According
to Hobbes it is in the nature of man to seek his own benefit alone and to be
willing to use all means necessary to secure his own desires. However, if our desires and actions are not
held in check by an external power (i.e. a government) it will result in a
state of chaos and anarchy where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
short.”[1] Hobbes’ most famous book is Leviathan, which was written in 1651. In this classic text it was one of Hobbes’
primary aims to justify the existence of a government and its right to exercise
control over individuals, and in particular he sought to justify the rule of a
monarch. Hobbes’ aim was “to warn against the consequences of political
conflict, the cure for which, he thought, was an absolute and undivided
sovereignty.”[2] Hobbes takes a rather Rationalist approach to
his philosophy, it is like a geometry of human nature which starts with
axiomatic definitions and proceeds to theorems based on these, but he also
attempts to support his conclusions with Empirical observations.
The view that Hobbes provides concerning human nature was not wholly new, and has its philosophical roots in the works of Plato and the 15th Century Italian thinker Nicolo Machiavelli. Here is what Machiavelli says about human nature:
One can make this generalisation about men: they are ungrateful, fickle,
liars and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit: while you
treat them well, they are yours. They
would shed blood for you, risk their property, their lives, their children, so
long, as I said above, as danger is remote; but when you are in danger they
turn against you.
Nicolo Machiavelli, The prince.[3]
Machiavelli took the view that people were generally self-interested and
that they would turn against their rulers if they thought it was in their
interests to do so, therefore his book The
Prince is dedicated to giving advice to rulers on how they can control
their citizens for their own benefit and the benefit of their people, who are like
petulant children and need the strong hand of a patriarch. Machiavelli makes it
clear that without a strong leader society soon falls apart to the detriment of
all concerned, so it is the leader’s prerogative to use any means necessary –
including lies, murder, cruelty, promise breaking, and torture – to make his
people so scared of him that they do not revolt. Machiavelli asked the question of whether it
was better as a ruler to be feared or loved and concluded that though it was best
to be both, if you could only be one then you should aim to be feared:
Love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing
to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but
fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Nicolo Machiavelli, The
prince.[4]
Machiavelli advised using cruelty wisely; it should be
used heavily at the beginning of a reign to show everyone who was in charge,
but then after it should be used sparingly so that people can live in comfort
(and maybe come to respect and love their ruler), but always in the knowledge
that revolting against their prince is dangerous and unwise.
Meanwhile, in Plato’s Republic we meet with a debate between two perspectives, one which
says that you should be good even when you can get away with doing evil deeds
(this is Plato’s view) and the other which is put across by Glaucon and argues
the opposite, that if you can get away with a crime and benefit from it then
there is no reason not to commit the crime. To demonstrate his point Glaucon
brings in the myth of Gyges, a poor shepherd who discovered a magic ring which
could turn him invisible. Using the ring’s powers he managed to become a member
of the king’s court and in the end he was able to get away with murdering the
king, and then he seduced and married the queen to become king for himself.
Glaucon argues that if you gave such a ring to a good man the liberation from
any form of punishments for crimes would soon mean that he became just as bad
as a common criminal:
No man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that
he would stand fast in justice.
No man would keep his hands off what was not his own
when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release
from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god
among men. Then the actions of
the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point.
And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a
man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any
good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.
Plato, The Republic. [5]
It is in these writing that we can see the seeds of
Hobbes’ philosophy. Hobbes views people as naturally selfish and violent, and
he believes that we are only good because we are forced to be by laws and
punishment. If the laws and enforcement
agencies of government were removed so that we could act as we naturally wished
to then life would be a short and brutal power struggle resulting in misery for
all concerned; Hobbes calls this situation The
State of Nature
Hobbes on The Nature of Man
Hobbes was a Materialist and took the view that all existing things were simply matter in motion, and that the origin of all human knowledge was the senses. He, inspired by his contemporary and friend Galileo, believed that the whole world could be explained in a mechanistic fashion, with every event being the necessary outcome of a previous event. Therefore, Hobbes attempted to explain human nature in a systematic manner from first principles. Hobbes though of human beings as being machines programmed for survival:
For seeing life is but a motion of limbs, the beginning whereof is in some
principal part within, why may we not say that all automata (engines that move
themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch) have an artificial life? For
what is the heart, but a spring; and the nerves, but so many strings; and the
joints, but so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body, such as was
intended by the Artificer?
