tribunal sur la terre, ni à aucunes lois positives, sont toujours dans l'état de nature; chacun, où il n'y a point d'autre juge, étant juge et exécuteur pour soi-même, ce qui est, comme je l'ai montré auparavant, le véritable et parfait état de nature.}}
{{citation bloc|All men being born equally, as it has been proved, in perfect freedom, and with the right to enjoy peacefully and without contradiction, all the rights and privileges of the laws of nature; everyone has, by nature, the power not only to preserve his own property, that is to say, his life, his liberty and his wealth, against all the enterprises, insults and attacks of others; but also to judge and punish those who violate the laws of nature, according to the merit of the offence, and even to punish with death, when it is a question of some enormous crime which he thinks deserves death. Now, because there can be no political society, and no such society can subsist unless it has in itself the power to preserve what is its own, and to punish the faults of its members, there alone is a political society, in which each member has stripped himself of his natural power and placed it in the hands of society, so that it may dispose of it in all sorts of causes, which do not prevent the laws established by it from always being invoked. By this means, with the exclusion of any judgment by individuals, society acquires the right of sovereignty; and since certain laws are established, and certain men are authorised by the community to enforce them, they put an end to all disputes that may arise between the members of that society in any matter of law, and punish the faults that any member may have committed against society in general, or against any member of its body, in accordance with the penalties laid down by the laws. And by this, it is easy to discern those who are or who are not together in political society. Those who make up one body, who have common laws established and judges to whom they can call, and who have the authority to end disputes and trials, who can be among them and to punish those who harm others and commit any crime: those are in society - but those who cannot civilise with one another; likewise to call to no court on earth, nor to any positive laws, are always in the state of nature; each one, where there is no other judge, being judge and executor for himself, which is, as I have shown before, the true and perfect state of nature.}}


Cet ouvrage est au fond l’Histoire de l’Humanité et du gouvernement des hommes.  
This book is basically the History of Humanity and the government of mankind.  


À partir du paragraphe 105, Locke nous montre comment l’histoire des sociétés humaines a évolué, il décrit le processus répondant à la question de lorsqu’on regarde l’histoire de l’humanité, ce processus a existé, l’état de nature a existé, il y a des sociétés qui sont encore à l’état de nature.  
Starting from paragraph 105, Locke shows us how the history of human societies has evolved, he describes the process answering the question that when we look at the history of mankind, this process has existed, the state of nature has existed, there are societies that are still in the state of nature.  


Des communautés quittent l’état de nature pour vivre ensemble, mais certaines n’ont pas évolué, les conséquences sont importantes, Locke introduit l’argument que tous les inventeurs de la sociologie moderne reprendront par la suite est que les sociétés humaines évoluent par étapes : les sociétés humaines ont un début et parfois une fin.
Communities leave the state of nature to live together, but some have not evolved, the consequences are important, Locke introduces the argument that all the inventors of modern sociology will later take up is that human societies evolve in stages: human societies have a beginning and sometimes an end.


La question est de savoir qu’est-ce que le début et qu’est-ce que la fin ? Une société qui n’a pas quitté l’état de nature est une société qui n’a pas évolué parce que les conséquences d’une telle affirmation sont que les sociétés évoluées peuvent faire évoluer celles qui n’ont pas évolué.  
The question is what is the beginning and what is the end? A society that has not left the state of nature is a society that has not evolved because the consequences of such a statement are that evolved societies can make those that have not evolved evolve.  


L’Amérique était dans un État de nature, si l’Amérique est à l’état de nature alors il faut l’amener à l’état de société c’est pourquoi il faut occuper les terres, il faut coloniser, répandre la vie sociale moderne, il faut convaincre, imposer, attirer vers les sociétés évoluées que sont la Grande-Bretagne, la France et l’Europe.
America was in a state of nature, if America is in the state of nature then it must be brought to the state of society, that's why we have to occupy the land, we have to colonise, we have to spread modern social life, we have to convince, impose, attract towards the evolved societies that are Great Britain, France and Europe.


