Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679, lived during the most crucial period of early modern England's history: the
English Civil War, waged from 1642-1648. To describe this conflict in the most general of terms, it was a
clash between the King and his supporters, the Monarchists, who preferred the traditional authority of a
monarch, and the Parliamentarians, most notably led by Oliver Cromwell, who demanded more power for
the quasi-democratic institution of Parliament. Hobbes represents a compromise between these two
factions. On the one hand he rejects the theory of the Divine Right of Kings, which is most eloquently
expressed by Robert Filmer in his Patriarcha or the Natural Power of Kings, (although it would be left to John
Locke to refute Filmer directly). Filmer’s view held that a king’s authority was invested in him (or,
presumably, her) by God, that such authority was absolute, and therefore that the basis of political
obligation lay in our obligation to obey God absolutely. According to this view, then, political obligation is
subsumed under religious obligation. On the other hand, Hobbes also rejects the early democratic view,
taken up by the Parliamentarians, that power ought to be shared between Parliament and the King. In
rejecting both these views, Hobbes occupies the ground of one who is both radical and conservative. He
argues, radically for his times, that political authority and obligation are based on the individual self-
interests of members of society who are understood to be equal to one another, with no single individual
invested with any essential authority to rule over the rest, while at the same time maintaining the
conservative position that the monarch, which he called the Sovereign, must be ceded absolute authority if
society is to survive.
Hobbes' political theory is best understood if taken in two parts: his theory of human
motivation, Psychological Egoism, and his theory of the social contract, founded on the hypothetical State of
Nature. Hobbes has, first and foremost, a particular theory of human nature, which gives rise to a particular
view of morality and politics, as developed in his philosophical masterpiece, Leviathan, published in 1651.
The Scientific Revolution, with its important new discoveries that the universe could be both described and
predicted in accordance with universal laws of nature, greatly influenced Hobbes. He sought to provide a
theory of human nature that would parallel the discoveries being made in the sciences of the inanimate
universe. His psychological theory is therefore informed by mechanism, the general view that everything in
the universe is produced by nothing other than matter in motion. According to Hobbes, this extends to
human behavior. Human macro-behavior can be aptly described as the effect of certain kinds of micro-
behavior, even though some of this latter behavior is invisible to us. So, such behaviors as walking, talking,
and the like are themselves produced by other actions inside of us. And these other actions are themselves
caused by the interaction of our bodies with other bodies, human or otherwise, which create in us certain
chains of causes and effects, and which eventually give rise to the human behavior that we can plainly
observe. We, including all of our actions and choices, are then, according to this view, as explainable in
terms of universal laws of nature as are the motions of heavenly bodies. The gradual disintegration of
memory, for example, can be explained by inertia. As we are presented with ever more sensory information,
the residue of earlier impressions ‘slows down' over time. From Hobbes’ point of view, we are essentially
very complicated organic machines, responding to the stimuli of the world mechanistically and in
accordance with universal laws of human nature.
In Hobbes' view, this mechanistic quality of human psychology implies the subjective nature of normative
claims. ‘Love’ and ‘hate’, for instance, are just words we use to describe the things we are drawn to and
repelled by, respectively. So, too, the terms ‘good’ and ‘bad’ have no meaning other than to describe our
appetites and aversions. Moral terms do not, therefore, describe some objective state of affairs, but are
rather reflections of individual tastes and preferences.

In addition to Subjectivism, Hobbes also infers from his mechanistic theory of human nature that humans
are necessarily and exclusively self-interested. All men pursue only what they perceive to be in their own
individually considered best interests - they respond mechanistically by being drawn to that which they
desire and repelled by that to which they are averse. This is a universal claim: it is meant to cover all human
actions under all circumstances – in society or out of it, with regard to strangers and friends alike, with
regard to small ends and the most generalized of human desires, such as the desire for power and status.
Everything we do is motivated solely by the desire to better our own situations, and satisfy as many of our
own, individually considered desires as possible. We are infinitely appetitive and only genuinely concerned
with our own selves. According to Hobbes, even the reason that adults care for small children can be
explicated in terms of the adults' own self-interest (he claims that in saving an infant by caring for it, we
become the recipient of a strong sense of obligation in one who has been helped to survive rather than
allowed to die).

In addition to being exclusively self-interested, Hobbes also argues that human beings are reasonable. They
have in them the rational capacity to pursue their desires as efficiently and maximally as possible. Their
reason does not, given the subjective nature of value, evaluate their given ends, rather it merely acts as
"Scouts, and Spies, to range abroad, and find the way to the things Desired" (139). Rationality is purely
instrumental. It can add and subtract, and compare sums one to another, and thereby endows us with the
capacity to formulate the best means to whatever ends we might happen to have.

From these premises of human nature, Hobbes goes on to construct a provocative and compelling
argument for why we ought to be willing to submit ourselves to political authority. He does this by
imagining persons in a situation prior to the establishment of society, the State of Nature.

According to Hobbes, the justification for political obligation is this: given that men are naturally self-
interested, yet they are rational, they will choose to submit to the authority of a Sovereign in order to be
able to live in a civil society, which is conducive to their own interests. Hobbes argues for this by imagining
men in their natural state, or in other words, the State of Nature. In the State of Nature, which is purely
hypothetical according to Hobbes, men are naturally and exclusively self-interested, they are more or less
equal to one another, (even the strongest man can be killed in his sleep), there are limited resources, and
yet there is no power able to force men to cooperate. Given these conditions in the State of Nature, Hobbes
concludes that the State of Nature would be unbearably brutal. In the State of Nature, every person is
always in fear of losing his life to another. They have no capacity to ensure the long-term satisfaction of
their needs or desires. No long-term or complex cooperation is possible because the State of Nature can be
aptly described as a state of utter distrust. Given Hobbes' reasonable assumption that most people want
first and foremost to avoid their own deaths, he concludes that the State of Nature is the worst possible
situation in which men can find themselves. It is the state of perpetual and unavoidable war.

The situation is not, however, hopeless. Because men are reasonable, they can see their way out of such a
state by recognizing the laws of nature, which show them the means by which to escape the State of Nature
and create a civil society. The first and most important law of nature commands that each man be willing to
pursue peace when others are willing to do the same, all the while retaining the right to continue to pursue
war when others do not pursue peace. Being reasonable, and recognizing the rationality of this basic
precept of reason, men can be expected to construct a Social Contract that will afford them a life other than
that available to them in the State of Nature. This contract is constituted by two distinguishable contracts.
First, they must agree to establish society by collectively and reciprocally renouncing the rights they had
against one another in the State of Nature. Second, they must imbue some one person or assembly of
persons with the authority and power to enforce the initial contract. In other words, to ensure their escape
from the State of Nature, they must both agree to live together under common laws, and create
an enforcement mechanism for the social contract and the laws that constitute it. Since the sovereign is
invested with the authority and power to mete out punishments for breaches of the contract which are
worse than not being able to act as one pleases, men have good, albeit self-interested, reason to adjust
themselves to the artifice of morality in general, and justice in particular. Society becomes possible because,
whereas in the State of Nature there was no power able to "overawe them all", now there is an artificially
and conventionally superior and more powerful person who can force men to cooperate. While living under
the authority of a Sovereign can be harsh (Hobbes argues that because men's passions can be expected to
overwhelm their reason, the Sovereign must have absolute authority in order for the contract to be
successful) it is at least better than living in the State of Nature. And, no matter how much we may object to
how poorly a Sovereign manages the affairs of the state and regulates our own lives, we are never justified
in resisting his power because it is the only thing which stands between us and what we most want to avoid,
the State of Nature.
According to this argument, morality, politics, society, and everything that comes along with it, all of which
Hobbes calls ‘commodious living' are purely conventional. Prior to the establishment of the basic social
contract, according to which men agree to live together and the contract to embody a Sovereign with
absolute authority, nothing is immoral or unjust - anything goes. After these contracts are established,
however, then society becomes possible, and people can be expected to keep their promises, cooperate with
one another, and so on. The Social Contract is the most fundamental source of all that is good and that
which we depend upon to live well. Our choice is either to abide by the terms of the contract, or return to
the State of Nature, which Hobbes argues no reasonable person could possibly prefer.

Given his rather severe view of human nature, Hobbes nonetheless manages to create an argument that
makes civil society, along with all its advantages, possible. Within the context of the political events of his
England, he also managed to argue for a continuation of the traditional form of authority that his society
had long since enjoyed, while nonetheless placing it on what he saw as a far more acceptable foundation.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

\State of Nature

Explain and assess Hobbes’ claim that the ‘state of nature’ would be a war in which ‘every man is
enemy to every man’.

