@article{oai:icu.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000002,
 author = {Aycock, Brian Johnson},
 issue = {43},
 journal = {人文科学研究 : キリスト教と文化},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {There are two distinct lines of thought which we can find in the early
modern European discourse on the origin and justification of property.
One is a conventionalist line represented by Grotius, Hobbes and
Pufendorf. The other is a unilateralist one, which was hinted at by some
Puritan colonists in America and came to be clearly formulated in the
language of Locke. The former makes a mutual compact of human beings
a necessary condition for the emergence and justification of property. The
latter dispenses with the compact altogether, and claims that a unilateral
acquisition of natural resources under certain favourable circumstances
sufficiently explains and justifies property. It is Locke who proposed
his unilateralist theory of appropriation as an alternative to the earlier
conventionalism of Grotius, Hobbes, and Pufendorf.
　The purpose of this paper is to give a narrative of the development
of post-Lockean unilateralism. It considers the works of Jean Barbeyrac,
Gershom Carmichael, and Francis Hutcheson. It seeks to provide textual
evidence to show that there is a significant line of continuity from Locke
to Hutcheson, while it also involves the use of diverse strategies and
arguments. Barbeyrac and Carmichael inherited Locke’s basic principles
though they added one or two claims of their own. Hutcheson modified
Locke’s unilateralism by combining his functionalist and humanitarian
views with Locke’s insights. In the Inquiry Hutcheson seized upon the
consequentialist part of Locke’s unilateralism, and recast it in terms of self-
love and motives to industry. In the Short Introduction, he appealed to the
general interest of all, but he focused more sharply on the sense of humanity
or the lack of it by discussing the case where one intercepts the product of
another’s honest labour. And in A System of Moral Philosophy, Hutcheson
linked human labour to ‘the immediate feelings of our hearts’ as well as
‘the consideration of the general interest’. Despite the diverse views found
in Hutcheson’s early and later works, it is possible to see that Barbeyrac,
Carmichael, and Hutcheson are united in defending the unilateral mode of
appropriation, and rejecting the claim of conventionalism.},
 pages = {1--25},
 title = {A Brief History of Post-Lockean Unilateralism: Barbeyrac, Carmichael, and Hutcheson on Property},
 year = {2012}
}