]> 2026-05-04T12:45:19+00:00 Privacy Rights/Limitations - Restrictions/Permissibility 0 en Hobbes Thomas Hobbes grappled with varying different situations of privacy. In Leviathan, it was mostly concerning places in which privacy and the public overlap. Generally, the public and commonwealth rights overtake those of an individual, especially in times of war, but there are some exceptions (Hobbes, [[Probable year:: 1651]]/ [[Probable year:: 1965]], 130). For instance, one had the right to protect themselves with their private strength without being a threat to the commonwealth (Hobbes, [[Probable year:: 1651]]/ [[Probable year:: 1965]], 138). Additionally, men could own private property and goods without interference from the Church of England and hold their own beliefs, as long as they didn’t go against the Church (Hobbes, [[Probable year:: 1651]]/ [[Probable year:: 1965]], 250, 345). In De Cive (On the Citizen), Hobbes presents an interesting dilemma – once the people form a state, the people no longer exist and instead become subjects (Hobbes, [[Probable year:: 1642]]/ [[Probable year:: 1651]], 39-40). He suggests this leaves the ruler of the state with no responsibility to the subjects, able to harm them as there is no direct contract between the ruler and subjects (Hobbes, [[Probable year:: 1642]]/ [[Probable year:: 1651]], 40). Without obligation, there is certainly little to prevent the ruler from imposing on subjects and revoking their privacy. Locke In [[Probable year:: 1689]], John Locke discussed privacy in his Letters on Toleration. In this essay, Locke discusses privacy in relation to the Church of England. Generally, there is no privacy from the Magistrate in matters relating to the Church, however, in some instances, privacy is afforded to private matters (Locke, [[Probable year:: 1689]]/ [[Probable year:: 2010]], 43, 46). For instance, Locke claims that one may take care of one’s health without much interference at all and prevents people from telling others what to believe in unless they are a clergyman (Locke, [[Probable year:: 1689]]/ [[Probable year:: 2010]], 46. 129). Additionally, if one perceives an order by a magistrate to be unlawful, they can abstain from that law, and the magistrate cannot use their private judgment to impose laws but must refer back to God’s laws (Locke, [[Probable year:: 1689]]/ [[Probable year:: 2010]], 58-59). Kant Immanuel Kant talks a lot about Enlightenment and the formation of states. Inherently, in the creation of these states, some rights are taken away to “[harmonize] with the freedom on everyone else” (Kant, [[Probable year:: 1970]], 47, 55, 73). However, these rights that are given up usually have specific limitations (Kant, [[Probable year:: 1970]], 45). The government in these societies could prevent some actions but, much like Warren & Brandeis later, felt that free-thinking and reasoning were of utmost importance in developing new ideas, and suggested they be protected (Kant, [[Probable year:: 1970]], 59). However, Kant also suggests limiting the right to reason because it can still “expand to its fullest” while it is limited (Kant, [[Probable year:: 1970]], 59). In Warren & Brandeis’s terms of “the right to be let alone,” Kant, in his Theory and Practice, instead proposes the right to coercion, meaning all who are a part of the state are held to the same standard (Warren & Brandeis, [[Probable year:: 1890]], 193; Kant, [[Probable year:: 1970]], 75). This coercion is imposed uniformly on all subjects, but not the ruler (Kant, [[Probable year:: 1970]], 75). As long as one was conforming to the laws, there was no reason to interrupt their actions, but once conformity was broken, there was a chance to impose and alter someone’s actions (Kant, [[Probable year:: 1970]], 80). Kant recognizes that Hobbes feels differently, writing directly against Hobbes’ views as put forth in De Cive, in that the ruler has no obligations to the people and may treat them how he wishes – implying no right to be let alone (Kant, [[Probable year:: 1970]], 84; Hobbes, [[Probable year:: 1651]], 40). Sieyes In his essay titled Views of the Executive Means Available to the Representatives of France in [[Probable year:: 1789]], Emmanuel Sieyes claims rights are inherent to a person. However, in What is the Third Estate, Sieyes claims that states may use the rights it was granted by the constitution and positive law to preserve the nation and community (Sieyes, [[Probable year:: 1788]]/ [[Probable year:: 2003]], 136). In terms of privacy, these statements seem to imply that privacy may sometimes be taken away from some in the interests of the public. It is important to note, though, that these impositions may not go beyond the scope of the constitution in place (Sieyes, [[Probable year:: 1788]]/ [[Probable year:: 2003]], 137). Mill John Stuart Mill, an English thinker, recognizes that English laws tended to interfere with privacy (Mill, [[Probable year:: 1859]]/ [[Probable year:: 2011]], 15). However, Mill felt that separating church and state (“spiritual and temporal authority”) prevented more interferences of law within private life, somewhat facilitating what Warren & Brandeis would later call “the right to be let alone” (Mill, [[Probable year:: 1859]]/ [[Probable year:: 2011]], 24; Warren & Brandeis, [[Probable year:: 1890]], 193). References: Hobbes, T. ([[Probable year:: 1651]]) . De cive (T. Hobbes, Trans.). UK Public Library. (Original work published [[Probable year:: 1642]]) . http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/27/57.pdf Hobbes, T. ([[Probable year:: 1965]]) . Leviathan. Liberty Fund. (Original work published [[Probable year:: 1651]]) . http://files.libertyfund.org/files/869/0161_Bk.pdf Kant, I. ([[Probable year:: 1970]]) . Kant: Political writings (R.S. Reiss, Ed., [[Probable year:: 2003]] ed.). Cambridge University Press. Locke, J. ([[Probable year:: 2010]]) . A letter concerning toleration and other writings (M. Goldie, Ed.). Liberty Fund. (Original work published [[Probable year:: 1689]]) . http://files.libertyfund.org/files/[[Probable year:: 2375]]/ Locke_[[Probable year:: 1560]]_ EBk_v6.0.pdf Mill, J.S. ([[Probable year:: 2011]]) . On liberty. Project Gutenberg. (Original work published in [[Probable year:: 1859]]) . https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm#Page_1 Sieyes, E. ([[Probable year:: 2003]]) . Political writings (M. Sonenscher, Ed.). Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published in [[Probable year:: 1788]]) . Warren, S. & Brandeis, L. ([[Probable year:: 1890]], Dec. 15). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review 4(5), 193-220. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-811X%281890[[Probable year:: 1215]]% 294%3A5%3C193%3ATRTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C 1215 1560 1642 1651 1689 1788 1789 1859 1890 1965 1970 2003 2010 2011 2375 2164836.5 2290847.5 2320788.5 2324075.5 2337955.5 2374113.5 2374479.5 2400045.5 2411368.5 2438761.5 2440587.5 2452640.5 2455197.5 2455562.5 2588510.5 Have political theorists or philosophers discussed the permissibility of exceptions to this right? 2023-03-27T04:55:22Z 2460030.7051157 Privacy Rights/Limitations - Restrictions/Permissibility Page name 102 en Page name