Philosophy 219

1. Philosophy 219 Hobbes, The State of Nature, and The Social Contract

2. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) • Hobbes lived during one of the most tumultuous times in the history of England: the English civil war. • The period included the deposition and execution of a King (Charles I), the formation or a republic, the transformation of the republic into a protectorate, and the restoration of the monarchy (Charles II). • The question that occurred to Hobbes is: On what authority is a government established? • The starting point of his investigation is a thought experiment: What would life be like if there were no political authority?

3. Leviathan • Though he published on a number of topics, Hobbes is best known for his book Leviathan (1651). • In it, Hobbes provides an answer to his question about authority. • The title of the book suggests the character of his answer: Hobbes’ theory of authority is an absolutist one.

4. Philosophical Materialism • Like many other philosophers from this era (the era of modern philosophy), Hobbes was a philosophical materialist. • In general, this metaphysical position is committed to the following assumptions: • Monism: everything is material. For Hobbes, even God is a material being (cf., pp. 317-319). • Corpuscularism: material reality ultimately resolves into fundamental material particles, from which the things of the world are constructed. The behavior and appearance of these wholes is wholly a function of the interaction of their parts. • Mechanism: All phenomena (not just the wholes, but all relations between them) explained by the mechanical interaction of the ‘corpuscles.’

5. The Human Machine • Consistent with his commitment to materialism, Hobbes took the position that human beings, including their minds, were completely material. • Hobbes’s account of the human mind and knowledge was an essentially empiricist one: ideas in the mind are caused by sense experience, which is ultimately resolvable into fundamental material particles. • We are, in our bodies and minds, complex wholes completely resolvable into the causal parts of which we are composed.

6. Our Natural State • Hobbes’s operative assumption is that human beings are fundamentally equal in physical and mental abilities. • Differences do exist, but in practical terms they don’t amount to much (e.g., the weak can gang up to overpower the strong). • This is particularly true with regard to mental abilities. Key claim: everyone is content with their ‘share’ (319c2). • One way in which we can see this equality is in the common psychological principles or desire and aversion. Hobbes believes that humans are naturally attracted to certain things and repelled by others. • In search for satisfaction of these desires, or insulation from that which we despise, our fundamental equality gives us “equality of hope in the attaining of our ends” (Ibid.).

7. Naturally Egoistic • As we all have equal hope, when we have a desire in common with another, we are naturally in competition with that other, “they become enemies; and in the way to their end, endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another” (319c2). • Hobbes is making a few additional assumptions here: • Human beings are selfish by nature (Psychological Egoism): “…of the voluntary acts of every [person], the object is some good to [her]self” (323c1). • Human beings aggressively seek to satisfy our desires (319c2). • The objects of those are desires are limited. • If he’s right about these assumptions, we can understand why people view others as a threat or an obstacle in achieving their goals.

8. A State of War • Given this natural enmity, we can understand why, absent some “common power” our natural state is one of war: “every (hu)man against every (hu)man” (320c2). • In such a situation, no industry, culture or development is possible and thus, “the life of (a hu)man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Ibid.). • The famous description of what is called the state of nature is the result of the thought experiment which Hobbes invites us to consider.

9. Surprising Implications • In the state of nature, there is no right and wrong, “Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice” (101). • Hobbes thus rejects the idea of a transcendent morality, insisting that all moral norms are social in origin. • There is also no property. There is only possession.

10. No Rules, but Passions • While there are no rules, human actions are governed by causes, namely emotions (passions). • These passions do provide an incentive to avoid conflict, thus showing us a way out of the state of war. • These passions are (321c2): • Fear of death • Desire for comforts • Recognition that comforts can be obtained.

11. Natural Rights? • The regularities observable in human capabilities and behaviors allow us to articulate basic principles which can serve as the basis for both social forms and determinate moral principles. • These basic principles are suggested by reason. • The starting point is what Hobbes calls The Right of Nature: the right to protect your own life in the best way suggested by reason (321c2).

12. Natural Laws • On the basis of this natural right, Hobbes then moves to specify two corresponding natural laws. • These laws specify the rationally optimal means of preserving your life. • The First Law of Nature (322c1) is to seek peace whenever possible, and when it is impossible defend yourself by any means necessary. • The Second Law of Nature (Ibid.) is to be willing to give up your unfettered claim to natural goods to the extent necessary for common agreement.