Derrière cette vision évolutionniste de l’histoire se cache une vision avec des conséquences dramatiques pour une partie de la terre à savoir l’idée que nos sociétés sont divisées entre sociétés civilisées et des sociétés qui ne le sont pas. Cette vision binaire de l’ordre international repose sur une vision de l‘histoire par étape, faisant des sociétés européennes les sociétés les plus évoluées ; l’implication d’un tel argument sont dans l’ordre intellectuel dramatique et important.  
Behind this evolutionary vision of history lies a vision with dramatic consequences for part of the earth, namely the idea that our societies are divided into civilised and uncivilised societies. This binary vision of the international order is based on a step-by-step view of history, making European societies the most evolved; the implications of such an argument are in the intellectual order dramatic and important.  


Aux paragraphes 123 et 124 apparaissent les buts de l’État, la société politique a un certain nombre d’objectifs.
Paragraphs 123 and 124 set out the aims of the state, the political society has a number of objectives.


{{citation bloc|[…] ce n'est pas sans raison qu'ils recherchent la société, et qu'ils souhaitent de se joindre avec d'autres qui sont déjà unis ou qui ont dessein de s'unir et de composer un corps, pour la conservation mutuelle de leurs vies, de leurs libertés et de leurs biens; choses que j'appelle, d'un nom général, propriétés.
{{citation bloc|[…] It is not without reason that they seek society, and that they wish to join with others who are already united, or who have the intention of uniting and composing a body, for the mutual preservation of their lives, their liberties and their property; things which I call, by a general name, properties.


C'est pourquoi, la plus grande et la principale fin que se proposent les hommes, lorsqu'ils s'unissent en communauté et se soumettent à un gouvernement, c'est de conserver leurs propriétés, pour la conservation desquelles bien des choses manquent dans l'état de nature.}}
For this reason, the greatest and principal end which men propose for themselves, when they unite in community and submit themselves to a government, is to conserve their properties, for the conservation of which many things are lacking in the state of nature.}}


Nous quittons l’état de nature parce que nous voulons conserver nos droits dont le droit de propriété, va être mis en place un État légitime qui va protéger nos droits parmi lesquels le droit de propriété.
We are leaving the state of nature because we want to keep our rights, including the right of ownership, a legitimate state will be established that will protect our rights, including the right of ownership.


Les conséquences pour l’ordre international sont immenses, si l’État veut garantir la propriété privée, il doit le faire aussi hors de l’État.  
The consequences for the international order are immense, if the state wants to guarantee private property, it must also do so outside the state.  


Locke affirme l’importance du pouvoir législatif puisqu’il est partisan affirmé du pouvoir législatif.  
Locke asserts the importance of the legislative branch, as he is a strong supporter of the legislative branch.  


Il ne faut pas faire de Locke le représentant du colonialisme moderne, en revanche la philosophie de Locke, la philosophe du droit de propriété a donné des arguments à ceux qui ont souhaité étendre les territoires des grands pays européens. Locke n’avait pas d’ambitions particulières, mais il a fourni par la rigueur de son raisonnement des arguments pour ceux qui avaient des ambitions.
Locke should not be made the representative of modern colonialism, on the other hand Locke's philosophy, the philosopher of property rights, gave arguments to those who wanted to extend the territories of the large European countries. Locke had no particular ambitions, but he provided arguments for those who had ambitions through the rigour of his reasoning.


L’État que dessine Locke est plus proche de nous que celui de [[La naissance du concept moderne de l’État|Hobbes]]. Locke pose la question du rapport entre le religieux et le politique ; le second problème est de comment articulé la vie, comment aménager les rapports entre le pouvoir politique et le pouvoir religieux ?
The state that Locke designed is closer to us than that of [[The Birth of the Modern Concept of the State|Hobbes]]. Locke poses the question of the relationship between the religious and the political; the second problem is how to articulate life, how to arrange the relationship between political and religious power?


= John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689 =
= John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689 =
Ligne 201 : Ligne 201 :
Locke believes that the modern state must guarantee security and in some cases enable people to resist oppression; in a certain sense, Locke is in favour of a right of resistance in the face of an authoritarian state with a despotic and absolutist tendency.
Locke believes that the modern state must guarantee security and in some cases enable people to resist oppression; in a certain sense, Locke is in favour of a right of resistance in the face of an authoritarian state with a despotic and absolutist tendency.


