« PreviousContinue »
MORAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
STERLING POWER LAMPRECHT, A.M.
ARCHIVES OF PHILOSOPHY
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Faculty
of Philosophy, Columbia University
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
The following study of the moral and political philosophy of John Locke aims to supply a lack in the existing discussions of the subject. Only one previous monograph on Locke's ethics has appeared—Professor M. M. Curtis's Outline of Locke's Ethical Philosophy, Leipzig, 1890—which contains much helpful material. The present essay, in addition to differing widely from some of Professor Curtis's conclusions, attempts to view Locke more closely in his relations to his predecessors and contemporaries. Hence a rather full exposition has been given both of the traditions in moral and political philosophy from Hooker to Locke, and of the controversies into which Locke was himself drawn on certain points of ethical theory. Not only does such a study throw further light on Locke's epistemology, that aspect of his thought which usually attracts the most attention, but also it should have considerable interest in itself.
The bibliography which is appended in no way pretends to be an exhaustive list of even the most important works which bear upon Locke's moral and political philosophy. It includes only those books which have been mentioned in the course of the discussion and is designed to indicate the editions which have been used and to assist in the verification of references. Wherever possible the references to the works of Locke and the other writers have been to chapters and sections rather than to pages. Where that procedure has been impossible, the fact has been distinctly noted.
I wish to express my great indebtedness to Professor John Dewey. I received special help from him in writing Chapter I of Book II, but profited throughout by his general advice and wise counsel. I found it a constant pleasure to work under his inspiring instruction. Also I wish* to thank Professor Frederick J. E. Woodbridge, both for the light he has frequently thrown for me on this period in the history of philosophy and for his personal services in reading the proof and editing the dissertation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS