(no subject)
What is the State of War, according to Hobbes, and what is weakest and strongest in his account?
Emer Tannam
"The condition of man is a condition of Warre of every one against every one; in which everyone is governed by his own Reason; and there is nothing he can make use of, that may not be a help unto him, in preserving his life against his enemyes"(Lev., ch14, p64)
This bleak diagnosis of the state of man was put forward by Thomas Hobbes. He believed that the state of nature is synonymous with a state of war, where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". (http://radicalacademy.com/hcwpfilehome5c.htm) For Hobbes, mankind’s appearance of civility, is just that: an appearance, a weak facade that may crumble at any time, and see man regressing to the state of nature, that is the state of war. He justifies this assertion by looking to man's motivations, and by engaging in a thought experiment in which he dismantles the society that cloaks man’s true nature in, and leaves him to his own devices, in the state of war.
Hobbes sees humans as desiring machines, with the capacity for reason. (Mooney's lectures) Humans are compelled into motion by desire and aversion.
"Motion, within the body of man, before they appear in walking, speaking...are commonly called endeavour. This endeavour, when it is toward something...is called appetite or desire...and when the endeavour is fromward something, it is generally called aversion."(Lev.p119part one chap 6)
The most basic desire is to survive. This desire is characteristic of all men. Survival, and the right to preserve ourselves, is our only natural right (tuck p70). Our desires, and the insatiability of our desires (which is distinctive of mankind) will bring us into conflict with other desiring bodies. Conflict occurs when two desiring machines want the same thing. In times of scarcity tension is significantly heightened, which leads to strife and then war. Hobbes rejects any notion of morality, and instead sees the human, without the moral principles, which society has formed, and which are not innate to man. He does not address what man should do, but what man would do. Hobbes points to what he sees as the three fundamental states of men, and the resulting potential for harm in these states. This justifies his belief in the inevitability of strife between men, and why the state of nature is the state of war.
The state of nature is a state of scarcity. (Sorrel p220) People must compete with each other for the commodities necessary for survival; food, drink, shelter etc. This state of competition brings us into conflict and a war-like state with one another, as other people's needs may deprive us of our own. (Sorrell p220). Hobbes calls the second state of threat from others diffidence. This is described by Sorrel as the logical progression of fear, beyond competition (Sorrel p220). For even if someone manages to compete successfully against someone else for an asset, there is no guarantee that they can hold onto it permanently, as there remains a threat of theft from another desiring body. This leads to the distrust of all others, and the situation in which a person will attack another because of the logic of the action, before the other can attack them. So even if an individual has no real desire or need to attack another, they are strongly inclined to, out of distrust of the other person.
The third, and most difficult state to overcome is labelled vainglory. It arises from what Hobbes see as the indeterminacy of human desire, which leads to an insecurity as to whether what we have and are engaged in is worthwhile. The value of our possessions and exploits can be substantiated by the envy and respect of others. Vainglory is only satisfied when we are supreme, which is obviously impossible for all of us. It creates a competition that will not cease with possession or security of possession. (Sorrell p221)
For reason of the above three factors the condition of man is a condition of war .In a state of war each individual chooses the most effective means to satisfy material needs, or strives for the goals he liked, without any cooperation nor altruistic consideration, they struggle with each other. (http://www.lian.com/SAKO/english/hobbes.htm). In the state of nature there would be no government, no laws, no rules determining human behaviour, leaving us free to follow our desires as we see fit. There would be no institutions in which to hide our true natures. Everyone could, and would, be at their worst. In a state governed by natural laws there would be war, of all against all (Mooney’s lectures)
In Hobbes' state of war there is no morality and there is no immorality. There is just amorality. In this state of nature, nothing can be unjust. Justice and injustice are not properties of individual bodies and souls; no man can be just or unjust when he is alone. Justice is the violation of standard behaviour, imposed by some external authority. In the state of nature, there is by definition no such authority. (http://lupus.northern.edu:90/blanchak/modern3c.html)Everyone strives to sustain and enhance their lives at any cost .Any act is justifiable in the knowledge that it could as easily be inflicted on the person in question. Everyone lives in a state of chronic insecurity, and so focuses on short-term interests. As soon as someone possesses something, they will consume it before another can steal it from them. Life would be completely occupied with trying to survive, so there would be no interrupted free time. Hence there would no culture.
"A time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition 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 building; 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."(Lev.)
The strength of Hobbes concept of the state of war is in its view of humanity without sentimentality, relying purely on reason. He ignores the sense of human superiority (to animals) and our sense of morality and clear-sightedly pursues the truth using only Reason. While we may shy away from accepting the truth in his philosophy, we cannot help but admit that it makes sense .In his assertion that mankind is three meals away from anarchy (Mooney’s lectures) we find him vindicated throughout history .It was the hunger of the Russian people that made them willing to defy authority and seek a regime change in 1917.It was Lenin's slogan of "land, peace and bread" that appealed to them. Ideology and morality can only take us so far, when we are suffering from very real deprivations. Furthermore, Hobbes defends his view by pointing out that in our actions we manifest a belief in his state of nature.