13. The Social Contract • The force of these rights suggests that the best way to achieve a stable social order, one maximally protective of each individual’s life while preserving as much of their liberty as possible, is to conceive of the social order as a form of contract (323c1). • The contract is constituted as if each individual willingly renounces their claim on everything in exchange for protection in their person and in their goods.

14. Theorems of Morality • The contract is accomplished in the general acknowledgement of a number of subordinate moral principles (articulated in Chapter 15). • These principles are presented as constituting a theory of justice in a contract. • This theory includes general principles like: • keep your promises • reciprocate gifts and kindnesses • be accommodating • pardon people • seek rehabilitation, not revenge • be friendly

15. Not worth the paper… • Obviously, a contract is only effective if the parties to it abide by its terms. • Given his theory of human nature, Hobbes had reason to doubt that individuals would stick to the agreed upon terms. • Optimal situation would seem to be: join the contract, and then break it when convenient. • So without some force or authority to ensure that people obey the laws of nature, they will not do so.

16. A Commonwealth • In other words, the social contract establishes a kind of collective, a ”multitude,” but it is not initially a society. • Unlike bees or other naturally social creatures, the collective life of humans is according to Hobbes a very fragile thing, always likely to break apart unless the multitude formed by the contract is bound together by a common power. • In other words, the contract requires that the parties to the contract, “…confer all their power and strength upon one man, or one assembly of men, that may reduce all of their wills…unto one will” (332c1). • Thus bound, the collective becomes a commonwealth: a contractual collective in which the common power is vested in an authority (a sovereign, a “leviathan”).

17. An Absolutist Theory of Sovereignty • According to Hobbes, the agreement that citizens make among themselves to transfer their natural rights to a sovereign is irrevocable. They cannot rescind the agreement and take back authority from the ruler, even if all citizens want to do so. • The absolute character of this agreement also binds the sovereign. Strictly speaking, the instituting contract is not an agreement between those individuals and the sovereign. Individuals transfer authority to the sovereign indirectly by making an agreement among themselves, rather than directly, by making an agreement directly with the sovereign. • One consequence of this is that the sovereign cannot act so as to breach the covenant. She wasn't a party to the covenant to begin with! • It has to be understood in this way. If the covenant were between the people and the sovereign, then in the case of a disagreement as to whether or not the sovereign has breached the covenant, there would be no one to arbitrate the disagreement.

18. It’s good to be the Sovereign • It doesn't matter if you were willingly a party to the social covenant. Even if you didn't want to lay down your rights, the sovereign still has authority over you. • Because the people are all party to the covenant that grants the sovereign authority, they have all agreed that she can do whatever she chooses. So even if she acts to harm them, they themselves have granted her this absolute authority, and no treatment that they subsequently suffer at her hands counts as unjust. • Ultimately, the actions of the sovereign are the responsibility of the people; and so to punish her for actions she's committed would be punish someone other than the responsible party (viz. themselves). • In addition, sovereigns have the exclusive right to: • Restrict speech • Make All Laws Regarding Freedom of Action and Ownership • Judicial Power • Make War • Choose Public Officials • Reward or Punish Citizens • Convey Titles of Honor

19. Forms of Commonwealth • According to Hobbes, there are only three possible forms of commonwealth (government). • Monarchy: sovereignty is in one person. • Aristocracy: sovereignty is in more than one person, but not all. • Democracy (a.k.a. popular commonwealth): sovereignty is in all people. • The terms "tyranny," "oligarchy" and "anarchy" do not refer to other forms, but are used by people who dislike monarchy, aristocracy and democracy to refer to those same three forms (336c2). • These three forms are all expressions of the same power. They differ only in their capacity to bind together the commonwealth.

20. Monarchy is Best • Hobbes argues that, of the three possible forms of government, monarchy is best. • When there is a conflict between the public interest and the interest of a sovereign, the sovereign will invariably choose to promote his (their) own interest instead of the public interest. [This is implied by Hobbes' psychological egoism.] • Therefore, the public interest will be best served in the system of government in which it and the interest of the sovereign are most closely united, “where the public and private interest are most closely united, there is the public most advanced” (337c2). • In a monarchy (but not in an aristocracy or democracy), the interests of the sovereign depend exclusively on the interests of his subjects. Therefore, the interests of the public and of the sovereign are most closely united (in fact, they are the same) in a monarchy.