John Locke's views on property and private property produced a justification, and even an obligation, for Euro-Westerners to take possession of land ostensibly unused or uncultivated. In chapter five (“Of Property”) of his book “Second Treatise of Government,” Locke uses his reasoning on property acquisition to argue that indigenous peoples do not cultivate the land to the fullest, and that Euro-Westerners have therefore a right to claim the land as one's own. In Stewart Braun's article “Rescuing Indigenous Land Ownership: Revising Locke's Account of Original Appropriation through Cultivation,” he discusses Locke's framework and argues that it can be reworked to support the fact that indigenous peoples intentionally use land and consequently they have ownership of it. It. Through these lenses, it is also possible to consider how non-human animals are neglected regarding their rights to the land. Locke argues that no land should be left wild or unproductive, but where does that leave the non-human animal communities that inhabit it? It can be argued, after understanding the views of Locke and Braun, that non-human animals use the land on which they reside in a purposeful way and that it should therefore not be considered unused or waste. plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Locke viewed the earth, and all the resources upon it, as existing “for the support and comfort” of human beings and, further, as being available to “humanity in common.” To allow anyone to own something individually, Locke proposed that an individual's work would change a resource from belonging to all humans to being owned by that one person. Locke argues that since everyone “has a property in his own person” (i.e. everyone has, in the state of nature, ownership of his own body), and that by extension he also owns the labor that is expended to acquire the use of resources, therefore such products should then become the property of that person. The famous example that Locke uses to illustrate this point is that of a person picking apples. When someone picks apples, Locke explains that the labor and effort it takes to pick them makes them that person's property because "that labor distinguishes between them and common ones." Locke states that it must be so, otherwise humanity would starve if we had to wait for each person's approval before eating, or if we had to divide every resource 7.5 billion ways before we got our share. Locke, however, proposed a limit on the amount of private property a person can have. According to Locke, waste invalidates a person's title to his property. Locke illustrates this by referring to the example of apple picking. If a person were to pick more apples than he could use, and then allow them to rot and rot, it means that the person wasted the apples and should have allowed someone else who could have used them before they spoiled to have them. Locke supports this point by saying that “nothing was made by God that man should ruin or destroy.” According to Locke, by wasting or not fully utilizing the resources available to us, we do a disservice to God. Along the same lines, Locke also says that people can have as much land as they are able to adequately use and develop. If a person, however, allowed his or her land to become wild and unused, Locke would argue that that person has invalidated his or her right to the land because he or she claimsmore than he could use. For Locke, humans have the right to use the earth and its resources, and to claim it as their own, as long as nothing is wasted. Locke also said that “land left entirely to nature, which has no improvement in grazing, tilling, or planting, is called, as indeed it is, waste.” This implies, on a larger scale, that “wild” lands are used as habitats for diverse flora and fauna, do not directly contribute to human use and should therefore be considered waste. This leaves little room for the earth to function without humanity's interference. The idea that nothing should be left to what Locke describes as "waste" (that is, anything that is not directly useful to humans) gives people the right to claim and build on natural or indigenous lands. In Braun's article, he criticizes Locke's attempt to justify the taking of native lands. He says that Locke considered these lands “uncultivated” and “open to acquisition.” It was thought that indigenous agricultural practices were not efficient and did not maximize the amount of resources on the land, and that settlers justified the acquisition of the land by thinking it was "unimproved". However, Braun argues that Locke's view of property can be reconstructed in a way "that does not subvert native property, but is actually supportive." Braun states that Locke's reasoning for why people can claim ownership over land is because it allows for the "flourishing" of the human species. Braun proposes that if we view land use not in terms of productivity, “but in terms of a broader commitment to the general idea of ​​prosperity,” then it can be argued that indigenous peoples are using the land for that purpose, and that the settlers have no right to take it away from them. Braun argues that Indigenous land has a “particular purpose” and that it plays “a vital role in their lives.” He explains that Locke's framework for real property is that land can be considered owned “when it is given a demonstrable purpose.” In his article, Braun states that, although indigenous land may not have been used or cultivated in traditional Euro-Western ways, it was nevertheless "certainly given for the purpose of providing for them (indigenous peoples) and enabling their flourishing", and therefore, Euro-Western settlers were wrong in taking the land. Similarly, it can be argued that non-human animals use the land – their territories – for a distinct purpose and that destroying natural habitats to build human-designed infrastructure is equally wrong. It is possible to argue, based on the points raised by Braun, that non-human animals use their territories on earth in a purposeful way and that they therefore have a right to them and should not be considered waste. Locke argued that the distinction between wild or unusable land is the toil, or labor, that goes into it, and it is this “that attaches most of the value to the land.” Therefore, it would be logical to say from Locke's perspective that since nonhuman animals do not till or cultivate the land, they have no valid title to it. Braun's argument, however, that land can be considered owned or used if it has a purpose – provides justification for non-human animals to have rights to their territories. Wild animals that live on land use the earth as a medium for their “flowering”. They live there, build their homes there, find sustenance there and, most importantly, foster the continuation of their species on it. This is why, even if nonhuman animals do not cultivate the land in ways that Euro-Westerners find profitable, they still have the rightto the land they are using. Thinking from a Lockean perspective, any land that is not used to its full contribution, or does not contribute to humans, is a waste because the land was given to humans by God and by not using it to its fullest potential we are doing it a disservice. By allowing land and habitats to continue without human interference we are leaving them underdeveloped and unused, and since, in Locke's view, God has "commanded him [humans] to subdue the earth", it could be seen that we are disobeying God by not using every available plot of land to our advantage. By extension, by allowing nonhuman animals to have protected territories, we are allowing the land to lie fallow. Although it could be argued that non-human animals have a right to a protected area of ​​land to allow their species to thrive for the benefit of humans (e.g., for hunting, to allow ecosystem balance to be maintained, etc. .), nonhuman animals are entitled to their land simply for their own benefit, and not because it is in the long-term human interest to help preserve wildlife. Braun argues that if “land serves a clear and demonstrable purpose in the life of a person or group, then they have a clear justification for claiming it as their own.” Land is used to enable non-human animals “to meet their basic needs,” and by observing the migratory and territorial patterns of wildlife of all species, it is clear “that land plays an ongoing role” in their lives. Many situations, agreements and laws in human history have arisen because of the role they play in promoting human development, infrastructure and comfort. By relying on this kind of framework, we blatantly ignore the rights of non-human animals and selfishly think only of the good of our species. We treat nonhuman animals and wildlife solely as a means to our ends (i.e., we use nonhuman animals simply for our own benefits) and not as an end in themselves (i.e., because they are intrinsically good and valuable simply in their own right) . However, as Locke points out, the Bible actually says that humans “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” This seems to imply that we have a duty to exercise our control over nonhuman animals. The Bible, however, also states that we are to be “faithful stewards of the grace of God.” From this perspective, our task is not only to care for the flora and fauna on this earth, but also to ensure their survival and prosperity. By Locke's claim that we have the right to conquer the earth solely for our own benefit, we are forgetting our responsibility as stewards. The Bible says that “The nations were enraged, but your [God's] wrath came. The time came when the dead were judged; The time has come to reward your servants, the prophets and the saints and those who fear your name, both small and great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth.” You may think we are destroying the earth by claiming every part of it for ourselves and not allowing it to function without our intrusion. Euro-Westerners are ruining the earth's original, natural state by eradicating indigenous and non-human animal communities to maximize resources. It seems we have dropped our duty as stewards and can see ourselves as doing the very thing Locke advised against: disobeying God. Keep in mind: This is just one example. Get a customized document from our writers now. (2016)., 34(2), 340-354.