Extract
[...] As a result, there is an absolute illegitimacy, or amorality, of the right to property as Hume conceives it. Or, if the tendency to appropriation exists and is highlighted in Hume, it is only the expression of a human nature, led by impressions and sensations, more than by reasons or moral values. If Hume and Locke defend absolutely opposite positions on the principles of property and appropriation, Locke's thought establishes an imprescriptible natural ethical source, rendering all forms of appropriation, cession, or theft of property null and void. [...]
[...] If these two theories absolutely exclude each other in the name of moral and ethical principles that found one and are absent from the other, freedom and property articulate with more solid foundations of legitimacy in Locke, anchoring human society in an organization accompanied by intransigent principles and values. Beyond, this modern question of moral law posed on acts of free will and appropriation of others seems to relate to a broader question, linked to the real, deontological, or moral limits of free will. [...]
[...] In fact, the philosopher John Locke asserts, at the end of the 17th century, that « . each man is the owner of his own person. No one other than himself has a right to it, the work of his body and the product of his hands belong to him alone». Opposed to the absolutism of the State, he defends in fact the principle of a predominant individual liberty, proceeding from an inalienable right of Man and legitimate, due to its own Nature and aiming to protect the individual. [...]
[...] A major ethical issue of the 21st century, individual liberty and its corollary, the notion of property, constitute values with ever-rediscussed boundaries. We will see, first, that, within the framework of the expression of individual liberty alone, it cannot be considered morally acceptable to post a video featuring the difficulties of an individual, based on libertarian positions. Then, we will study how, secondly, it can be considered today as admissible to contravene these values, in the name of the principle of liberty itself. [...]
[...] However, today, an increasing number of legalists, debating this question, assert the existence of a moral right of circumstance, which can guide and administer the right of appropriation on others. In fact, Locke's conceptual normative position is opposed in all points to that of Hume, who defends the primacy of fact over the principle of property. Thus, according to him, appropriation results notably from a 'dynamical natural» thus conceding a certain opportunism in the acquisition and preservation of property. Furthermore, according to his theory, only passions would be the origin of the principles of appropriation and property recognized by men. From then on, no possession can be truly legitimate. [...]