Resistance to a monarchical and all-powerful state will be challenged by Montesquieu.
Resistance to a monarchical and all-powerful state will be challenged by [[Montesquieu and the definition of the Free State|Montesquieu]].


= Annexes =
= Annexes =

Version actuelle datée du 19 novembre 2020 à 09:37

John Locke and the Civil Government Debate
Professeur(s) Alexis Keller[1][2][3]
Cours History of Legal and Political Thought: The Foundations of Modern Legal and Political Thought 1500 - 1850

Lectures


Locke responded to Hobbes by resuming his reflection on the State. Basically, since Hobbes, the definition of the State as a sovereign legal person defined in terms close to those of Bodin's true Leviathan is no longer questioned. What is discussed is the relationship that the state has with individuals and citizens. Having defined the state, the question is no longer to redefine the state, but the relationship the state has with citizens.

After Hobbes, the questioning of the state changes, it is a question of seeing the place of the state in our lives, how far the state can go and what is the best possible form of state to enjoy freedom, equality and the right to property.

The questions are changing, becoming centred on the new relationship between the state and individuals; the first to attempt to propose a model of the state that is not an absolutist model, an all-powerful 'authoritarian model' of the state is John Locke. The context in which Locke publishes is particular, in other words, the context of seventeenth-century England sheds light on why Locke wanted to denounce the authoritarian vision of the State.

If Hobbes found a revolutionary period in England, Locke finds himself in a period when monarchy was restored: England's republican experiment ended in 1660 and the monarchy was restored. In 1660, Charles II came to power, his tutor was Hobbes. Thus, Hobbes' disciple ascended the throne.

England then experienced tensions between a royalist vision aiming to concentrate all powers in the hands of the monarchs and a parliamentarian vision; from 1660 onwards, there was a latent opposition between the king and parliament, which did not want the restoration of the monarchy to mean a loss of power.

This tension was compounded by another fact: when Charles II died in 1685, his successor James II loudly proclaimed his Catholicism, wishing not to impose Catholicism on England, but to return to values and practices closer to the Catholic Church. Since the middle of the 16th century, the Parliament and England have been Protestant of Anglican obedience. Having a king who was openly Catholic increased tensions from 1685 onwards.

From 1660 to 1685 tensions are managed, but from 1685 things get out of hand, the parliament can no longer stand a monarch who claims his power. It should be added that in 1685, the Edict of Nantes, which sealed the peace between Protestants and Catholics, was revoked in France. Louis XIV thus deprived the Protestants of their rights acquired in 1598.

There was a migration of militant Protestants to Europe, particularly to Holland, Switzerland (Geneva, Zurich and Basel), but also to England; the affirmation of the Catholic militancy of James II came at the wrong time, and the Protestant reflex was all the stronger in England at that time.

Guillaume III by Godfrey Kneller.

The Parliament quickly became increasingly unhappy with a man who asserted his Catholicism, but who held absolute power; in 1688 - 1689, the Parliament dismissed the King. It was the second English revolution that saw the dismissal of James II and the Parliament took power by calling on a Protestant king whose powers were largely amputated in favour of the Parliament.

This man is William of Orange who is the head of the House of Orange in Holland who had married the heiress to the throne of England and who agrees to take back the power of the throne of England; the motto of William of Orange is everything for freedom, for the Protestant faith and for Parliament.

This acceptance of the throne is not unconditional:

  • that he agrees to sign the Bill of Rights of 1689, which guaranteed a certain number of fundamental rights, but above all recognised a certain number of fundamental powers for Parliament: to raise taxes and Parliament will be able to exercise a power of control over the King's cabinet, i.e. the ministers.
  • that it accepts the Act of Tolerance which obliges the King to tolerate religious freedom and the free exercise of cults and religions; this is not only freedom of conscience, but also freedom to practise one's faith.

William of Orange takes back the British crown under certain conditions; Locke will publish in 1690 his work on civil government.

Languages


Español Français



Biography[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

John Locke.