Hobbes concept of the state of nature that he proposed in the Leviathan was defined merely as a condition
of war, without the creation of a civil society he suggested that there would be a war where ‘every man is
enemy to every man’. Hobbes assumption of human nature is based around the absence of a political
society such as government; where no laws or rules are present. This condition creates a society filled with
individuals living in constant fear and leads to perpetual war. In the first section of this essay I will explain
the foundations that characterized Hobbes idea of the state of nature around and whether there is any
escape from it. I will then go onto to evaluate whether this state of nature is only defined by savage
behaviour and war and how other philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau researched the state of nature
to come up with conclusions that contradict Hobbes original theory.

Hobbes stated that an individual’s natural condition is seen ultimately as egoist, with no concerns of
morality each are driven by a powerful desire to amass great power. This instinctual drive cannot be
restrained due to the lack of an overarching authority in society. Thus each human is continuously seeking
to destroy the other in pursuit of reputation and self-preservation. This ultimately leads to life being ‘nasty,
brutish and short’ (Hobbes, 1982). Hobbes believed that morality could not exist in such a state and that
judgments centred around good and evil cannot exist until they are dictated by a higher authority present
in society. Individual’s naturally attempt to increase their power sources as a means of future protection,
this combined with their need to acquire what they like leads to this continual competition between each
other. However we need to question whether this competition in the state of nature would eventually lead
to war?

Another assumption Hobbes puts forward is that all men are equal by nature, meaning that each of them
possess equal abilities to accumulate powers and to gain what their appetites desire. However he
recognises that there are limited resources available which encourages competition leading to each
becoming enemies and supporting his quote of every man is enemy to every man. You would think that by
regarding equality Hobbes would consider that we should respect each other and act with compassion but
Hobbes definition of equality relates to the idea that we all retain the same level of skill and strength
therefore we all hold the same capacity to kill one and another. It is a condition in which ‘every man has
right to everything; even to another’s body’ (Hobbes, 1982) This concept was supported by Doyle who
identified that men were equal as they had similar passions and potentialities, they were mostly dominated
by lusts and inner passions which were out of their control (Doyle 1927, pg. 353) He went further to state
that the condition of life was one of never ending war as ‘justice and injustice have no place’.

Hobbes main idea of self-preservation in the state of nature can be exemplified by Plato’s story of the Ring
of Gyges. Those in possession of this ring acquire the power of invisibility. With this ring, the individual
either decides to act morally or immorally (Plato, 2007) Individuals in the state of nature would use this ring
to satisfy their own personal desire. Whilst in possession of this ring they would be able to obtain
everything they want, it would be very beneficial in terms of survival. Hobbes suggestion is that if
individuals were presented with the ring they would not hesitate using it as it would provide protection and
self-preservation which is their main focus due their egoistic makeup, this supports his idea of the condition
of mankind.

There are therefore 3 key main elements which characterise the state of nature; glory competition, and
diffidence. These are known as the causes of quarrel. We are primarily concerned with our own safety and
Hill (2006 pg. 134) reinforced Hobbes idea that uncertainty about the character and behaviour of others in
society leads to mistrust due to the lack of confidence in the motive of others which turns them against
each other. This consequently leads to the establishment of a sovereign to enforce authority over society.
Hobbes definition of the state of war is not characterized by violence but as an individual’s constant
readiness to fight. This state becomes too harsh that human beings naturally seek peace due to reason, and
the best way to this goal is to create the Leviathan through what is called the ‘social contract’ which is
entails having an ultimate sovereign as a legitimate source of power. The state will function due an element
of fear being present which will ultimately protect and ensure that the contract is followed, people would
have given up their rights and overall power to the government. As Alexandra (2001) stated that to escape
from a state of nature it is necessary that the fundamental laws of nature are accepted as “public standards
of behaviour” (pg.3), and according to Hobbes this can only be achieved if all people agree to limit their
rights and to act to in accordance.

