Critically evaluate Lockes argument against innate ideas In this essay I will evaluate John Lockes argument against

innate Ideas. I will come to find, that Lockes Argument, not only commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent, but also makes use of straw manning and an inference to the best explanation, both of which are not very strong means of arguing. owever, despite this, Locke still makes convincing points against the idea that some principles are universally accepted, and thereby effectively attacks the core of the innatist position. In order to critically evaluate Lockes attack on innatism, one firstly needs to outline his argument. Locke says that, if any principle is universally accepted, then it is innate. owever no principle is universally accepted, and hence no principle is innate. ! owever, before analysing this argument, it is necessary to clarify, what exactly Locke intends to attack with this argument. Lockes criticism is generally an attack on innate ideas" however, Locke generally focuses on innate principles, and is only secondarily concerned with innate ideas or concepts. #his becomes clear when looking at two examples of principles Locke commonly uses, namely the law of Identity $%hatsoever is, is& and the principle of contradiction $It is impossible for the same thing to be, and not to be&.' In Lockes understanding, an idea or notion is only a component of a principle. ence according to Locke, if a principle is innate, then every idea or concept contained in that principle must also be innate, but the reverse does not apply. (!.).!* owever it seems like it could be possible for an idea to be innate, while none of the principles in which it appears are innate. +or example, cannot the idea of a $#hing& be innate, while the principle $It is impossible for the same thing to be, and not to be&, is not innate, #he fact that Locke does not even really consider this possibility and instead entirely focuses on innate principles is certainly a weakness in Lockes position against innate ideas. After having .ust shown, that Lockes assumption, that all ideas contained in a principle have to be innate if the principle itself is innate, is problematic, I will now
! '

/. J. Lowe, $Locke on uman 0nderstanding&, 1outledge (!223*, pg. ') J. Locke, $An /ssay 4oncerning uman 0nderstanding&, 5xford 0niversity 6ress ('778*, pg. !2 (I, ii, 3* /. J. Lowe, $Locke on uman 0nderstanding&, 1outledge (!223*, pg. '-

discuss the actual argument Locke puts forward. #he supporters of innatism argue that !. If any principle is universally accepted, then it is innate. '. #here are some principles that are universally accepted. -. ence these principles are innate. #his argument follows the argument form of $If A then 9. A. #herefore 9& and so is a formally valid argument. Locke, however, argues that !. If any principle is universally accepted, then it is innate. '. :o principle is universally accepted. -. ence no principle is innate. #his follows the argument structure $If A then 9. :ot A. #herefore :ot 9&. 9ut this is not a formally valid argument form, and Locke commits the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent.) #he only way in which Lockes argument could become valid, is if the first and second part of the first premise were interchanged, hence saying !. If any principle is innate, then it is universally accepted. '. :o principle is universally accepted. -. ence no principle is innate. %hile the first premise in this argument seems similar to the first premise of the innatist account, the two are in fact very different. #he innatists argue that if any principle is universally accepted, then it is innate. #his, however, does not in any way commit them to the truth of the premise that if any principle is innate, then it is universally accepted, as this does not logically follow from the premise Locke would need to use in his attack, to avoid any formal fallacies. 3 It thus seems like Lockes argument against innate principles is futile, as the innatist side of the debate is not actually being attacked by his argument. After having .ust shown that Lockes argument commits the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent, I will no go on to show, that Locke also appears to make use of straw; manning, when arguing against the innatist position. Locke seems to make a simplistic
) 3

/. J. Lowe, $Locke on uman 0nderstanding&, 1outledge (!223*, pg. ') /. J. Lowe, $Locke on uman 0nderstanding&, 1outledge (!223*, pg. '3