John Locke was born in Wrington on 26 August 1632, son of a Justice of the Peace clerk, captain in the parliamentary regiments during the civil war. During his studies at Oxford, whose Aristotelian philosophy and scholastic disputes he did not appreciate, the young Locke discovered Descartes, who gave him a taste for philosophy. He was also interested in Wallis' writings on geometry and L. Ward's writings on astrology.

Frightened by the extent of the religious quarrels, he opts at the same time for religious tolerance. Destined for a career in the church, he gave up medicine, which he practised in Oxford with a former college friend.

In 1666, he met Lord Ashley, future Duke of Shaftesbury, with whom he became friends and became his private physician, while also being in charge of the future Duke's affairs. As Lord Protector of Carolina, Lord Ashley asked Locke in 1669 to draw up the Constitution of this colony. At that time, he made his first trip to France. He returned in 1675, but had to return to England at the request of Lord Ashley, who was appointed President of the King's Privy Council.

A few years later, when, for political reasons, Lord Ashley was accused of conspiracy and had to flee to Holland, suspicions also arose that Locke was leaving England for the same destination. In 1683, he settled in Amsterdam, then in Rotterdam, where he presided over a small philosophical club.

After the English Revolution of 1688, Locke returned to England in 1689 on the same boat as Princess Marie, wife of William of Orange. He was then appointed Commissioner of Appeals.

In 1689, he published the "Epistola de Tolerantia" - "Letter on Tolerance" - which was soon distributed on the continent. In 1690 he became famous with the publication of his main philosophical work, "An Essay concerning Human Understanding", which attacked the Cartesian doctrine of innate ideas and developed a theory of knowledge of an empirical - sensualist type. The same year, he published Two Treatises of Government, the first volume of which is a refutation of the theses set out in the "Patriarcha" by the absolutist writer Robert Filmer, and the second, better known under the title "Essay on Civil Government", proposes a vast reflection on the foundations and limits of the State.

In 1695, he again published the "Reasonableness of Christianity", which formulated the main ideas of deism.[4][5][6][7] Interested in monetary problems, he was a member of the new Council of Commerce from 1696 onwards; his health declining, he had to resign in 1700. Retired to Oates, he wrote his "Paraphrases of the Epistles of Saint Paul" before dying on 28th October 1704.

Locke was the one who wrote the constitution of North Carolina, imbuing the American state with his trademark. The founder of Pennsylvania was William Penn, who inherited Pennsylvania as a British colony.

In 1683, Locke had to flee England, he was linked to a conspiracy, bound by Lord Ashley, he had to flee England and settle in Amsterdam, which along with Rotterdam are the Mecca of Protestantism and freedom of thought. In the 17th century, the Dutch empire was the great power of the moment.

Political Philosophy[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Locke's thought is, unlike Hobbes, eminently religious.

Locke, in all his philosophy tries to answer four questions:

  1. How can you think of a government that leads neither to civil war nor to oppression? A government that is another model than the one proposed by Hobbes.
  2. How can the relationship between political and religious power be arranged? In the Letters on Tolerance the question is asked between the religious and the political.
  3. How can we think of a government that is compatible with a new form of society that can be described as a market society? Locke is not only interested in a government that can avoid falling into civil war and oppression, but he also develops an economic type of reflection.
  4. what is the epistemological status of knowledge? how do we know what we know? By what mechanism do we learn?

The first question is basically the answer to Thomas Hobbes: what is good government? How and on what principles is it based so that it does not slide into civil war and oppression?

Locke treatises of government page.jpg

It is in the "Treaty on Civil Government" of 1690 that Locke answers Hobbes and the first question. Locke was as fascinated by science as Hobbes, and he started from the same premise: there is no point in thinking about good government if we don't know what we are made of. He goes back to the question of the state of nature.

It is from a reflection on the state of nature that Locke arrives at his conclusions.

