Locke’s state of nature and its epistemic deficit: a game-theoretic analysis.

Locke rejected anarchism. Locke defended the universal necessity of political governments on the grounds that the state of nature will occasionally generate the inconveniences of war. The standard interpretation of Locke identifies three main causes of war in the state of nature: the lack of a commo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Synthese Vol. 200; no. 2; pp. 1 - 26
Autor principal: Chung, Hun
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Apr2022
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=156757939&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 156757939
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00397857
        4LI
      jtl: Synthese
      issn: 00397857
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Apr2022
      vid: 200
      iid: 2
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        156757939
        10.1007/s11229-022-03582-5
      ppf: 1
      ppct: 25
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 1.5MB
      tig:
        atl: Locke’s state of nature and its epistemic deficit: a game-theoretic analysis.
      aug:
        au: Chung, Hun
        affil: Faculty of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan
      sug:
      keyword:
        Game theory
        Hobbes
        Locke
        Locke’s epistemology
        Social contract theory
        State of nature
      ab: Locke rejected anarchism. Locke defended the universal necessity of political governments on the grounds that the state of nature will occasionally generate the inconveniences of war. The standard interpretation of Locke identifies three main causes of war in the state of nature: the lack of a common judge, moral disagreement over the law of nature, and self-love. In this paper, I argue that the combination of these three factors does not guarantee that war will occur in every plausible scenarios of Locke’s state of nature. Instead, in order for war to occur at least sometimes in every plausible scenario of Locke’s state of nature, there has to be some sort of epistemic deficit. In this paper, I show via the tools of modern game theory, how Locke’s state of nature may occasionally generate war by two kinds of epistemic problems implied by Locke’s own epistemology: (a) disagreements in subjective probabilities, and (b) uncertainty in other people’s moral motivation to use force to enforce the law of nature. The fact that war occurs primarily because of such epistemic problems suggests a role for a very limited form of government; namely, the ultra-ultra-minimal state, whose role is confined to solving such epistemic problems.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2022. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Synthese
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2022
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N