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.[6]
Hobbes believed
that human beings were essentially complicated machines built by God whose
purpose was simply to stay alive at all costs, or as he put it to maintain
their ‘vital motion’ (by which he means heart beat, digestion, and growth
etc.). All human characteristics and ‘animal
motions’ (or voluntary motions) were geared towards survival, including our emotions
and our likes and dislikes:
This motion, which is called appetite, and for the appearance of it
delight and pleasure, seemeth to be a corroboration of vital motion, and a help
thereunto; and therefore such things as caused delight were not improperly
called jucunda [Latin for ‘joyful’], from helping or fortifying; and the
contrary, molesta, offensive, from hindering and troubling the motion vital.
Thomas
Hobbes, Leviathan.[7]
What
Hobbes is saying here is that we are filled with desires for things that help
us survive (he calls these appetites) and that we wish to avoid things which
will harm us (these he calls aversions). Our appetites and aversions drive us
to actions like a push-pull system and dictate everything we do. They also
control our emotions, for happiness is simply getting what you want, hope is
the expectation that you will get what you want, fear is the expectation of
harm, sadness is not getting what you want, and so on. Hobbes is what is known as a Psychological Egoist because he
believes that people are fundamentally programmed to only care about and be
motivated by their own needs, and therefore that selfishness is our only drive:
“The object is to every man his own good.”[8]
Hobbes
can be described as an Atomist because
he takes the view that each man is a complete individual in his own right, and
that he is master of himself and therefore has the automatic right to think and
do as he pleases. This is opposed to the Communitarian
thesis that we are all parts of society, and that we are incomplete without
it, a thesis which is found in the writings of philosophers such as Aristotle,
Hegel, and Marx; as Aristotle puts it “man is born for citizenship.”[9]
From the Atomist perspective society is nothing more than a collection of
individuals: “the social organisation ‘of men, is by Covenant only, which is
Artificial’, whereas the social organisation of species such as bees and ants
in natural, or unreflective.”[10]
Atomists take the view that any kind of control over individuals by a
government is an unnatural imposition on the individual’s natural
freedom:
The
right of nature, which writers commonly call jus naturale, is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as
he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his
own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgement and
reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto. By liberty is
understood, according to the proper signification of the word, the absence of
external impediments; which impediments may oft take away part of a man's power
to do what he would, but cannot hinder him from using the power left him
according as his judgement and reason shall dictate to him.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.[11]
Hobbes’ views on the relationship between the individual and society were
echoed by Margaret Thatcher in one of her most famous assertions: “there is no
such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are
families.”[12] To be fair, Thatcher’s quote is often taken
out of context, but it serves to make the point well. Hobbes believes that human beings do not
willingly give up their own interests to the interests of society as a whole,
or to others in general, we see our interest as opposed to others. Hobbes takes his individualism so far as to
say that people do not enjoy the company of others at all:
Men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in
keeping company… For every man looketh that his companion should value him, at
the same rate he sets upon himself: and all sign of contempt, or of
undervaluing, naturally endeavours as far as he dares… to extort a greater value
from his contemners, by damage.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.[13]
Hobbes is generally reducing friendships to the level of business
arrangements whereby people simply use each other for mutual benefit. He
believes that it is not possible to love or respect others properly, but what
we wish is for others to love and respect us, and therefore we find friendships
unsatisfactory. It is as if every member
of the friendship group wishes to be the master or king of the group, but none
will bow to any of the others, so we attempt to gain control by damaging other
people in some way. Hobbes’ views seem
to flow logically from his ideas that we are all fundamentally selfish, but
others such as Aristotle would argue that we are capable of caring for others,
and therefore that Hobbes’ basic assumptions are flawed:
For without friends no one would choose to live, though he
had all other goods… And in poverty and in other misfortunes men
think friends are the only refuge… To be friends, then, the must be mutually recognized as bearing goodwill and wishing well to each other.
