hobbes’ leviathan

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (published 1651) background, chapters 13-18

Background:

• Hobbes (1588-1679) writing Leviathan partially in response to two English Civil Wars (1642 - 46, between Royalists and Parliamentarians, and, in 1648-51 between Cromwell et al and Irish, Presbyterians and Royalists in Scotland and Wales). Some of the basis for these wars was that individual conscience (and religious belief) can override Sovereign authority

• Partially against Medieval Scholasticism and its teleological and abstract explanations, in favor of Enlightenment-era mechanism, and in favor of rigorous proof  and definition in philosophy, based upon the model of Euclidean geometry.

• Studied, and was struck by, the failure of Greco-Roman democracies.

 Superficial summary of parts of the Leviathan not assigned: • Theistic Materialism. All that exists is God and matter.

(rejects mind/body dualism). The 'soul' is the living body. Sensation and mentation can be fully explained by mechanical means. 'Immaterial substance' is nonsense.

• Man is a survival machine. .Mankind is caused by its nature to seek its own perpetuation in existence. (Spinoza calls this conatus).

• There is both free will and physical necessity. Free will is just the ability to do what one wants, but one's wants are caused in one by factors outside of one's control. (While one could change their wants, ultimately, their ability or desire to make this change rests on factors outside of one's control, e.g. genetics, upbringing, divine providence, neural chemistry, etc.) 

Summary continued:   • Philosophy should start with analyzing or

understanding matter, then laws of motion and interaction, from there to physiology and biology, and from there to ethics and political philosophy. 

• Hobbes sees nature coming in various 'levels' and the nature of one flows out from the previous:

'natural bodies' -> 'dispositions of men' -> 'civil duties of subjects'  • Hobbes' suspicion of organized religion and knowledge

of God. (epistemic, not metaphysical doubt). Yet, seemed intent on rectifying science with Christianity.

   

Summary continued: Human Nature:  • distinction between vital and animal/voluntary motions. (e.g. heartbeat vs. raising one's

arm). • Sensation caused by motion of the body (e.g. heat is the perception of relative increase of

mean molecular kinetic energy). • Internal motions which assist vital functions are perceived as PLEASURE, motions which

retard it we call PAIN. (Nothing in the world is in and of itself good or bad. If something agrees with our desire we call it ‘good’ and if it doesn’t, we call it ‘bad’. There’s no objective sense in which any person, event, or situation is good or bad.)

• Humans naturally are drawn towards pleasure, are averted to pain. • All voluntary action is directed towards what is desired, or what we believe causes pleasure,

or eliminates pain. • Whatever we voluntarily do we perceive as good. • Hobbes' Psychological Egoism. Summary of Leviathan can be found in p. xx-xliii of Introduction and Chapter 30, sections 1 and 5 of the Leviathan proper.

Chapter 13 - Of the Natural Condition of Mankind as Concerning Their Felicity, and Misery 1. People, in regards to their ability to harm one another,

are equal. (strength/intelligence do not vary crucially). 2. Equality of basic needs, and desire for 'copious living'. 3. Scarcity 4. From equality of ability arises equality of hope in the

attaining of ends. o War arises from:

• Competition over scarce resources (fighting for gain) • Distrust (diffidence) (fighting for safety) • Glory (fighting for reputation) (related to

pride...everyone values himself over others, and everyone desires everyone to value him- or herself as much as s/he values him- or herself )

ch. 13 cont. What about social feelings? “Men have no pleasure, but on the contrary, a great deal of grief, in keeping company where there is no power to overawe them all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him, at the same rate he sets upon himself: and upon all signs of contempt, or undervaluing, naturally endeavors, as far as he dares … to extort a greater value from his contemners by damage; and from others by example. Human Nature + State of Nature = State of War   State of War •     every man against every man •     there does not have to be any actual fights •     everyone knows full well that every other person is willing to fight them

Life during a state of war: •     No industry •     No agriculture •     No transportation •     Only barebones architecture •     No humanities or scientific study •     Continual fear •     Danger of violent death •     “the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short   A complete and full state of nature has never happened, but “the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small families, the concord whereof dependeth on natural lust, have no government at all, and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before.”  

Suppose two of the people in the state of nature try to reach an agreement: A: Can we agree that you won’t steal my stuff tonight? I need a full night’s sleep. (I’m going hunting tomorrow.) B: Sure. In fact, I can stay awake and guard your stuff if you agree to give me some of the meat you will bring. A: Deal. Assume that Hobbes was exactly right about human nature and consider these questions: •     Can A really sleep well that night? •     Can B really expect to get any meat from A? •     What can they possibly do to be confident about the deal? The solution: form a government How? “The original of all great and lasting societies consisted not in the mutual goodwill men had towards each other, but in the mutual fear they had of each other."

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWDfNOOBWCY Is the baby gazelle wronged by the cheetah? Is the baby gazelle’s mother wronged by the cheetah? If the gazelle got away successfully, would the cheetah be wronged? • No. Nothing wrong (or right) happens in this film, because every animal is doing what

they have liberty to do in order to survive. There are no rules in the background so that the lion should not or ought not catch the gazelle.

  Chapter 14 - Natural Laws and Contracts Right of Nature: The liberty each person has to use his own power as he himself decides, for the preservation of his own nature.   By “liberty” Hobbes means the absence of external impediments.  If you are tied to a chair, you lack the liberty to get up. If a burglar tells you that he’ll shoot you if you get up, you still have the liberty to get up. What’s stopping you is not ropes but fear, which is an internal impediment, not an external one.  

