Locke Book I- No Innate practical principles

Locke argues that there are also no innate practical principles (that is, princples concerning how men ought to act, either imperatively in a hypothetical sense or in a cetegorical sense, as Kant will later point out). If there were principles imprinted on the mind or soul of all men, then surely there would be much less confusion and dissent as to what is right and wrong. First, he points out that many different societies have drastically different idea of morality, where in one society (such as ours) infanticide would seem to be a clear case of immorality, other cultures hold that it is acceptable by moral standards. Because such differing extremes of moral stadards exist, it seems unlikely that there is one true moral law that men have imprinted on their minds or souls. A second argument that he uses is that if men had a clear and distinct moral law imprinted on their minds, then they would also have the conception of a moral lawgiver, namely a God, who had the power to punish those who broke the laws. Since plenty of individual men as well as whole societies act in morally contradictory ways, men must not have a clear and distinct idea of a lawgiver because they clearly don't fear him enough to act "morally". Locke holds that there is nonetheless a morality, but instead of it being innate it is discovered through reason. He argues that God has given us the faculty of reason so that we would use it rather than a ready-made set of true propositions. "God having endued man with those faculties of knowing which he hath, was no more abliged by his goodness, to implant those innate notions in his mind, than that having given him reason, hands, and materials, he should build him bridges, or houses. . ."