In his Two Treaties on Civil Government of 1690, Locke also constructs his legal system from an exposition of the condition of man in relation to the state of nature. He set out four principles:

  1. all men are naturally equal: there is no natural hierarchy which would compel one to put himself at the service of the other.
  2. Man is of a free nature: he is not inherently conflictual, man is not of a belligerent nature and even less fearful.
  3. Man is a profoundly rational being: man is driven by the need for reason, which pushes him to get closer to his fellow men, he defends Aristotle's vision that man is profoundly social. It is also his reason that makes him (man) understand the necessity of exchange (material and immaterial goods).
  4. The state of nature is a peaceful state where freedom, equality and property reign: men are born free, equal and owners; at that time, God is the owner of man's body. When Locke asserted in 1790 that we are the sole owners of our bodies and minds, he was thinking of the ownership of ourselves. This is a natural law that will have very important political consequences.

Man, although peaceful, rational, free, equal to his fellow man and owner of his body, is in an unstable state, this does not allow us to live together harmoniously, we cannot exchange well, the social order is not well organised, the political order is not established; we have to leave the state of nature in order to establish the state of society.

Men in the state of nature are not unhappy, but the reason of men leads them to leave the state of nature towards the state of society. Consent is required in order to establish a state and a legitimate government.

We give ourselves laws in order to set up a legitimate government built around four important principles :

  1. consent: the acceptance of living together, consent is necessary in order to set up a state. Hobbes conceived power as a top-down power, at Locke there is the idea of a legitimate bottom-up power, consent allows this legitimacy to be established. The act of establishing the state must be a consensual act.
  2. A legitimate government, an acceptable government, a modern government is a government that enshrines the principle of the separation of powers: Locke writes at the time of restoration, power must be shared between the king and parliament.
  3. power is located in the legislative branch: the very heart of legitimate power is the power to legislate, to make and break the law.
  4. Notion of trust: fundamentally, political power is a deposit in the hands of parliament in the name of the trust placed in that parliament, it is because one has confidence in the parliament he is authorised to represent. There is the idea that legislative power is a repository of legitimacy because it has been entrusted with trust, because it has the trust of individuals.

A legitimate government is a government that enshrines the power of parliament, the separation of powers, the confidence of individuals, and respect for religious freedom and freedom of worship; a government that respects equality, freedom and above all property is the antithesis of Thomas Hobbes.

John Locke, Treatise on Civil Government, 1690[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

This book answers the first question about which government is legitimate and the conditions for legitimate government to exist that allow freedom, equality and property to be established.

At the time the term government meant state, a legitimate government is a government that succeeds or has succeeded in guaranteeing the rights to equality, freedom and property.

Hobbes' concern was a concern for security and authority, Locke's concern was to guarantee the principles of liberty, equality and property; he would propose a state of separation of powers that guaranteed these fundamental rights.

« However, although the state of nature is a state of freedom, it is by no means a state of licence. Certainly, a man in this state has an unquestionable liberty by which he may dispose as he wishes of his person or of what he possesses: but he has no liberty and no right to destroy himself, nor to harm any other person, or to disturb him in what he enjoys, he must make the best and noblest use of his liberty, which his own preservation requires of him. The state of nature has the law of nature, which must regulate it, and to which everyone is obliged to submit and obey: reason, which is this law, teaches all men, if they wish to consult it, that, being all equal and independent, no one must harm another, in relation to his life, his health, his liberty, his property...: For since all men are the work of an all-powerful and infinitely wise worker, the servants of a sovereign master, placed in the world by him and for his interests, they belong to him in their own right, and his work must last as long as it pleases him, not as long as it pleases another. And being endowed with the same faculties in the community of nature, no subordination can be supposed between us that would allow us to destroy each other, as if we were made for each other's use, in the same way that creatures of a rank inferior to ours are made for our use. Everyone is therefore obliged to preserve himself, and not to leave his post voluntarily to speak thus. »

Man is the owner of his body and his spirit, however the ultimate owner is still God forbidding us to dispose of our existence. We are owners of our body and mind, but God is co-owner. God is in our lives according to Locke.

It is Locke's ambiguity that asserts ownership of our body and mind, but we cannot do everything.

Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 clearly show the origin of Locke's principle of the separation of powers, which divides power in two:

  • power to execute
  • power to judge

Locke's thinking is based on the idea that in the state of nature we have two essential powers:

  • power to preserve ourselves
  • power to punish

It is the idea of the separation of powers that Locke transposes to the state of nature.