The state of nature is not devoid of logical principles: A law of nature is a command or general rule, found out by reason, by which a person is forbidden to do what is destructive to him/her and forbidden to omit those he/she finds useful for preserving his/her life. The laws of nature are: 1. General Rule of Reason Every man ought to endeavor peace as far as he has hope of attaining it, and when he cannot obtain it, then he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.   • 1a. Seek peace and follow it. (He calls this ‘first law of nature’)  • 1b. By all means you can, defend yourself.   2. When a man thinks that peace and self defense require it, he should be willing, when others are too, to lay down his right to everything and should be contented with as much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. (He calls this ‘second law of nature’. He says it is derived from 1a)

3. Men should perform covenants they make. He calls this the ‘third law of nature’, and says that it is derived from 2.   If laws of nature were universally followed, they would lead to peace. But it is irrational for any individual to follow them without knowing that all others will do the same.   If valid covenants could be made, then the distinction between just/unjust would come about. An injustice is like a contradiction—when you take back what you gave, by covenant, agreed to do   But if there are no valid covenants, then there is no difference between just and unjust; these ideas don’t apply to anything in the state of nature. “The origin of justice is the making of covenants.”

Chapter 15 - Other Laws of Nature

[Note: all these laws are instrumental to living in peace] 3rd Law of Nature - That men perform their covenants made (in the right circumstances). • [If we do not obey this, then we are still in a state of nature, and hence

covenants are in vain, and hence we have no peace, thus violating the 1st two laws]

  Definition of INJUSTICE - The violation of a contract made in the correct conditions of enforcement. "And whatsoever is not unjust, is just." It follows - no contracts, no injustice, whatever the behavior.     No injustice without covenants, and no covenants without a power to enforce them. Without "terror of some punishment, greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenant..." people would never keep their contracts.

9th Law, against pride. And, against Aristotle - "that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature." Natural inferiority of a large class of human beings is empirically false. 10th, against arrogance: "that at the entrance into conditions of peace, no man require to reserve himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest." - Agreement to impartial judges. -Relation to 'Golden Rule': Do not do that to another, which thou wouldest not have done to thyself. fin. chap. 15

Another way of arriving at the contract: the prisoner’s dilemma

A classic problem in decision theory [the term should be relatively self-explanatory] is the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Suppose that you live in a police-state and you and Smith are arrested and charged with X. (and further suppose that you and Smith are innocent of X). The police don’t care whether you and Smith are innocent of X, they just want a conviction or two. They offer you and Smith the following options: • If Smith doesn’t confess, and you do (and testify against him), then you

will go free, whereas Smith will get 10 years. • If Smith confesses (and testifies against you), and you do not, he will go

free and you’ll get 10 years. • If you both confess (and testify against each other), you will each get 5

years. • If Neither of you confess, you will both be held a year and then released.

Smith confesses

smith doesn’t confess

you confess - you each get 5 years

- you go free - smith gets

10 years

you don’t confess

- you get 10 years

- smith goes free

- you both get held one

year

Suppose that all you want to do is serve the minimal time. What do you do? You cannot communicate with Smith. The answer is surprising, as revealed by the following reasoning: 1. Either Smith will confess or he won’t. 2. If Smith confesses, then if you confess you will get 5 years, whereas if

you do not you’ll get 10. (therefore, if he confesses, you are better off confessing as well)

3. If Smith does not confess, then if you confess you will go free, whereas if you do not confess you will get 1 year. (so, even if Smith does not confess, you will still be better off if you do).

4. So, regardless of what Smith does, you ought to confess, since this will get you out.

But, here’s the catch. Smith is being offered the same deal as you, and he should reason likewise. Then, you can be sure that you’ll each serve 5 years, whereas if you both don’t follow your immediate self-interest, and don’t confess, you’ll actually be better off in realizing your self- interest. But, since you can’t communicate, and there is no way for you to enforce Smith to honor his agreement, the only way out of the problem is if you and Smith could somehow be enforced to honor your agreements. Otherwise, there’s no way out (for instance, how do you know that as soon as, or if, Smith learns that you’re not cooperating that he won’t cooperate and testify against you?) The only way out is to pledge obedience to The State (or, The Sovereign). That is, if we want to have peace and security, we must contract with each other to lay down some of our freedoms (such as, to take other people’s goods, or murder others), and in doing so, obtain rights (e.g., to property, the right to life).

Chapter 16 - Of Persons, Authors, and Things Personated Natural vs. Artificial Persons Natural persons are just people. Artificial persons are either real people with representative powers (e.g. a lawyer, senator), or non-persons which are person-like, e.g. corporations, but which represent a person or persons. We could call these 'fictional entities'. (although they are, in an important sense, real, since they, quite often, have real legal powers and obligations). Artificial Persons - Corporation, King, Executor of an Estate, Diplomat, character in an allegory, etc.

ch. 16 continued Unowned artificial person - Conan O'Brien's Clinton imitation Owned artificial person - Gov. Schwarzenneger Author of an owned artificial person - Those who invest the artificial person with the power to legitimately represent them, e.g. the people of Missouri are the author of the artificial person (one of the two senators of MO) who is now identical with McCaskill.  We, the authors of the artificial person, SENATOR OF MISSOURI, are personated by, and represented by, Claire McCaskill, who we are owner of. [Don't confuse the artificial person with the natural person. A Senator from MO is a representative role, C.M., the temporary role-filler. Think of a CEO, which, in one sense changes, in one sense, doesn't]