Aristotle, The Nicomachean
Ethics.[14]
The later philosopher Jean-Jacques
Rousseau also disagreed with Hobbes’ basic principles instead arguing that
men, by nature, have an equal measure of self-interest and compassion for
others, and that it is actually society which makes us greedy and violent. Rousseau
argues that if we were to live independently, on our own in a natural state
without any social interference then we would never acquire desires for the
commodities available in society. As a
‘noble savage’ we would be contented with simply satisfying our basic needs,
such as for food, water, shelter, and clothing, simple needs which are easily
met. With nothing to be greedy over or jealous of there would be no conflict, so
rather than society being something which takes our natural greed and makes us
good, society takes our natural good and makes us greedy because it introduces
property, power hierarchies, and competition for esteem amongst our peers.
However, all of this talk of individualism leaves a difficult issue for
Hobbes, as a Royalist, to solve: how is it that governments exist and have the
right to exert control over private individuals? And in particular, how can we go from a total
individualism to an absolute monarchy where the king may rule as he chooses and
citizens must follow every order?
According to Hobbes the answer is that without such an iron fisted ruler
we will end up with anarchy and chaos which is in no body’s interests, so people
willingly submit to a ruler in the name of self-preservation.
The State of
Hobbes asks us to imagine what would happen if there was no government, no laws, no police or prisons, and therefore no legal consequences for doing precisely what you wanted. This unrestricted freedom, coupled with man’s selfish nature would lead to disaster, principally due to competition for the things we desire:
If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both
enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end, (which is principally
their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to
destroy, or subdue one another… if one plant, sow, build, or possess a
convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces
united, to dispossess, and deprive him, not only of the fruits of his labour,
but also of his life, or liberty.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.[15]
In short, since we are greedy and only concerned with our own needs we
will happily harm or even kill others to take from them what we desire, and
with all forces of law and order removed we would do so. In the State of Nature
In the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel. First
competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. The first maketh man invade for gain; the
second for safety; and the third for reputation. The first use violence to make
themselves masters of other persons, wives, children and cattle; the second to
defend them; the third for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion and
any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their person or by reflection in
their kindred, their friends, their nation their profession or their name.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.[16]
Hobbes is saying that we will happily attack others to take what we want from
them, and that because of this there is a general fear of other people meaning
that we will also attack others for self-defence, to kill them before they come
and kill us. Thirdly, violence can be caused by pride because people want to be
respected by others and to have reputation, partly for its own sake but also
because a reputation will make others wary of us and helps as a form of
defence. Hobbes is describing the State of Nature
It can be argued that real life is not a place of scarcity, and therefore
that there is no need for this violence and competition, but Hobbes takes the
view that in a State of Nature all things are uncertain, and therefore the best
policy is to gather as many resources to yourself as possible, and also as much
power as possible, so competition can cause scarcity:
And from this diffidence [distrust] of one another, there is no way for
any man to secure himself, so reasonable as anticipation; that is, by force, or
wiles, to master the persons of all men he can, so long, till he see no other
power great enough to endanger him: and this is no more than his own
conservation requireth, and is generally allowed. Also because there be some,
that taking pleasure in contemplating their own power in the acts of conquest,
which they pursue further than their security requires; if other, that
otherwise would be glad to be at ease within modest bounds, should not by
invasion increase their power, they would not be able to, long time, by
standing only on their defence, to subsist. And by consequence, such
augmentation of dominion over men being necessary to a man’s conservation, it
ought to be allowed him.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.[17]
Hobbes is saying here that the only way to be completely safe and secure
from other men is to secure for yourself as much power and property as
possible, and it is impossible to survive if you simply try to live within
modest means. Take businesses for example; Arkwright may well be content to
simply manage his little corner shop and not expand his business, but if he
does not do so then inevitably his shop will be brought by someone else who is
more entrepreneurial, or else a supermarket will be built nearby and he will
lose his custom. The idea is clear – expand and conquer, or be conquered and
diminish. Hobbes then goes on to say that in this melee of competition for
resources any and all measures are acceptable to succeed. In the State of Nature
To this war of every man against every man this also is consequent; that
nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice
have there no place. Where there is no common power there is no law, no
injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and
injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body, nor the mind. If they
were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world as well as his senses
and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society not in solitude.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.[18]
In addition to all of this, Hobbes argued that all men are roughly equal
and that this makes the State of Nature
Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of the body, and mind; as
that though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of
quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference
between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon
claim to himself any benefit, to which another may not pretend, as well as he.