"When taking a journey, he arms himself and seeks to go well accompanied; when going to sleep, he locks his doors; when even in his house he locks his chests; and this when he knows there be laws and public officers, armed, to revenge all injuries shall be done him; what opinion he has of his fellow subjects, when he rides armed; of his fellow citizens, when he locks his doors; and of his children, and servants, when he locks his chests. Does he not there as much accuse mankind by his actions as I do by my words?" (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/hobbes.html)
The weakness of Hobbes' state of war is not as much in his description of the state of war itself but in the solution he proposes to get out us out of the state of nature. He believes that rationality will urge us to find a solution, and this solution will be the agreement to relinquish our natural right to defend ourselves to a sovereign power, who, in return will keep us secure. Our right to kill each other will thus be transferred to a higher power. The sum of our strength, once organised through the sovereign, will be more powerful than the any individual because it will be systematic. (Mooney’s lectures) Hence peace and security will be achieved through this covenant with each other and the sovereign. However it seems highly unlikely that people living in the brutish state of nature will one day come to a rational realisation, cease their killing and plundering and become civilised again. Furthermore, if they had the reason enough to make this covenant, then surely they would have had the rationality not to degenerate into that state in the first place. In his belief that mankind will emerge from the state of war through a covenant, Hobbes presupposes that the people in the state of nature will have knowledge of such things as covenants, which are elements of civilised society, drawn up through formal institutions (lectures). By putting the fate and well being in the hands of an all-powerful sovereign he makes that sovereign exempt from the weaknesses in mankind that he laid out so convincingly. Why would it be in the Sovereignty's ability to act rationality and for the benefit of mankind, but beyond the faculties of everyone else? Is his sovereign a philosopher-king, as Plato advocated in the Republic?
Hobbes’ state of war, arising from the traits of competition, diffidence and vainglory proposes a view of humanity with all the niceties stripped away, leaving only the raw will to live.
Bibliography
http://www.lian.com/SAKO/english/hobbes.htm
http://lupus.northern.edu:90/blanchak/modern3c.html
Tuck,Richard,Hobbes:A Very Short Introduction ,(Oxford 1989)
Hobbes,Thomas,Leviathan, (Pelican1968) Et’dC. B MacPherson
Ed.Sorrell, Tom, The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes ,(Cambridge: C.U.P, 1996)
Timothy Mooney's Lectures, Jan-Feb 2005
Emer Tannam
"The condition of man is a condition of Warre of every one against every one; in which everyone is governed by his own Reason; and there is nothing he can make use of, that may not be a help unto him, in preserving his life against his enemyes"(Lev., ch14, p64)
This bleak diagnosis of the state of man was put forward by Thomas Hobbes. He believed that the state of nature is synonymous with a state of war, where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". (http://radicalacademy.com/hcwpfilehome5c.htm) For Hobbes, mankind’s appearance of civility, is just that: an appearance, a weak facade that may crumble at any time, and see man regressing to the state of nature, that is the state of war. He justifies this assertion by looking to man's motivations, and by engaging in a thought experiment in which he dismantles the society that cloaks man’s true nature in, and leaves him to his own devices, in the state of war.
Hobbes sees humans as desiring machines, with the capacity for reason. (Mooney's lectures) Humans are compelled into motion by desire and aversion.
"Motion, within the body of man, before they appear in walking, speaking...are commonly called endeavour. This endeavour, when it is toward something...is called appetite or desire...and when the endeavour is fromward something, it is generally called aversion."(Lev.p119part one chap 6)
The most basic desire is to survive. This desire is characteristic of all men. Survival, and the right to preserve ourselves, is our only natural right (tuck p70). Our desires, and the insatiability of our desires (which is distinctive of mankind) will bring us into conflict with other desiring bodies. Conflict occurs when two desiring machines want the same thing. In times of scarcity tension is significantly heightened, which leads to strife and then war. Hobbes rejects any notion of morality, and instead sees the human, without the moral principles, which society has formed, and which are not innate to man. He does not address what man should do, but what man would do. Hobbes points to what he sees as the three fundamental states of men, and the resulting potential for harm in these states. This justifies his belief in the inevitability of strife between men, and why the state of nature is the state of war.
The state of nature is a state of scarcity. (Sorrel p220) People must compete with each other for the commodities necessary for survival; food, drink, shelter etc. This state of competition brings us into conflict and a war-like state with one another, as other people's needs may deprive us of our own. (Sorrell p220). Hobbes calls the second state of threat from others diffidence. This is described by Sorrel as the logical progression of fear, beyond competition (Sorrel p220). For even if someone manages to compete successfully against someone else for an asset, there is no guarantee that they can hold onto it permanently, as there remains a threat of theft from another desiring body. This leads to the distrust of all others, and the situation in which a person will attack another because of the logic of the action, before the other can attack them. So even if an individual has no real desire or need to attack another, they are strongly inclined to, out of distrust of the other person.