presumption about the innatists view. #he first assumption Locke seems to make is that the innatists believe that innate principles are universally assented to by all people. owever, as already outlined in the paragraph above, the innatist is in no way committed to this statement. #he defenders of innatism only argue, that if all people agree upon a certain principle then it is innate. #his does not logically entail, however, that people agree upon every innate principle. 5ne could for example imagine it to be possible for a principle to be innate, although people dont universally agree upon it, because some people have later discovered new principles through reason, which they deem more appropriate then the ones they innately hold. #he innatists thus only say that if everyone agrees upon a principle, then it is innate, while not saying that it is impossible for people to disagree on principles they innately hold. 9y simplifying this view to suit his attack, Locke seems to be guilty of straw manning.< Another weakness in Lockes position seems to be, that he makes use of an inference to the best explanation. Locke says that, even if there were certain principles, on which all men agreed, this would not prove them innate, as long as one can find any other explanation for this universal agreement. Locke hence assumes, that every other explanation is automatically superior to the idea of innate principles. owever, he does not really have any proof for this, he simply introduces another inference to the best explanation, and claims that this is the more reasonable one. In the end, however, one faces two different inferences to the best explanation and the matter of which one is more reasonable, seems to be a sub.ective one. After having .ust shown, that Locke makes use of straw manning and an inference to the best explanation in his criticism, I will now go on to discuss what is an e=ually central issue to Lockes criticism and the innatist position, the matter of whether any principle receives universal assent. #he innatists argue, that certain principles, such as $it is impossible for two ob.ects to be in the same place at the same time&, are innately held by all humans, and are universally assented to by everyone. Lockes reply to this is, that not everyone agrees with these principles, as for example $children and idiots&
<

/. J. Lowe, $Locke on uman 0nderstanding&, 1outledge (!223*, pg. '-

have never even consciously thought about these issues. > Locke makes an important point here. ?ost defensive moves against this argument involve either modifying the Innatist position to the petty claim that everyone has an innate capacity to know, which even the opponents of innatism would not deny, or make the claim that children to possess this knowledge in a latent form, and discover it at a later point in time, for example when they develop the ability to reason.
8

owever, this assumes that

someone can know something, which they have never been aware of, which as Locke undermines, seems near a contradiction.2 Another reply to Lockes criticism may be, that people, and even children and idiots have to know certain principles innately, simply because they act according to them. owever, again this is not a convincing point. 5nly because everyone follows these principles does not mean they are innate. ?ore so, one has to ask, how people can possibly not follow some of these principles. @ince many supposedly innate principles are fundamental laws to the way the world around us functions (e.g. that two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time*, not following these principles is impossible. time. ow does one go about trying to open and close a door at the same time, It can only be opened or closed at the same ence, Locke correctly identifies the fact that these thoughts need to be consciously entertained by everyone in order to be innate, as a key element. 5f course, one could go on and discuss what it means for a thought to be consciously entertained in the mind, however, this lies outside the scope of this paper. And since it is =uite certain to say that many people, even apart from children and idiots, do not actively entertain thoughts about these principles, despite the fact that they (have to* follow them, Locke seems to make a valid attack on the innatist position by arguing that there are no universally accepted principles.

5ne has to say, that Lockes argument against innate principles is not without flaws. #he argument itself commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent, and when one tries to restructure it, in order to entertain a valid argument form, the argument looses its
> 8

J. Locke, $An /ssay 4oncerning uman 0nderstanding&, 5xford 0niversity 6ress ('778*, pg. !8 (I, ii, 3* A. %all, $Lockes Attack on Innate Bnowledge$, on www..stor.org (accessed ''.-.'7!!*, pg. )!3, 2 J. Locke, $An /ssay 4oncerning uman 0nderstanding&, 5xford 0niversity 6ress ('778*, pg. !8 (I, ii, 3*

focus, and does not attack the innatists position anymore. +urther more, Locke seems to make use of straw manning and uses an inference to the best explanation, which, despite not being a fallacy, is not a very convincing line of argument. owever, Locke still poses a serious challenge to the innatist view, in the way he argues against universal assent for any principle. And since $universal acceptance would not prove innateness, but non;universality disproves it&!7 this is the centre of the innatist position and so Lockes criticism against innate ideas is still a serious threat to the innatist.

Bibliography

A. %all, $Lockes Attack on Innate Knowledge$, on www..stor.org

!7

(accessed

J. L. ?ackie, 6roblems from Locke, on www.oxfordscholarship.com (accessed '-.7-.'7!!*, pg '73

''.-.'7!!* /. J. Lowe, $Locke on Human Understanding&, 1outledge (!223* J. Locke, $An Essay Concerning Human Understanding &, 5xford 0niversity 6ress ('778* J. L. ?ackie, 6roblems from Locke, on www.oxfordscholarship.com (accessed '-.7-.'7!!*