Locke and Nietzsche in the 2003 Baghdad Looting A Comparison of the Concepts of Good and Evil in the State of Nature

Abstract

This research forms part of a broader book project examining the relationship between abstract concepts, the imposition of societal will, and political power in general. Throughout history, terms such as virtue, good, evil, justice, the nation, liberation, revolution, change, independence, heresy, and apostasy have been deployed in an abstract manner, devoid of any empirical constraints to regulate their meaning. Consequently, they have become an arena for consolidating the hegemony of various authorities and social forces over the public sphere, often justifying infringements upon rights and property.

When authority suddenly collapses, and neighbors loot their neighbors' homes in broad daylight—only to return to their own homes, replete with religious symbols, with a clear conscience—a question older than the state itself arises: Are "Good" and "Evil" objective truths discovered by reason prior to any law, or are they constructs imposed by the dominant power? Using the 2003 Baghdad looting as an isolated empirical case, this paper juxtaposes two diametrically opposed conceptions of the "state of nature" and its inherent notions of good and evil: John Locke’s vision, grounded in the "law of reason," and Friedrich Nietzsche’s perspective, rooted in the "will to power."

Employing a critical and comparative analytical approach, the study tests the explanatory capacity of both paradigms regarding human behavior in the absence of a coercive deterrent. It subsequently investigates whether the concepts of good and evil—as politico-moral philosophical constructs—can fundamentally withstand this scrutiny. This inquiry extends far beyond Baghdad; it is deeply pertinent to any society separated from chaos by a single deterrent.