John Locke views property as the “natural right derived from labor”. Since one owns our own body then one owns our own labor. Does this mean that if we instill our labor into another person than that person is now our property?
An article was printed in the Chicago Tribune, about slavery and on how people to this day still find it humanly right to own and dispose of people as they wish. The article talks about an incident in West Palm Beach, Florida, where there was human trafficking going on in a “small-frame house” as they called it. They consisted of young women who were forced into being a sex slave. One victim says that she was smuggled into the US when she was 14, and was beaten up by her husband regularly to keep her “in line”.
This type of activity is illegal but, in many minority countries it is another different idea. For example in Mexico they use the word “machismo” meaning when there is a superiority of males over females. Many women are brought up with this idea that they belong to their husband and that anything their husband tells her she has to abide by. I don’t think it’s the owning of a person that makes it so difficult but the right to what you can do with the property that makes it morally wrong.
This article brings a conflict between what is right and what people think is right. I think Locke would say that even though a man is in charge and provides everything for the women, they have no right to own her. On the contrary, if a woman gives birth to a baby and sells the baby which comes from her own body, then shouldn’t that be ok according to Locke? In my opinion, I don’t think Locke agrees to the owning of people because he argues that “no man has a right to the body of anyone else because one owns our own body”. No one has the right to own anyone else.
Here is a link to the full story... http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/fl-sex-house-20100128,0,6067000.story
I agree no one has the right to own anyone else. Unfortunately, their are countries that doesn't share our beliefs. Human trafficking for sex slaves is big business around the world and even if they are not apart of slavery, other cultures would argue that women are the sole property of the man. They may even use Locke's theory of inferior creatures as a reason to justify their actions. This is a problem that despite the dialogue it will take a long time to resolve.
ReplyDeleteI too agree that no one has to the right to own anyone. I feel as if this issue of sex/human-traficing is happining in the United States a lot more then it should be, and the people are not aware. The Article does bring a conflict as Cynthia stated becuase Locke does believe that one owns the object through what is achieved through labor through their own body, but I feel that cases like this should have limits, due to morals. It is mot moral to own someone and subdue them into doing things that are not only illegal, but wrong. As Locke stated “no man has a right to the body of anyone else because one owns our own body”. Your body belongs to you and no one else.
ReplyDeleteYou'd be surprised at how comment this offence is... This human trafficking is not just once in a while occurrence in the US, and even less so in other countries. To be honest, the value of human life will never be about ownership except to those who wish to own others. The rights for women are moral the same as men. No man should ever think he is better than a woman just because of her gender. Ever. This is the world we are born into, in which corruption seeps deep into every bit of every culture. I do not know how Locke would respond to this, however I do know that he lived in a time in which women were property of men.
ReplyDelete