Locke: Innate Knowledge

In book 1, Locke attacks the theory of innate knowledge. He begins by criticizing the possibility of innate theoretical principles by basically saying that if there are any innate principles, then everyone would accept them. There are no principles that everybody accepts, therefore there are no innate principles. He later addresses the possibility of innate moral knowledge. He uses the same logical argument here, that there is no moral code agreed on by ever human, therefore there cannot be innate moral knowledge. He uses several examples to support his claim that innate knowledge is not possible. His strongest argument is his use of children for an example, saying that anything they know or any ideas they have come directly from things they have experienced. I think Locke is much more realistic than Descartes was. His arguments use more logic rather than relying on "God's power". Locke has claims with more reasonable backup and better conclusions than Descartes. I agree with Locke that innate knowledge is impossible and in order for it to be true, every person would have to have some moral code written to their brains or at least have one thing that everybody in the world agrees on, which clearly is not the case.