The critical argument in "A Letter Concerning Toleration" is the doctrine of defending the rights of the individual from the state and the church. Locke explains that the function of a state is to defend the rights that a person has over another but not establishing and defending a state religion. The exploitation of the outward force of coercion is legitimate as long as the action enforces the rights of individuals away from interference. People have a choice to belong to any religion and uphold contradictory beliefs as long as such actions do not infringe on the rights of other persons. Locke defends human conscience from control by the state and church by arguing that matters surrounding human belief cannot be physically coerced since they demand autonomous reasoning.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Locke’s Argument
Criticism of Locke’s Argument
Assessment of Locke’s Argument in Light of Curley’s Objections
Conclusion
References
Introduction
The critical argument in “A Letter Concerning Toleration” is the doctrine of defending the rights of the individual from the state and the church. Locke explains that the function of a state is to defend the rights that a person has over another but not establishing and defending a state religion. The exploitation of the outward force of coercion is legitimate as long as the action enforces the rights of individuals away from interference. People have a choice to belong to any religion and uphold contradictory beliefs as long as such actions do not infringe on the rights of other persons. Locke defends human conscience from control by the state and church by arguing that matters surrounding human belief cannot be physically coerced since they demand autonomous reasoning.
Locke’s Argument
Locke’s argument concerning tolerance rest on three main premises as outlined here. First, the state has no authority in dictating what religion a person should uphold to attain salvation. Spiritual matters demand a personal initiative without government coercion. His second argument asserts that the nature of human understanding is free of compulsive beliefs. Locke states that a government cannot use force to compel its citizens to follow a specific doctrine as the best solution for individual salvation. Such an arrangement interferes with personal conscience and freedom to make religious choices. The third argument clarifies that even if the state or church institution used force to compel individuals to belong to a religious sect, the state has no power in determining the purity of a religious belief. Consequently, Locke concludes that the state and church must apply tolerance in religious matters because individuals make autonomous choices in such matters. Locke concludes using the three premises that both the state and the church as institutions have to uphold tolerance on religious matters because belief is a private, voluntary, and conscience matter.
Locke’s main argument is that a person should be free to act at will without the state or church’s interference in religious matters. A government has the authority to enforce legitimately when a person injures another in different ways (Locke, 1998). For example, a person deprived of the right to property can legally petition a magistrate to hear the case and restore the stolen possessions. Civil control in religious matters is supported by neither teaching nor the nature of human understanding. A state that uses force to compel its citizens to follow a specific religious path undermines the credibility of religious freedom.
However, Locke clarifies that the state’s power extends to only intervening on behalf of wronged persons. Locke argues that the meaning of obedience to the state is limited to security but not to interfere with the absolute liberty to individual conscience. The argument sets precedence for the setting of priorities concerning religious freedom. He insists that the state is limited in matters pertaining to moral and prudential. A government’s jurisdiction is limited to preserving the peaceful coexistence of people without the right to meddle in people’s matters. Restricting the state’s authority outlines the main principle of tolerance towards epistemological ideas.
Locke’s second premise argues against the church’s use of coercion in presenting religious matters to society. True religious does not require forceful acceptance of Christian values but leads many astray. He asks the church to stop compelling society through intimidation to accept and profess a specific doctrine as members of a politically appointed religious outfit. Such a move dilutes the essence of truth that is anticipated to arise from the exposure to evangelical teachings. People should make personal choices concerning membership to a religious group instead of being coerced by the church. Locke (1998) explains that a church is a voluntary organization since no person is born belonging to a specific sect. As people grow and attain awareness, they decide on the best church that provides salvation. Locke (1998) rebuffs the need to have ruling authority over the congregation because such an arrangement creates divisions.
When a person feels incongruent about a communion of society, the individual has the right to abandon such a fraternity for failing to provide a solution for salvation. In speculative and divine matters of worship, a person has absolute liberty to grasp the subjective understanding of the nature of God and make a decision without being forced by the opinions of others. Individuals have a direct and personal relationship with God without the need for church leaders or other people to intervene on behalf of a person. Locke believed that a person could seek God without paying attention to the hierarchy within the church that includes going through priests or theological leaders to attain salvation. Such an approach will enhance tolerance for contrary speculative thinking either on religious or political grounds. A society has to let is people with a free conscience to make notional decisions on religious matters and sects where they belong to avoid imposing a will that promotes depravity.
Locke argues against the depravity of civil enjoyment and all forms of prejudice against a person holding a divergent religious belief by the church or state. The right to hold a religious opinion remains exclusive to an individual even if injurious in nature. Mutual tolerance of private persons going to different churches is ideal for achieving the edicts of the Gospel (Locke, 1998). No church or government has power over the individual in determining the most appropriate belief systems embodied in different denominations be it Anglican, Catholic, or Calvinists. Locke explains that every church is only orthodox to itself and without authority to control heretical individuals. Only God who has the power to see into the hearts and minds of people can punish erroneous religious. Therefore, churches must refrain from conducting church services as civil matters inclined to favour followers while punishing heretics. Such tolerance will make the church grow as a source of light to those seeking spiritual understanding.
Criticism of Locke’s Argument
Edwin Curley presents criticism of Locke’s argument concerning tolerance presented with several premises. He states that Locke suspects people who act in good faith but use force that includes persecution to kill and confiscate property to enforce salvation. Curley (2002) insists that Locke disagrees with those who use coercion to change the beliefs of others who disagree with changing their conduct. The author disputes Locke on the grounds that such notions belong to the modern liberal Christians who already understand Christianity but not classical non-believers. Curley (2002) claims that coercion is a powerful force that can compel people to faith and external conformity to prevent heathens from hindering the faith of believers. Forceful measures protect the church from evil persuasions that include blasphemy and persecution can prevent heretics from influencing other believers. Restricting non-Christian beliefs through coercion and suppression is important because religion grows in society and requires constant maintenance by eliminating dissenting voices to ensure conformity.
Curley accuses Locke of being ignorant of the fact that salvation does not only come from the scriptures, but God deliberately chooses the most indiscernible path. Commandments, scriptures, and Gospels provide only a small fraction of the requirements of salvation, but faith remains the critical element of belief. Curley (2002) questions Locke’s belief that Christian love demands believers to refrain from forcibly repressing heretical views and lauds the persecutionists like Calvin and Luther as critical to the preservation of the Christian faith. Defenders of doctrine have to use force to support its believers in their faith. Ordinary citizens lack the capacity to make a rational choice when faced with competing ideas concerning salvation.
[...]
- Citation du texte
- Anonyme,, Locke’s Argument for Tolerance. A Critical Reflection, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/535625
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X.