Just questions about John Locke’s Theory of Property that I sent to my professor. (Very proud of it. Currently in my senior year)
Depending on the culture, era, and social structure, property is extended to living things, not just material. So if all people are entitled to life, liberty, and property, but the ownership of another person takes away the owned persons right to liberty, then does that mean that the owner’s right to property has been infringed upon? Which right is more important? What does property really mean?
Locke argues that every person owns their own body and, by extension, the physical labor produced by that body. Locke explicitly states that "every man has a property in his own person." Because your body and labor are uniquely yours, nobody else can ever own you. But what happens when language and social/governmental institutions are used to degrade the humanity of a person or people? Language is very powerful.
In the realm of human rights, there are many conflicting views that make true universalism near impossible to accomplish: Islamic, Western, and Asian. In Islamic countries, the concept of owning women is seen as normal. To Western societies, it is seen as barbaric and outdated. However, at one point in time, Western societies owned people too, and they still implement systems that make it difficult for those minorities to succeed. Scholars of Political Theory and International Human Rights have attempted to steer the ways in which we view political rights and wrongs away from Western Triumphalism and Eurocentrism.
Having said that, on the topic of Islamic countries owning women, they also believe that having multiple women is a status symbol. Would this violate Locke’s Limits on Property even if, by Locke’s definition, people are not considered property? Would the act of acquiring more partners than you can truly care for and appreciate still violate the moral boundaries that Locke has outlined? Also, in the Lockean Proviso, he states that appropriation of resources from nature is only valid if there is "enough, and as good, left in common for others". With over 8 billion people on the planet, does this mean that there are enough people available for polygamy to not be considered overconsumption of “resources?” But then there is the statistical population differences between genders that needs to be considered.
How does one truly define property? Can culture overrule the moral boundaries Locke has established? If animals can be considered property (i.e, pets, livestock, etc), and humans are also, by definition, animals, what protections and universal definitions are truly in place now to prevent specific human beings from being defined as “animals” or “property.” If scholars are concerned about Western Triumphalism and Eurocentrism being pushed as a global moral standard for human rights protections, which aspects are the ones that should be used as the universal moral standard? If we are calling out cultural flaws in Islamic traditional practices, which Western practices should, then, replace the old ones? And, if we were to implement a universalist system, claiming that the Islamic traditional practices should be abolished under this new moral law, does that violate the social contract?
If Islamic people believe in marriage freedom and religious freedom, and the supposed “World Government” or “World Order” has forced the implementation of a universal law prohibiting the the freedom of marriage, placed restrictions on the freedom of religion, and imposed a universal moral code that violates the cultural rights of the Islamic faith, does this violate, not only the social contract, but also their rights to liberty and property? (I am not arguing for slavery. I am just wondering who gets to define these terms and who gives them the power. Is there even a social contract that can be put in place worldwide).