For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the
strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that
are in the same danger with himself.
Thomas
Hobbes, Leviathan.[19]
We are roughly equal in talents, but even if one man happens to be stronger
or more intelligent than other individuals, we are all equally mortal and the
weaker men can still kill him through plotting or teamwork, so effectively no
one is safe. For Hobbes the only real
difference between different men is that some are older and so more experienced
than others, and therefore they have a greater degree of common sense and
knowledge: “prudence, is but experience; which equal time, equally bestows on
all men, in those things they equally apply themselves unto.”[20] Hobbes adds that we always think our own
opinion is better than that of others which is another reason why we will not
follow the rule of others and instead will seek our own desires and generally
do so alone. As Iain Hampsher-Monk puts
it “overestimating our own chances of success in any conflict is dangerously
destabilizing. A direct consequence of this is that should any two or more men
desire the same thing there will be conflict, violence, and perhaps even
death.”[21]
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is
enemy to everyman; the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without
other security than their own strength and their own invention shall furnish
them withal. In such conditions there is
no place for industry because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently
no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be
imported by sea; no commodious buildings; no instruments of moving and removing
such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no
account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all,
continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.[22]
As
Hampsher-Monk explains “Hobbes’s genius here is to point out how, in the
absence of authority, unrestricted competition driven by quite rational
individual calculation, brings about an unwished for and disasterous outcome
for all concerned.”[23] A modern example is the way that the
different nations are using up resources; we all know that we need to make them
last long-term, but we also know that if our own country does not exploit them
others will do so instead. Therefore we are burning through our resources as a
phenomenal rate, and will rapidly exhaust them leaving us all poor. This is how the State of Nature
Of course
the fighting would not be constant, but none the less there would be perpetual
risk of invasion and death, meaning that at all times a person must be on his
guard and in preparation for war. The State of Nature
The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death; desire of such
things as are necessary to a commodious living; and a hope by their industry to
obtain them. And reason suggesteth covenient articles of peace upon which men
may be drawn upon to agreement. These articles are they which otherwise are
called Laws of Nature.
Thomas
Hobbes, Leviathan.[25]
The Social Contract and The Laws of Nature
Hobbes
recommends monarchy (meaning ‘rule by one’) as the best system of government
because under monarchy there is no debate about what is to be done, people
simply do what is commanded. Hobbes
takes the view that democracy and debates will simply lead to disagreements
which will threaten to slide society back in to a State of Nature
Of all the passions that which inclineth men least to break the laws is
fear. Nay excepting some generous natures it is the only thing, where there is
appearance of pleasure by breaking the laws, that makes men keep them.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.[27]
Hobbes
argues that we enter this Social Contract is for the benefit of all, so that we
can all keep our lives, liberty, and property.
He also argues that being a member of society makes us just; it is not
that we are evil in the State of Nature
- People should give up their total liberty to do anything they wish and instead limit their actions against others to what they are happy to have done unto them. This is essentially the Golden Rule. As Hobbes puts it, a man should be “contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself.”[28]
- People should obey the law
and the rule of the sovereign, because without this it will lead back to a
State of
- People maintain the right to self defence, including against the sovereign, since that is the whole reason for living in a peaceful and ordered society to begin with.
- People have the right to property, meaning that that others cannot take what you have fairly earned from you.
- People should return favours done to them. This is because Hobbes takes the view that a man will only help another man for his own personal benefit, so that he gets something back. If the favour is not returned this leads to quarrel and to war.
- People should be treated as equals since all have roughly the same talents.
- No one should be a slave, since each person remains his own master and no one is so stupid that they need to be mastered like an animal, again, we are all equal.
- People should be generous
and share what they have because this reduces poverty and want, which is
one of the primary causes of crime and leads back to a State of
Interestingly,
Hobbes’ selfish ideals lead to a justification for a morality not too
dissimilar to that of Christianity, only the justifications differ, for Hobbes
it is impossible to “love thy neighbour as thyself”[29]
it is only possible to love yourself.
What Hobbes wanted to do was show that morality and order could be grounded
rationally and in a secular manner, without turning to religion, which can
always be skewed by personal opinions and interpretations. A major problem, of course, becomes why a
selfish individual should not break his promises or break the laws when he
realises he can get away with doing so.
