John Locke was an influential philosopher who lived in the 17th century. He has provided many important ideas and bases on which philosophy has evolved over time, one of which was his theory of personal identity. Locke was an empiricist, meaning that he thought all true knowledge came from the senses and human experience. In one of his more popular works, “As Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” Locke sets out to determine a theory of responsibility and punishment that is empirically based. Within the essay, there is a chapter named Of Identity and Diversity, in which Locke explains the identity of the world’s substances and entities, including a theory of personal identity for human beings. He defines the concepts of man, soul, and person, and determines what makes a person the same over time, despite changes both physical and mental. In doing so, he clearly states a basis on which to determine responsibility and accountability, both in legal terms, and in the term of ultimate and Godly judgment.
Locke begins by stating that there are three substances that exist: God, material substance, and finite intelligences, or consciousnesses. Locke claims that the way in which an object is defined depends on its substance. God is an infinite, unchanging, immaterial substance. Material substances are also said to be unchanging at their most basic element, the atom. Material substances are formed into configurations and shapes that give rise to objects within the real world. For example, a certain mass of material substance could give rise to a table. Locke explains that even though objects in the real world are constantly gaining and loosing material, they remain the same object. How is this so? Locke says that while these objects are ever-changing, they still exist as the same object as long as they continue to serve their purpose. If the table was to suddenly have half an inch removed from each of its legs, it would still remain the same table according to Locke despite the change, assuming that it still served its purpose similarly.
Living substances without intelligences are defined somewhat similarly. Plants and trees are constantly changing and growing, but their identity criteria are somewhat similar to that of material substances, the chief difference being life. The main standard for a plant life to be considered continuous and having a permanent identity is the continuation of the functions of the plant that produce and preserve life. This description also fits living animals. An animal is defined by Locke as an organized living body, and according to his Principle of Life, as long as the animal’s functions still work toward the continuation of the organization, the animal is the same animal, regardless of change or growth.
While it seems strange, Locke uses the same definition of identity for man as he does for animals. Locke defines the term of man as, “…nothing but a participation of the same continued life, by constantly fleeting particles of matter, in succession vitally united to the same organized body.” Locke sees man as nothing more than the living animal which is in the shape of a man. It is clear from this description that Locke does not see the physical form to the human being as the seat of identity, and thus introduces the concept of the person. Locke defines the person as an intelligent being capable of rational thought, reason, and reflection. He says that the person is able to consider itself in different times and places, and be aware that it is the same self in these other situations. This person is the only basis, Locke argues, for the identity of a conscious entity, regardless of physical attributes. Many would say, however, that any person with intelligence and consciousness would be a man. Against this argument Locke cites the case of a parrot of some fame which appeared able to think and reason. Locke says that this parrot of supposed considerable intelligence is certainly a person, although it is clearly not a man.
Locke uses this idea of the person in order to define the lasting personal identity of a conscious being. Locke says that the only condition to be met in order for a continued identity to be preserved is the consciousness of past experiences. That is to say that as long as an intelligent entity is aware and conscious of some past event that it has experienced, it is the same entity as the one in the past event. It is unclear why Locke decided to describe this as past consciousness and not memory, but it seems that he is certainly referring to memory in his description of continued personal identity. Locke also claims that in order to be the same person over time, one need not be directly aware of every experience one has ever had, but rather be conscious of some past self that was conscious of other past selves that was conscious of other past selves, etc., thereby creating a completely continuous existence. Implicated in this theory is the thought that an entity that could not remember any of its past experiences is not the same entity as the one in the experiences. Also, Locke points out that there is the possibility of the same consciousness being present in two different material forms. Claiming that a man who had the same experiences, memories, and consciousness of Nestor is actually the same person as Nestor, Locke shows that it is possible for a person to be present in two different men. Also, one man can be the host for two separate persons. Were a man to contain a person, and then suffer an irreparable memory loss, that man would start afresh as a new person, the two persons separated by the different memories and consciousnesses.
Locke defines one final substance that is part of each human in his essay: the soul. Locke describes the soul only as immaterial and eternal, and asserts that each man has one. He does not attribute any bearing in identity to the soul, and is extremely unsure himself of the soul’s role in the person. He is not even sure that people keep the same soul for their entire lives! The soul may be changed everyday according to Locke, and the soul that once inhabited a man may, after that man’s death, come to rest in another. Locke here cites an example of a man he knew who had claimed that he had inherited Socrates’ soul. To this, Locke could not protest, as he knew nothing of the natures of souls, but only accepted it as possible. He did note, however, that this matters very little, if at all, as the soul contributes no part to the person or identity.
By defining the aspects of each human being, and establishing where personal identity lay, Locke was then able to present his theory on punishment and accountability. He saw persons, and not substances, as the objects of rewards and punishments, as the person is the only conscious part of the entity, and where the being’s actual identity resides. However, Locke’s depiction of the person raises some questions in regards to punishment and reward. According to Locke, a person is only the same to a past version of that person if that experience is part of its consciousness. Locke uses an illustration of Socrates sleeping and waking to show his view. He claims that the consciousness of sleeping Socrates and the consciousness of waking Socrates are separate entities. He claims that waking Socrates had no responsibility for the thoughts or even actions of sleeping Socrates. This suggests that a person who has committed a crime and then suffered amnesia, or has committed a crime while too drunk to remember, is completely unaccountable for his or her actions. Locke would actually agree with this point, but understood that in the courts of the actual world, allowing these instances would interrupt the function of these courts. It would be impossible to determine whether the person in question was conscious of the crime or not, and so in this life, Locke says that amnesia and other cases of memory loss are not valid excuses for crimes. He does hold, however, that on judgment day God will look into each person and determine what they truly do or do not remember, and it is on that basis that they will be judged.
John Locke’s ideas on identity and personhood are still held by many today. His theories concerning accountability and punishment have had a strong influence law across time, and his ideas also help many to understand themselves and their identities. Whether or not Locke was correct in his theories, his ideas certainly have had a great impact in the world of philosophy.
Works Consulted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_locke#The_Self