Even though Hobbes viewed this nature as a battle and struggle between men for the ultimate goal of
survival, there are arguments against this idea that the state of nature is characterized by a chaotic world of
continual fear between individuals. Locke interpretation of the state of nature was one of perfect freedom
were men inherently have a sense of morality which discourages them from engaging in acts of evil. We can
thus resolve any conflicts. He depicted the idea of men not having any incentives to “destroy himself, or any
creature in his possession”. It is reason that leads the way in preserving a peaceful life, and teaches us that
harming one another is not a moral action (Locke, 2005) From Locke’s analysis on the state, we can see that
it contradicts Hobbes views on human nature. One on hand the individual is represented as good with an
innate moral instinct while the other is a self-driven creature, we need to regard whether it is possible to
live an acceptable life in the absence of government or sovereign rule?

Thomas.J (2009) researched to conclude that men have always been under the influence of some degree of
authority, and even when there has been no control exercised by the state it has been god that has inspired
them to act in a kindly manner with generosity. Men have the natural habitual ability of living with other
members of their society without becoming a “social animal”. He developed his ideas further and stated
that even before the state emerged, fathers were seen as the dominant figure in households and ruled over
their wife and children; families were seen as ‘a unit of social organisation’.

Doyle backed up the idea presented by Thomas by stating that human beings were predestined to perform
acts of evil through god, so we needed to question whether they could really be held responsible for their
actions.(1927, Pg. 340). He however went onto support Hobbes claim that men were dominated by their
natural instinct and were free to act as they wished, which meant they only had the power to evil.
Nevertheless we also needed to consider that the action of good deeds by man is seen as automatic (1927
pg. 342)

The main concept Hobbes failed to examine and take into consideration when coming up with his theory of
the state of nature is that humans have a social inclinations which include affection, building relationships
and friendship which leads us to being rational human beings. This social nature embed into humans is one
that drives them to cooperate. Merriam (1906) examined Hobbes literature and notice how he failed to
recognize the existence of social qualities in human nature. The fundamental laws of nature commands all
men to be peaceable but to also be compliant with each other, even if they entered a state of war nature
would command them to be socially minded and love one another which would minimalize any effects of
war between man. This statement was contradicted by Haji (1991) who argued that individuals fail to realise
the benefits that cooperation with others would bring in the long term and would rather just opt for the
short term benefits of them choosing to not cooperate and act solely, this leads to a course of action where
everyone in society decides to not cooperate than achieve any effects through cooperation which ultimately
leads to a continual fight for self-preservation.

It is clear that both researchers have examined the notion that cooperation is an important aspect of
human beings day to day life, however there will always be different circumstances where individuals
choose whether to cooperate or not. We can focus on the prisoner’s dilemma to look into this further, the
prisoner’s dilemma is a game theory which gives the individual an overall outcome and a path of choice,
and we can relate this to everyday life where certain choices give us greater benefits. We may desire to
choose one that gives us greatest satisfaction or an equal option which benefits both parties. There are
different people in society, some are more aggressive and self-motivated while others are inclined towards
social relations.

Nevertheless it is important to realise that social behaviour that involves cooperation can be adopted and
learned in such a way that restrictions enforced by society are not necessary to control the behaviour of
certain individuals. Human behaviour thus can be controlled by education (Kavka,1983). Kavka also goes
onto say that Hobbes theory on the state of nature is narrow minded due to his interpretation of what
establishes a civil society and of what constitutes the state of nature. Hobbes predominant view is that only
an absolute sovereign can be an authoritative common power. Otherwise, he stated that in the absence of a
common power, people are in a state of war which is not necessarily true.

We can therefore conclude that Hobbes claim that the state of nature is one of war is not entirely true, and
at no time has this state of nature existed, it was a hypothetical scenario formed by Hobbes based around
the presumption of a state in anarchy. The state of nature was represented as a state of war upon the
assumption that society is suffering due to a shortage of resources and competition over food supplies,
however this is not the case in real life and there is ‘room for all man’. Thomas (2009) states that a state of
war will only arise when individuals are severely hindered in preserving their lives.

If we look at current political situation however there is anarchy present among the states. There is no
overall world government which regulates power over all states. If we consider states separately we can
justify what Hobbes stated about the state of nature. It is evident that there is current inter-state and intra
state war still present today, and certain crimes which are committed which go unpunished. The fear of war
is always existent and states go to extreme lengths to dominate others, as well as this there is still a certain
degree of mistrust between people even when there is a common power, thus Hobbes idea of a state of
nature being one of war is supported to some extent as there will always be some form of competition
amongst people but it does not necessarily have to be as brutish and vulgar as Hobbes described.