Hobbes seems to presume that you should keep your word once given, but
is this a good enough answer?
An Analysis of Hobbes’ Leviathan
What follows
is a list of objections to Hobbes’ views, and an analysis of them.
1) The State of Nature
It can be
argued that the State of
2) Lack of evidence
Some,
however, would question the validity of a mere thought experiment, which uses
the imagination rather than anything Empirical, therefore, Hobbes presents a
lack of evidence for his case. Arguably
looking at real life situations will give us a better view of how humans really
react to such circumstances, a notable example being Hurricane Katrina in
Looting has intensified since the hurricane, and some communities
have regressed into what ethicists call the state of nature — an
atmosphere without rules or infrastructure, where the needs are so great that
anything goes. As New Orleans
Associated
Press, In a city without rules, is
looting OK? [30]
Hobbes
also gives his own evidence from the 17th century by saying that we
distrust others in ordinary life: people arm themselves on journeys and do not
travel alone; people lock their doors when they sleep; people lock away their
valuables from others, including their family and servants; we have law enforcement
officers; as far as Hobbes is concerned we slander our fellow people as
untrustworthy every day by our actions. Hobbes
also claimed that there were people in the newly discovered parts of the world
such as America
Kings, and persons of sovereign authority, because of their independency
are in continual jealousies and in the state and posture of gladiators; having
their weapons pointing and their eyes fixed on one another; that is their
forts, garrisons and guns upon the frontiers of their kingdoms; and continual
spies upon their neighbours; which is a posture of war.
Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan.[31]
The
history of England is largely a history of warfare, it involves invasions by
the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans, and the Spanish Armada, fights
between the different nations of the British Isles, numerous civil wars between
claimants to the throne, crusades, wars of conquest and empire around the
world, more than a dozen wars against the French including one which lasted
more than a hundred years, and two world wars. It is not hard to see how Hobbes
could view greed and conflict as essential parts of the nature of man, and it
is not hard to see why so many people agree with him. On the other hand, perhaps Hobbes is missing
something… surely selfishness is not our only drive, and we are not all
violent?
It can be argued that Hobbes’ Psychological Egoism is false. There are numerous arguments against the idea that everyone is innately selfish, most notably we can argue against it by counterexample: there are many people who have dedicated their whole lives to helping others and put their own needs for happiness, material possessions, and safety last over and over again, for example, there is Maximillian Kolbe who volunteered to be put to death in a Nazi concentration camp in place of a man with a wife and family, or there is Mother Teresa who spent her whole life in poverty working with the poorest of the poor. Arguably most or all of us perform selfless or altruistic actions on some occasions.
However,
a Psychological Egoist can counter-argue by saying that in these cases the goal
is personal happiness, people help others because doing so makes them feel
good, or it helps them to avoid guilt. Counter-arguing again, someone who
believes in altruism can state that if we were fully selfish we would not enjoy
helping others, and certainly not die for them when we know we will get nothing
back, and nor would we feel guilty about other people’s suffering. There are
responses to this also, for example, it might be said that people want to gain a
reputation and be remembered, so they will sacrifice themselves for the sake of
some kind of immortality, or it might be said that religious people like Mother
Teresa are aiming for heaven. In response again, it can be argued that human
beings are not all selfish because as a species we survive better in groups, so
we have been conditioned over millions of years to work together and to
genuinely care for others. In addition
we can argue that we do not help others for the sake of personal happiness, we
do so because we know that others matter, and knowing we have done the right
thing this leads to feeling good about yourself; in other words, the personal
gain of happiness is not the cause of our action, but a side-effect. But again this could be seen as essentially
relating back to personal survival, we feel good at helping others because in
most cases it helps our own personal survival, it is just that sometimes our
feelings send us in the wrong direction and are self-defeating. The argument
has a tendency to go around in circles, but arguably it seems reasonable to say
that altruism is possible, for if even dying for a stranger when no one will
learn of or remember your deed can still be seen as selfish, the word ‘selfish’
seems to become quite meaningless.
4) Not all people are willing
to use violence for their ends.
5) Hobbes universalises his nature of man, but aren’t we all different?
Hobbes is saying that all human beings, without exception, are selfish and greedy, and he is also saying the same about most animals, social animals like ants and bees are an exception because the individual animal works purely for the hive, but there would still be competition between hives. However, many thinkers would contend that we are all different; John Locke argued that most people are moral and have consciences, it is just a few who are untrustworthy, and it these we must protect ourselves and lock away our goods from. Think about Hurricane Katrina again, yes many people committed crimes, but more did not, and many helped each other at great personal risk.
6) Psychological Egoism is
too simplistic
Hobbes argues
that our likes and dislikes are based on what we think will be of benefit to
our survival, however, this seems untrue because many people enjoy smoking or
drugs which harms them, or they enjoy taking deadly risks. According to David Hume, human emotions are not structured in any way, and are
certainly not automatically selfish, but are generally quite random:
It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world
to the scratching of my finger. It is
not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least
uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. It is as little contrary to reason to prefer
even my own acknowledged lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent
affection for the former than the latter.
David Hume, A Treatise of
Human Nature.[32]
More
modern psychologists would argue that there is a structure to the way we think,
our thoughts and drives are not wholly random, but that the drive to survive is
not the only force at work, and that Psychological Egoism is too simplistic to
be credible. For example, Sigmund Freud believed
that thanks to our upbringing and social influences, the needs of others become
an actual part of our consciousness; he calls this the super-ego, and to a
large extent it actually suppresses natural destructive and selfish desires. Additionally he stated that there seems to be
two contrary drives in human beings, the life-drive (eros or libido) which
makes us want to survive, enjoy life, and propagate, and then there is the
death-drive (thanatos) which makes us
want to destroy ourselves or run away to avoid the stresses of life. For Hobbes the only drive is to survive at
all costs, but is this all there really is in us?
7) Hobbes prevents the
existence of true friendships and love.
Psychological
egoism holds that the only love and concern we can have is for ourselves, and
that we are only concerned with others in so far as they are of use to our own
personal interests and survival. But
surely we do care for others, be they friends or family, and we might sometimes
care about them more than we care about ourselves. This is again not a simple
debate, for example, it might be pointed out that mothers love their children
and will sacrifice their own personal interests and happiness, even their
survival, for their children’s sake, but a Psychological Egoist may say that
the mother has a vested interest in the child who will continue not only her
bloodline, but also her way of thinking and doing things. This debate essentially
relates back to the debate above about whether altruism is possible or not.
8) Man is by nature a social
being, not a natural individual.
Communitarians
argue that human beings are not naturally individual persons, atoms complete in
their own right, they are primarily members of groups or clans and they cannot
exist alone. Aristotle stated that “he who is unable to live in
society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for
himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature.”[33] Aristotle believed that people needed
friends, but also that without others around we cannot live good lives and make
the most of our potential. Without being
raised by other people you would retain the undeveloped mind of a child and
barely be human, you would be little more than an animal. Aristotle also uses language as evidence, for
man’s ability to speak indicates that we are meant to be living in communities
and communicating with others, otherwise we would just grunt and growl like
animals. Only gods are strong enough to be solitary individuals complete by
themselves. Aristotle’s views are
supported by modern evolutionary theory, for without aeons of communal living
man would not have developed language or social skills at all.
On the
other hand, just because we are born with social dependency, it does not mean
we retain it; as children we need mothers, but why should not independence
emerge as we grow, just as the body changes in puberty? Children are social being, but perhaps adults
are not, perhaps they strive for independence and autonomy, and always seek
their own needs.
9) Humans are not completely greedy
by nature, but are made greedier by society.
This was
the view of Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
according to whom it is natural for people to feel compassion towards those
who, like themselves, can suffer.
However, Rousseau argues that society causes us to lose compassion for
others and that it causes natural self-concern to inflate to the level of
monstrous greed and vanity. Society
brings with it property and social hierarchies, and we can become increasingly
obsessed with wealth and status. There
is social and economic inequality, and people become greedy with what is
theirs, unwilling to share and help others, happy to abuse others in the
pursuit of yet more wealth and status. Meanwhile, those who are lower and
poorer become jealous and willing to steal to get what they desire but do not
have. Outside of society these problems
would not exist, people would be content with the basic necessities for life
and would retain their compassion.
10) People are not naturally
equal.
