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 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.
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. [3]
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 actions are
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. [4]
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.”[5]
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 or Collectivist 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 and Hegel; as Aristotle puts it “man is born for citizenship.”[6] 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.”[7]
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. [8]
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.”[9] 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’ interests and
as being our only objective. Hobbes takes his individualism so far as to say
that people do not enjoy the company of others at all and that they do not like
having friends:
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. [10]
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. [11]
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?
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. [12]
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. [13]
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 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. [14]
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. [15]
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.”[16] 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.
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. [17]
As Iain 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 disastrous outcome for all
concerned.”[18] This is how the State of Nature 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. [20]
The Social Contract and The Laws of Nature
The Social Contract contains
Laws of Nature which Hobbes takes to
be universal, although he recognises cultural variation on many issues. The Laws of Nature are “ways to peace. Their universality derives from the fact that
all men seek peace, at least as a way of avoiding the greatest evil – death.”[21]
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.[22]
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. It should
be a monarchy because then there is one ruler that all must obey and there can
be no debate or quarrel, which leads back to 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.
- People should obey the law and the rule of the sovereign.
- People maintain the right to self defence, including against the sovereign.
- People have the right to property.
- People should return favours done to them, as favours are always done for a return.
- People should be treated as equals since all have roughly the same talents.
- No one should be a slave as we are all equal.
- People should be generous and share to avoid poverty and need, which cause crimes.
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”[23]
it is only possible to love yourself.
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 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? [24]
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. Hobbes also observes that countries (or their
rulers) exist in a State of Nature
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.[25]
The history of England is largely a history of warfare, it is a
history of invasions, civil wars, and battles of conquest over areas such as Ireland , Scotland ,
Wales , France , and then later the British
Empire . 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.
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, and 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, nor would we feel guilty about other people’s suffering. Again Egoists can counter-argue that we do these things for pride in ourselves, or to be well thought of, respected or remembered, or that we do them for a future reward in heaven, so our actions are still self-interested. The argument has a tendency to go in circles.
Hobbes claims that we are by nature perfectly happy to harm others to get what we want, after all, why worry about harm done to others about whom you do not care? But we can see that there are people in the world who would not turn to violence no matter how much doing so might benefit them. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi both foreswore violence, with Gandhi famously saying “There are many causes I would die for. There is not a single cause I would kill for.”
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 is still be
competition between hives. However, many
thinkers would contend that we are all different; John Locke argued that most people are morally good, 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 committed crimes, but many helped each other out also.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 things like smoking or dangerous sports. 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. [26]
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, so 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?
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; it might be pointed out that mothers love their children and will sacrifice their own personal interests and happiness 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. We have the altruism debate all over again.
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.”[27] 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. But on the other hand we change as we grow older, for example, beards are natural to male, but we are not born with them. Perhaps as children we are social beings, but as we age we become individuals who strive for independence and are wholly self concerned?
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.
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
Many would argue that Hobbes’ ideas of a perfect state are flawed, for example, how can selfish individuals ever cope with living under a dictator who can do as he pleases. Also, how can people trust each other long enough to establish society? Surely if someone says they will make a peace pact with you the first thing you would expect them to do was take advantage when you lay your weapons down and attack you, so no pact could ever be safely made.
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] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 1.
[4] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan. Chapter 6.
[5] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 15.
[6] Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, translated by WD
Ross, Book 1, Chapter 7.
[7] Iain
Hampsher-Monk, A History of Modern
Political Thought, page 36.
[8] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 14
[9] Margaret
Thatcher, available at: http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Phrases-and-Sayings/Question164326.html
(accessed 21/05/11).
[10] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[11] Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, Book 8, Chapters
1 and 2.
[12] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[13] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[14] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[15] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[16] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[17] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[18] Iain
Hampsher-Monk, A History of Modern
Political Thought, page 25.
[19] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 17.
[20] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[21] Iain
Hampsher-Monk, A History of Modern
Political Thought, page 30.
[22] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 27.
[23] The Bible,
Mark 12:31.
[24] 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).
[25] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, Chapter 13.
[26] David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book 2,
Chapter 3, Section 3.
[27] Aristotle, Politics, translated by Benjamin Jowett,
Book 1, Part 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment