Kaitlyn Lobsitz

British Empiricism

Take Home Exam 3

#1

Locke states that there is a clear distinction between a man and person. A man is

like an animal, therefore, it is like all other living creatures. A man is nothing more

than a body, a substance of particles remaining in the same union. On the other

hand, a person is non-substance with the only requirement being that is has a

conscience. The criterion for identity of man, according to Locke, is that the same

organized body of particles and that life continues on the same throughout time. It is

also necessary for the identity of man to take the shape of a human body. The

identity of a person is more much complex than that of a man. A person must

possess consciousness. It must be able to reflect and reason and recognize self-

identity; it must be intelligent thinking being. A person remains the same person as

long as it is the same self. To be the same self, it must have the same consciousness.

The conscience must recall memories that extend to past actions. Without

consciousness, there is no person. Personal identity rests solely in consciousness.

Locke believes that a mans identity does not however consist in the same soul. He

shows this by presenting the following argument:

1. We have no experience of souls

2. It is possible that the same soul be united with many bodies
3. If the same soul means the same man, then different bodies that exist at
different times would be the same man
4. It is not the case the different bodies that exist at different times are the
same man
5. Therefore the identity of man does not consist in having the same soul.

Due to our lack of knowledge on souls, we have no way to concrete the idea that

souls are linked to particular bodies. Given our knowledge however on persons and

body, it would seem that a man possessing the same soul is not necessary. To accept

the idea of a mans identity consists in having the same soul would mean if a mans
soul were to go into a hogs body, we would have to accept the hog as a man. He

uses this example to show that the identity of man does not insist on having the

same soul. It would be absurd to say that the hog is in fact a man, when clearly it is a

hog.

According to Locke, it is possible for a human to not be a person and for a person to

not be a human. As previously stated above, an identity of man is particles of matter

remaining in the same union. As long as they are the same organized body and

continue the same life, it remains the same. The particles do not have to be all the

same, but they must be within the same union of organized body. Consciousness or

personhood is not a necessary condition. For the idea of man, the requirement is

merely just the shape representing human body. Whatever begins to exist and

continues on as so, its existence remains the same. For example, if there was a goat

and a person, and their souls were switched, the human body would remain the

same. It would not be able to rationalize like a person, but it would still have the

identity of a man. The material substance is where the idea comes from. So as long

as that substance persists, so does the body separate of the person. For a person to

remain a person, void of a body is certain. With regards to the person, substance is

not considered. Substances can be added, taken away, it has no effect on the person.

It is merely the same consciousness, the ability to recall past memories, no matter

the substance in which the consciousness resides in. It will continue on being the

same person as long as it remains a conscious intelligent being aware of its past

actions. For example, if a persons conscience were to be transferred into the body of

a goat, it would still remain the same person. Others would not see it as so, but it

would self identify as the same person. As long as they could recall past memories

and identify with who they are, they would be the same despite the body they

currently reside.

#2
 According to Locke, liberty is the ability, or power, to perform or not to perform an

action in accordance to the will of the mind. Liberty is not the ability to produce the

thought of the action, but to perform the action itself. The ability to produce the

thought of the action belongs to the will. For example, I may will to fly, but I am not

at liberty to fly. Locke makes a clear distinction between voluntary actions of the will

and true liberty by presenting us with the example of the guy in the locked room.

Locke sets us up with the scenario of a man being carried into a room when he is fast

asleep, with no escape; he is locked in the room. The man awakens to find himself in

the strange room with the company of someone he truly enjoys and wishes to stay

and talk to. Locke questions whether the mans stay is voluntary action and whether

is constitutes as free in regards to liberty. This development is supposed to show that

although the mans decision to stay is voluntary, it is not free. To remain in the room

is his own volition because he did want to stay and talk with his friend. However, if he

wanted to leave, he would not be able to because of the door being locked. His

actions do not represent free liberty. In order to possess an absolute freedom, it

requires the ability to act either way, or the option to not act at all. The power to

consider actions and possessing the ability to act upon them is to will. Therefore, the

will is merely the ability to produce thoughts. On first thought, it would seem evident

that what we will is ultimately free, but according to Locke, our will is not free. Locke

believes that the will is not free under two conditions; we always have to choose an

action over another and our desires are driven by our greatest uneasiness. If we are

in the position to contemplate acting or not acting, we are at a necessity to choose

one or the other. Because we are forced to decide to act, we posses no liberty to will.

Being forced into making a decision about what action to choose makes the ability to

will far from free. For example, I can will to finish this paper, or I can will to stop

writing now. Regardless of the action I choose, the necessity of me having to make a

choice takes away any freedom. The greatest uneasiness inside us of an absent good

is what ultimately determines our will. Our will is therefore not free. We
subconsciously will seek out to fill the void of a wanted desire. Locke believes that,

while we are not free to will, we do have the ability to affect our preferences to some

degree. Although our will is driven by an absent good, we can suspend the desire to

act for a brief time. We possess the ability to contemplate the end results of our

actions prior to acting upon them. Our ability to suspend does not go further than to

contemplate the good and evils our actions may result in. So while we do have the

ability to affect our preferences to some degree, we still cannot choose what we

desire.

Hume, unlike Locke, thinks there are some instances where we are free to act, but

it does come from a necessity. This is better explained with Humes doctrine of

necessity. This necessity is nothing more though than a feeling we get. This necessity

is a constant conjunction between things and the inferences we make of them

through habits of our mind. We as humans, observe that things tend to be causes

and effects of each other. Once we start to notice the constant conjunctions of cause

and effect, our mind begins to produce those inferences. We begin to realize the

inferences and expect certain results. For example, as a kid, I may touch the fire on a

stove and receive a burn. Then I may touch an iron and be burned yet again. My mind

will eventually make the inference of the connection between heat and burns. Hume

uses this idea of necessity to show the necessity can be consistent with the free will.

We have the liberty to freely act on our desires or wills. However, our desires do

come from somewhere. It is impossible that any action be performed without a

reference to a previous action of others. All human actions have some uniformity. The

conjunction and inferences are used at all times whether we realize it or not. You may

act in accordance to your desires, but the desire to do it does not stem from nothing.

It is clear that certain actions will produce certain results. We begin to expect certain

desires yield certain results. For example, we may will to go to the gym and can

choose freely to do so. However, our desire to go is necessitated by the inference

that going to the gym will result in becoming thin. We choose nothing prior than

considering the cause and effect.

The doctrine of necessity is crucial for morality according to Hume. If there was no

necessary connection between a persons character and motives, then they could not

be held accountable for their actions. We base rewards and punishments on the fact

that there is a necessary connection between character and actions. If actions are

not direct cause of a persons character then he could not be held responsible,

because they did not come from his will. Actions stem directly from our desires. For

as actions are objects of our moral sentiment, so far only as they are indications of

the internal character, passions and affections(Hume Pg. 66) If actions were random

and were not in anyway related to our actions, then punishment would be pointless.

You would not be punishing a person for flaws of their character, but rather random

actions out of their control.

Lockes suspension doctrine raises problems in regard to the rest of his thoughts on

liberty and free will. Locke states that our will is not free. Our will is subconsciously

driven by our desires to fulfill the greatest uneasiness. That our greatest uneasiness

to fill a missing desire, is what constitutes our actions. This idea seems to be in direct

conflict with his suspension doctrine. Ultimately, if we have the ability to weigh

actions, it would seem that our will then is in fact free, as long as liberty allows it. We

could choose to fulfill that desire, or we could weigh the options and choose not too.

We may not be able to choose our desires still, but we can choose our will to not be

driven by them.