The third, and most difficult state to overcome is labelled vainglory. It arises from what Hobbes see as the indeterminacy of human desire, which leads to an insecurity as to whether what we have and are engaged in is worthwhile. The value of our possessions and exploits can be substantiated by the envy and respect of others. Vainglory is only satisfied when we are supreme, which is obviously impossible for all of us. It creates a competition that will not cease with possession or security of possession. (Sorrell p221)
For reason of the above three factors the condition of man is a condition of war .In a state of war each individual chooses the most effective means to satisfy material needs, or strives for the goals he liked, without any cooperation nor altruistic consideration, they struggle with each other. (http://www.lian.com/SAKO/english/hobbes.htm). In the state of nature there would be no government, no laws, no rules determining human behaviour, leaving us free to follow our desires as we see fit. There would be no institutions in which to hide our true natures. Everyone could, and would, be at their worst. In a state governed by natural laws there would be war, of all against all (Mooney’s lectures)
In Hobbes' state of war there is no morality and there is no immorality. There is just amorality. In this state of nature, nothing can be unjust. Justice and injustice are not properties of individual bodies and souls; no man can be just or unjust when he is alone. Justice is the violation of standard behaviour, imposed by some external authority. In the state of nature, there is by definition no such authority. (http://lupus.northern.edu:90/blanchak/modern3c.html)Everyone strives to sustain and enhance their lives at any cost .Any act is justifiable in the knowledge that it could as easily be inflicted on the person in question. Everyone lives in a state of chronic insecurity, and so focuses on short-term interests. As soon as someone possesses something, they will consume it before another can steal it from them. Life would be completely occupied with trying to survive, so there would be no interrupted free time. Hence there would no culture.
"A time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition 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 building; 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."(Lev.)
The strength of Hobbes concept of the state of war is in its view of humanity without sentimentality, relying purely on reason. He ignores the sense of human superiority (to animals) and our sense of morality and clear-sightedly pursues the truth using only Reason. While we may shy away from accepting the truth in his philosophy, we cannot help but admit that it makes sense .In his assertion that mankind is three meals away from anarchy (Mooney’s lectures) we find him vindicated throughout history .It was the hunger of the Russian people that made them willing to defy authority and seek a regime change in 1917.It was Lenin's slogan of "land, peace and bread" that appealed to them. Ideology and morality can only take us so far, when we are suffering from very real deprivations. Furthermore, Hobbes defends his view by pointing out that in our actions we manifest a belief in his state of nature.
"When taking a journey, he arms himself and seeks to go well accompanied; when going to sleep, he locks his doors; when even in his house he locks his chests; and this when he knows there be laws and public officers, armed, to revenge all injuries shall be done him; what opinion he has of his fellow subjects, when he rides armed; of his fellow citizens, when he locks his doors; and of his children, and servants, when he locks his chests. Does he not there as much accuse mankind by his actions as I do by my words?" (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/hobbes.html)
The weakness of Hobbes' state of war is not as much in his description of the state of war itself but in the solution he proposes to get out us out of the state of nature. He believes that rationality will urge us to find a solution, and this solution will be the agreement to relinquish our natural right to defend ourselves to a sovereign power, who, in return will keep us secure. Our right to kill each other will thus be transferred to a higher power. The sum of our strength, once organised through the sovereign, will be more powerful than the any individual because it will be systematic. (Mooney’s lectures) Hence peace and security will be achieved through this covenant with each other and the sovereign. However it seems highly unlikely that people living in the brutish state of nature will one day come to a rational realisation, cease their killing and plundering and become civilised again. Furthermore, if they had the reason enough to make this covenant, then surely they would have had the rationality not to degenerate into that state in the first place. In his belief that mankind will emerge from the state of war through a covenant, Hobbes presupposes that the people in the state of nature will have knowledge of such things as covenants, which are elements of civilised society, drawn up through formal institutions (lectures). By putting the fate and well being in the hands of an all-powerful sovereign he makes that sovereign exempt from the weaknesses in mankind that he laid out so convincingly. Why would it be in the Sovereignty's ability to act rationality and for the benefit of mankind, but beyond the faculties of everyone else? Is his sovereign a philosopher-king, as Plato advocated in the Republic?
Hobbes’ state of war, arising from the traits of competition, diffidence and vainglory proposes a view of humanity with all the niceties stripped away, leaving only the raw will to live.
Bibliography
http://www.lian.com/SAKO/english/hobbes.htm
http://lupus.northern.edu:90/blanchak/modern3c.html
Tuck,Richard,Hobbes:A Very Short Introduction ,(Oxford 1989)
Hobbes,Thomas,Leviathan, (Pelican1968) Et’dC. B MacPherson
Ed.Sorrell, Tom, The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes ,(Cambridge: C.U.P, 1996)
Timothy Mooney's Lectures, Jan-Feb 2005