« I therefore still assure you that all men are naturally in this state, which I call a state of nature, and that they remain there until, with their own consent, they have made themselves members of some political society: and I have no doubt that in the continuation of this Treaty this will not seem very obvious. »

One cannot be forced to live with others, one must consent to this possibility; there is no legitimate state if it is not based on a will, an assumed consent. For Hobbes, the contract of submission had to be signed, the act by which we gave our powers to Leviathan was a single act. Locke's logic is different.

The title of Chapter III is "On the State of War", in response to Hobbes.

« The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction. Whoever declares to another, either by word or deed, that he is angry with his life, must make this declaration, not with passion and haste, but with a tranquil mind: and then this declaration puts the one who made it, in the state of war with the one to whom he made it. »

In Chapter VIII is the birth of the State, once the State is established, it is no longer necessary to have the consent of all, but the consent of the majority.

« All men being born equally, as it has been proved, in perfect freedom, and with the right to enjoy peacefully and without contradiction, all the rights and privileges of the laws of nature; everyone has, by nature, the power not only to preserve his own property, that is to say, his life, his liberty and his wealth, against all the enterprises, insults and attacks of others; but also to judge and punish those who violate the laws of nature, according to the merit of the offence, and even to punish with death, when it is a question of some enormous crime which he thinks deserves death. Now, because there can be no political society, and no such society can subsist unless it has in itself the power to preserve what is its own, and to punish the faults of its members, there alone is a political society, in which each member has stripped himself of his natural power and placed it in the hands of society, so that it may dispose of it in all sorts of causes, which do not prevent the laws established by it from always being invoked. By this means, with the exclusion of any judgment by individuals, society acquires the right of sovereignty; and since certain laws are established, and certain men are authorised by the community to enforce them, they put an end to all disputes that may arise between the members of that society in any matter of law, and punish the faults that any member may have committed against society in general, or against any member of its body, in accordance with the penalties laid down by the laws. And by this, it is easy to discern those who are or who are not together in political society. Those who make up one body, who have common laws established and judges to whom they can call, and who have the authority to end disputes and trials, who can be among them and to punish those who harm others and commit any crime: those are in society - but those who cannot civilise with one another; likewise to call to no court on earth, nor to any positive laws, are always in the state of nature; each one, where there is no other judge, being judge and executor for himself, which is, as I have shown before, the true and perfect state of nature. »

This book is basically the History of Humanity and the government of mankind.

Starting from paragraph 105, Locke shows us how the history of human societies has evolved, he describes the process answering the question that when we look at the history of mankind, this process has existed, the state of nature has existed, there are societies that are still in the state of nature.

Communities leave the state of nature to live together, but some have not evolved, the consequences are important, Locke introduces the argument that all the inventors of modern sociology will later take up is that human societies evolve in stages: human societies have a beginning and sometimes an end.

The question is what is the beginning and what is the end? A society that has not left the state of nature is a society that has not evolved because the consequences of such a statement are that evolved societies can make those that have not evolved evolve.

America was in a state of nature, if America is in the state of nature then it must be brought to the state of society, that's why we have to occupy the land, we have to colonise, we have to spread modern social life, we have to convince, impose, attract towards the evolved societies that are Great Britain, France and Europe.

Behind this evolutionary vision of history lies a vision with dramatic consequences for part of the earth, namely the idea that our societies are divided into civilised and uncivilised societies. This binary vision of the international order is based on a step-by-step view of history, making European societies the most evolved; the implications of such an argument are in the intellectual order dramatic and important.

Paragraphs 123 and 124 set out the aims of the state, the political society has a number of objectives.

« […] It is not without reason that they seek society, and that they wish to join with others who are already united, or who have the intention of uniting and composing a body, for the mutual preservation of their lives, their liberties and their property; things which I call, by a general name, properties.

For this reason, the greatest and principal end which men propose for themselves, when they unite in community and submit themselves to a government, is to conserve their properties, for the conservation of which many things are lacking in the state of nature. »

We are leaving the state of nature because we want to keep our rights, including the right of ownership, a legitimate state will be established that will protect our rights, including the right of ownership.

The consequences for the international order are immense, if the state wants to guarantee private property, it must also do so outside the state.

Locke asserts the importance of the legislative branch, as he is a strong supporter of the legislative branch.

Locke should not be made the representative of modern colonialism, on the other hand Locke's philosophy, the philosopher of property rights, gave arguments to those who wanted to extend the territories of the large European countries. Locke had no particular ambitions, but he provided arguments for those who had ambitions through the rigour of his reasoning.

The state that Locke designed is closer to us than that of Hobbes. Locke poses the question of the relationship between the religious and the political; the second problem is how to articulate life, how to arrange the relationship between political and religious power?

John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Title page of the first edition of A Letter Concerning Toleration.

Tolerance is a Christian necessity and duty, on the other hand, religious freedom must be a constituent part of this legitimate government, the modern state enshrines religious freedom and freedom of worship, finally, if religious freedom is to be enshrined, then perhaps it is primarily because there is no such thing as absolute and unique certainty or truth.

In other words, it is impossible to know the truth with certainty in the order of knowledge: in the name of this idea that absolute truth is difficult, comprehensible, attainable, one cannot impose a religion and belief in an era when churches tended to claim to hold the truth.

Locke does not want a state to impose a doctrine, a religion and a truth.

« I confess that it seems very strange to me (and I don't think I'm the only one in my opinion), that a man who ardently desires the salvation of his fellow man should make him expire in the midst of torments, even though he is not converted. »

For Locke, in order to save someone's soul there is something contradictory in the will to convert and kill someone for their belief.

« Tolerance, in favour of those who differ from others in matters of religion, is so conformed to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the common sense of all men, that it can be regarded as a monstrous thing, that there are people blind enough, not to see the necessity and advantage of it, in the midst of so much light that surrounds them. »

A good Christian is by definition a tolerant Christian.

Secondly, Locke divides the state and its competences. There is a strict separation between the temporal and the spiritual. The modern state for Locke is based on a strict division between the state and the religious. What strikes the reader is the very Protestant dimension and vision of the Calvinist church that Locke has.

« Let us now examine what is meant by the word 'church'. By this term I mean a society of men, who voluntarily join together to serve God in public, and to worship Him in the way they think pleasing to Him, and suitable for their salvation. »

Locke speaks of a free, voluntary society to describe the church; this is a vision that Luther and Calvin had advocated: state and church are a matter of individual consent.

The state that Locke draws for us is a state describing an open parliamentary monarchy, opposed to the top-down vision of power proposed by Hobbes, but above all Locke proposes a state concerned with guaranteeing individual rights: freedom, equality and private property.

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - 1789 - article 1 and article 2.

Locke believes that the modern state must guarantee security and in some cases enable people to resist oppression; in a certain sense, Locke is in favour of a right of resistance in the face of an authoritarian state with a despotic and absolutist tendency.

Resistance to a monarchical and all-powerful state will be challenged by Montesquieu.

Annexes[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Sur les autres projets Wikimedia :

References[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

  1. ↑ Alexis Keller - Wikipedia
  2. ↑ Alexis Keller - Faculté de droit - UNIGE
  3. ↑ Alexis Keller | International Center for Transitional Justice
  4. ↑ Stuart, M. (Ed.). (2015). A companion to Locke: Stuart/companion. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell. Url: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118328705.ch25
  5. ↑ Riano, N. (2019, March 15). John Locke on “The Reasonableness of Christianity” ~ the imaginative conservative. Retrieved November 19, 2020, from Theimaginativeconservative.org website: https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2019/03/john-locke-reasonableness-of-christianity-nayeli-riano.html
  6. ↑ Rabieh, M. S. (1991). The Reasonableness of Locke, or the Questionableness of Christianity. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 933–957. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131861
  7. ↑ Nuovo, V. (Ed.). (1996). John Locke and Christianity: Contemporary responses to the reasonableness of Christianity. South Bend, IN: St Augustine’s Press. Url: https://philpapers.org/rec/NUOJLA
Récupérée de « https://baripedia.org/index.php?title=John_Locke_and_the_Civil_Government_Debate&oldid=49520 »