Hobbes
contends that all people are roughly equal by nature, all possessed of a
similar degree of intelligence, and only distinguished by how much common sense
(prudence, i.e. practical wisdom) they have, which is a product of
experience. However, many people would
contend that this is utterly false; some are more intellectually intelligent
than others; some are more socially intelligent, able to interact well with
others and be persuasive or ‘streetwise’; some are more artistic; some are
physically stronger or better at sports or fighting. Arguably there are some people who excel in
many fields whilst there are others who seem deficient in all; one need only to
look at a victim of brain damage to know that not all humans are equal in their
abilities, even if we still wish to think of them as equal in dignity. Amongst those who reject natural equality are
Rousseau and Aristotle; for Rousseau the differences in talents amongst men was
one reason for monetary and social inequality, but he wished to see society
made equal. Aristotle on the other hand
defended slavery of those deemed of lower quality. Where Hobbes does have a strong point,
however, is in the fact that we are all mortal.Hobbes’ State of
The main reason why Hobbes wrote Leviathan was to justify the existence of a government and its power over us, and in particular he wished to justify absolute monarchy. He did this by pointing to the existence of a social contract which we would all be rationally well advised to sign in order to escape from the possibility of a State of Nature. The crucial problem is that in reality no such contract exists. John Locke tried to defend the notion of a social contract by saying that our consent towards the social contact was tacit, it was unspoken and assumed simply by the fact that we live together and cooperate. However, David Hume mocked this idea stating that tacit consent was no consent at all, and that citizens hardly have any freewill to sign the contract or not - we are born into a society and from the moment of birth we are expected to obey its rules, and it is not as if we all have the power to leave. He likened the social contract to being carried on to a ship whilst asleep and then to be told after you wake up that you have the choice between staying onboard and obeying the rules or jumping in to the sea to drown.[34]
Another key criticism is that it seems the social contract cannot be binding. In the State of Nature morality does not exist and a person may lie and cheat all they like meaning that at the moment a person is signing the social contract he has no actual obligation to do as he promises.Therefore, why not sign the social contract as part of an elaborate rouse to fool your enemies and get yourself in to a better position? They all agree to put down their weapons and live in peace, and now you have the opportunity to conquer them for your own gain. Or you can have your cake and eat it - sit back and reap the benefits of other people obeying the laws, and yet break them yourself when you can gain from it. These criticism seem to show that as a political philosophy the idea of giving governments and their power a foundation in a social contract is invalid.
Conclusion
Hobbes’
philosophy was a milestone in philosophical inquiry, not merely because of the
picture of human nature and the political doctrines that it proposed, but also
because of its systematic nature. Hobbes
appears to have several strong points about human nature and the way our
actions are motivated, but many commentators argue that his picture of humanity
is incomplete and that we also possess social, co-operative, and altruistic
drives.Bibliography & References:
[1] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[2] Iain
Hampsher-Monk, A History of Modern
Political Thought, page 2, Willey-Blackwell, 1993.
[3] Nicolo
Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 17.
[4] Nicolo
Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 17.
[5] Plato, The Republic, translated by Benjamin
Jowett, Book 2.
[6] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 1.
[7] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan. Chapter 6.
[8] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 15.
[9] Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, translated by WD
Ross, Book 1, Chapter 7.
[10] Iain
Hampsher-Monk, A History of Modern
Political Thought, page 36.
[11] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 14
[12] Margaret
Thatcher, available at: http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Phrases-and-Sayings/Question164326.html
(accessed 21/05/11).
[13] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[14] Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, Book 8, Chapters
1 and 2.
[15] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[16] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[17] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[18] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[19] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[20] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[21] Iain
Hampsher-Monk, A History of Modern
Political Thought, page 24.
[22] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[23] Iain
Hampsher-Monk, A History of Modern
Political Thought, page 25.
[24] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 17.
[25] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[26] Iain
Hampsher-Monk, A History of Modern
Political Thought, page 30.
[27] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 27.
[28] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 14.
[29] The Bible,
Mark 12:31.
[30] Unknown
author, In a city without rules, is
looting OK?, published by Associated Press, published 01/09/2005, available
at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9160453/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/t/city-without-rules-looting-ok/
(accessed 21/06/11).
[31] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[32] David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book 2,
Chapter 3, Section 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment