John Locke's views on property and private property produced a justification, even an obligation, for Euro-Westerners to take possession of apparently unused or uncultivated land. In chapter five ("On Property") of his book "Second Treatise of Government", Locke uses his reasoning for the acquisition of property to argue that indigenous peoples do not cultivate the land to the fullest and that Euro- Westerners therefore have a property right. right to claim the land as their 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 so that it supports the fact that indigenous peoples deliberately use the land and are therefore owners of it. he. Through these lenses, it is also possible to examine the ways in which non-human animals are neglected with respect to their land rights. Locke argues that no land should be left wild or unproductive, but what about 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 manner and therefore it should not be considered unused or waste. plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get original essayLocke viewed the earth and all the resources on it as existing “for the support and comfort” of humans, and in addition, like being available for “humanity in common”. For anyone to own anything individually, Locke proposed that the labor of an individual would transform a resource owned by all humans into belonging to that one person. Locke argues that since everyone "possesses property in his own person" (that is, everyone has, in the state of nature, ownership of his body) and that, by extension, he is also the owner of the work that is put in to acquire the property. use of resources, these products should therefore 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 required to pick them makes them that person's property because "this labor establishes a distinction between them and the common." Locke argues that this must be the case, because otherwise humanity would starve if we had to wait for everyone's approval before eating, or if we had to divide every resource 7.5 billion ways before getting our share . propose a limit on the amount of private property a person can own. According to Locke, waste invalidates a person's title to property. Locke illustrates this by referring to the example of apple picking. If a person picks more apples than he could use and thus lets them spoil and rot, it means that he has wasted the apples and should have allowed someone else who could have them to use them before they go bad from having them. Locke defends this point by asserting that “nothing was created by God for man to spoil or destroy.” According to Locke, by wasting or not fully utilizing the resources we have, we do God a disservice. Along the same lines, Locke also states that people can own as much land as they are able to use and develop it properly. However, if aperson let their land grow wild and unused, Locke would argue that this person invalidated their right to the land because they claimed more than they could use. For Locke, humans have the right to use the earth and its resources. , and to claim it as their own, provided they waste nothing. Locke also said that "land which is left entirely to nature, which presents no improvement in grazing, plowing, or planting, is called, and indeed is, waste." This implies, on a broader scale, that "wild" lands, used as habitats for various species of flora and fauna, do not directly contribute to human use and should therefore be considered waste. This leaves little room for Earth to function without interference from humanity. The idea that nothing should be left abandoned, such as 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 believed that native agricultural practices were not efficient and did not maximize the amount of resources on the land and that settlers justified land appropriation by thinking it was "unimproved." However, Braun argues that Locke's view of property can be reconstructed in a way "that does not overthrow native property, but actually upholds it." Braun claims that Locke's reasoning for why people can claim ownership of land is that 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 ​​flourishing", then it can be said that indigenous peoples use land for this purpose, and that the colonists have no right to take them from them. Braun argues that Indigenous lands have a “special purpose” and play “a vital role in their lives.” He explains that Locke's framework for land ownership is that land can be considered owned "when given a demonstrable purpose." In his article, Braun asserts that while indigenous lands may not have been used or cultivated in traditional Euro-Western ways, they were nonetheless "certainly intended to provide for their (indigenous peoples) needs and to enable their development.” The Euro-Western settlers were wrong to appropriate these lands. In the same way, it can be argued that non-human animals use the land – their territories – for a specific purpose and that destroying natural habitats to build human-designed infrastructure is also wrong. It is possible to argue, with the arguments raised by Braun, that non-human animals use their terrestrial territories purposefully and therefore have a right to them and that this should not be considered waste. Locke asserted that the distinction between wild and useless land lies in the labor, or toil, put into it, and it is this “that gives the greatest share of value to the land.” Therefore, it would be logical to say from Locke's point of view that since non-human animals do not cultivate or plow 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– justifies the right of non-human animals to their territories. Wild animals that live on land use the land as a means of “thriving”. They live there, live there, find their sustenance there and, above all, promote the sustainability of their species there. This is why, even if non-human animals do not cultivate the land in a way that Euro-Westers deem profitable, they still have a right to the land they use. From a Lockean perspective, any land that is not used for its full use, or does not contribute to humans, is waste because the land was given to humans by God and by not using it for his greatest potential, we are not doing it any favors. By allowing land and habitats to continue without human interference, we leave them undeveloped and unused, and since, in Locke's view, God "commanded him [humans] to subdue the earth", we could see that we are disobeying God by not using every available piece of land for our benefit. By extension, by allowing non-human animals to have protected territories, we allow the earth to be uncultivated. Although it can be argued that non-human animals have a right to a protected plot of land to allow their species to flourish for the benefit of humans (i.e. for hunting, to allow continued balance of the ecosystem, etc.), non-human animals have a right to land there simply for their own benefit, and not because it is in humanity's long-term interest to help preserve wildlife. Braun asserts that if "land serves a clear and demonstrable purpose in the life of a person or group, then they have a distinct 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 a continuing role" in their lives. . Many situations, agreements and laws in human history have arisen from the role they play in promoting human development, infrastructure and comfort. By relying on this type of framework, we blatantly ignore the rights of non-human animals and selfishly only think of the good of our species. We treat non-human animals and wildlife only as a means to achieve our goals (i.e. we simply use non-human animals for our benefit), and not as an end in themselves (i.e. that is, they are intrinsically good and valuable simply). for their own account). However, as Locke points out, the Bible does say that humans “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps.” crawls on the earth. This seems to imply that we have a duty to exercise control over non-human animals. However, the Bible also states that we are to be “faithful stewards of God’s grace.” With this in mind, our task is not only to care for the flora and fauna on this earth, but also to ensure its survival and flourishing. By asserting that we have the right to take control of the land solely for our benefit, we forget our responsibility as managers. The Bible says: “The nations were angry, but your [God’s] wrath has come. The time had come to judge the dead; The time has come to reward your servants, the prophets and the saints, and those who fear your name, small and great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth.” We may think that we are destroying the earth by taking over every part of it and preventing it from functioning.. (2016)., 34(2), 340-354.