Split Decisions....

According to Locke, human nature is not necessarily good or bad. Human nature can take several different paths. It is almost similar to a “choose your own adventure” novel. Locke presents the theory that when a human works on the land, that land belongs to him or her. If a man decides to purchase a field, plant crops and build a house, that land is his property. Making an assumption from the reading, I would argue that Locke feels that human nature can deal with this situation in a positive and negative way. On one hand, one may purchase the land and use the entire plot; while on the other hand, one may only utilize only a small proportion. This sheds a negative light on human nature, portraying it as greed- driven.
Locke also discusses the thesis that the “majority rule” theory should be the governing principle in a civil society. This portrays humanity in a positive light, in that the utilitarian principle helps the largest amount of its constituents. This example shows us that human nature can have a “good side.”
Inferring from the reading, it seems as though Locke views resources as if going through a scarcity. This is the same argument as presented before: one should not greedily take more land than needed because that would be overextending him or herself. Man can either cultivate the land and reap its benefits, or he can leave it to turn to waste. The decision of whether the land is valuable or not is up to man.
We as humans use our ability to reason when deciding whether or not land holds a certain magnitude of value. If man works off of the assumption that land is valuable then it will, over time, become scarce. Human nature plays a key role in this situation because the manner in which he or she acts determines whether land is scare, abundant, valuable or invaluable.