Self-Ownership vs. Divine Ownership: A Lockean Solution to a Liberal Democratic Dilemma

Abstract

While the role of religion in the public life of contemporary liberal democracies constitutes a significant and ongoing topic of debate in political theory, scholars have thus far stopped short of addressing the root of this contentious issue in the apparent contradiction between self‐ownership and Divine ownership. I argue that a hitherto unnoticed and persuasive means of resolving this contradiction is implicit in the thought of John Locke. In fact, one of the more controversial issues in recent Lockean scholarship concerns the manner in which Locke's assertions of human self‐ownership cohere with his prominent theological commitments. These two sides of Locke's thought may be reconciled, and a potential pathway through the liberal democratic dilemma illumined, by elaborating upon a sophisticated theory of ownership that is implicitly present in Locke's Two Treatises of Government and his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

Thomas Jefferson, Nature's God, and the Theological Foundations of Natural-Rights Republicanism

“…To show this, we will first set forth reasons for concluding that Locke's theories of equality and property are theistic. In a recent article, Adam Seagrave demonstrates that Locke's affirmation of self-ownership constitutes no difficulty for the theistic interpretation, since a human being can be the concurrent property of himself and God, with the latter having a higher dignity precisely in virtue of man's existential dependence on God (Seagrave 2011). Our argument moves beyond this initial hurdle and focuses on Locke's theory of property in light of his critique of patriarchalism and shows how non-theistic accounts of Locke's argument are subject to a devastating reductio ad absurdum .…”