Hobbes Leviathan PDF

Leviathan Hobbes State of Nature Try to find out how “humans” are in the state of nature In the absence of any authority and laws (Hobbes) In the absence of any civilization or social development (Rousseau) If naturally peaceful and happy → civilization, laws, etc. corrupt us...

Leviathan Hobbes State of Nature Try to find out how “humans” are in the state of nature In the absence of any authority and laws (Hobbes) In the absence of any civilization or social development (Rousseau) If naturally peaceful and happy → civilization, laws, etc. corrupt us If naturally greedy, fearful and aggressive → need to be educated and kept in check Take for granted: State, laws, ruling body, etc. Hobbes (1588-1679) Lived in times of great upheaval Civil Wars in England (1642-46 and 1648-51) Royalists vs Parliamentarians Division of power between King and parliament + religious divisions Wrote the Leviathan in 1651 Leviathan = Sea monster that represents the Commonwealth (the State) Most famous for his description of the State of nature as that of a war of “every man against every man” and life as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (ch.13, 619) Niccolò Machiavelli (1469- 1527) Rejected ancient and medieval view that those in power had to always rule in accordance with virtue; Il Principe starts circulating around 1513, published in 1532 “For of men it may be generally affirmed that they are thankless, fickle, false, studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits on them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant, to shed their blood, and sacrifice their property, their lives, and their children for you; but in the hour of need they turn against you.” (The Prince) “Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.” (The Prince) The State of Nature Let’s look at humans “as if they had just emerged from the earth like mushrooms” (de Cive) Thought-experiment Imagine that there is no artificial authorities, no commonly recognized power Some evidence “the savage people in…America” (620), kings among themselves , civil wars (620) and you when you lock your door (619)… We have chaos. Why? Equality, Egoism, Bias Why Chaos? We are all equals Really? What’s the proof or evidence? (618-19) “...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.” (618) “The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can’t do.” - Jack Sparrow This means: no natural sovereign We are all egoists Self-preservation (we all try to shun death) Really? Counter-evidence? E.g. care for others or self-sacrifice No such thing or it’s only nurture And we are biased when we think about what we need War of all against all Not continuous actual fighting but general atmosphere Why do we fight? (619) Competition (secure the necessities of life) Diffidence (opposite of confidence, out of fear or to achieve security) Glory (reputation for its protective effect) No security or protection from a “sovereign” = You can never be in peace You can never secure your subsistence Cooperation is almost impossible Right and Law of Nature Are we “evil”, “wicked”, “unjust” by nature? If being immoral or unjust means “breaking the rules” No, there are no rules (no conventional morality) (619-620) Follow our one natural inclination (self-preservation) Natural Rules Deduced from the kind of beings we are, our nature, our one natural passion: self-preservation Right of Nature (ch. 14, 620) CAN (Liberty)… to secure my self-preservation Law of Nature (620) MUST (Duty)… not to do anything against my self-preservation Problem: As each of us sees fit Right of Nature “In his own judgment and reason” (620) Not a right to what I need but to what I think I need Potentially a right to everything No objective standard, no recognized third party to establish ONE idea of what is fair, necessary, unjust, etc. We have a duty to exit the state of nature. Why? Remember the First Law of Nature: I can’t hinder my self- preservation. Duty to “seek peace and follow it” Best way to shun death and secure meaningful life is to lay down my right to everything Exit Give up our rights to everything = increase our security and freedom of movement Lay down my right to everything to the extent that others do too Except the right of self-defense. Why? Irrational, defeats the purpose of the agreement We agree that there be an ENFORCER, a sovereign (ch. 17, 635) The sovereign makes the rules, imposes one idea of “good”, directs all our wills toward it Remember: we can’t agree on what’s good, what can’t agree on any rules, and we don’t trust others to respect them I keep my promise (to surrender my individual right of nature) only because of FEAR What is the “ultimate good” provided by the sovereign? Peace and security As long as the rules promote security, we ought to obey them Questions Who is the sovereign? Can be collective or individual entity (634) “Powers divided mutually destroy each other” (ch. 29) What about a bad sovereign? Bad in what sense? Is there room to criticize the laws made by the sovereign on Hobbes’ picture? On what grounds? What about a law that threatens to kill me? (624) Prisoner’s Dilemma Prisoner B Prisoner B stays silent Prisoner B betrays Prisoner A (cooperates) (defects) Prisoner A stays silent Each serves 1 year Prisoner A: 3 years (cooperates) Prisoner B: goes free Prisoner A betrays Prisoner A: goes free Each serves 2 years (defects) Prisoner B: 3 years Desert Island Principles Suppose you crash land on a desert island with your group members. There is no reason to think you will be rescued anytime soon. What rules would you all agree to live by if you had to come up with rules to govern your time on the island? Questions Is Hobbes wrong about the state of nature? Do punishments actually work to deter people from committing crimes? Is the basis of our political position just self-interest, and not any higher supernatural law or power? How might Thomas Aquinas and Plato criticize Hobbes? How could Hobbes respond? How do we select a Sovereign? How does the Sovereign take power? Why would the Sovereign want to rule?