Thomas Hobbes once described man’s natural existence as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Certainly this is not an ideal that many aspire to when considering a natural state of existence but in the eyes of Hobbes, this is exactly how such a natural state of man could only be characterized. In his 1651 work The Leviathan, Hobbes details the foundations of developing ordered societies and legitimate and effective governing institutions, his culminating message being a warning about the bellum omnium contra omnes, or inevitable “war of all against all” if a system of order and government is not established. In order to substantiate the inevitable rise to war, Hobbes qualifies this natural anarchical dilemma by establishing a fundamental equality in the natural essence of man.
The Hobbesian explanation of the natural condition of man is very intricate and complicated. Critics argue that Hobbes presents an overly pessimistic frame of human nature and in fact the “natural state” that Hobbes often refers to does not seem to exist in reality, but merely in theory. Nevertheless, Hobbes contends that the essential element of man’s natural state is the lack of a governing body. Political establishments are artificial constructions of a functional society and would not exist in the natural state. Furthermore, in this ungoverned, natural state of existence, all men are essentially equal. This is an interesting notion since Hobbes agrees that certain individuals will undoubtedly be stronger in stature as well as those who would be stronger in mental acumen. However, Hobbes dismisses theses miniscule claims of inequality among men explaining, “the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy (xiii.1).” The strongest in any group will eventually show weakness and the weak are very much capable of scheming to overtake an individual who may be considered of greater strength. Thus, in essence, everyman has the potential ability and capacity to take the life of any other man if he is in fact motivated to do so. This common capacity renders all members of society equal in ability, which leads to his next point: equality of hope.
If indeed every man fundamentally possesses equal capacity as to his fellow man, then he is also conferred upon with equality of hope. Hobbes claims that in when all men have the equal ability and equal hope, men are bound to develop equal desires of the same things, things that can not be shared amongst everyone who desires it. Therefore from this equal hope comes a developing conflict of interests and desires. When men come into conflict with one another they become enemies to one another. And so men conflict with themselves because each loses trust in the true motives of the other, establishing diffidence among men. With men being enemies of other men and failing to develop a sufficient degree of trust among men, conflict and war erupts. Hobbes argues, “ from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any man to secure himself so reasonable as anticipation...so long till he see no power great enough to endanger him (xiii.4).” Furthermore, the movement towards conflict and war is morally justifiable because whether or not his assumptions about the designs put forth by other men are factually based, he is required to act in his own defense for the conservation of his own life and interests.
A third element in man’s movement in the natural state towards conflict is the desire to establish himself among men as superior over this contenders. In the natural state men not only seek self preservation but when they successfully assert themselves among men, they seek recognition and value in the eyes of others. Essentially, man is proud and seeks glory among his fellow men. Men will further conflict in the pursuit of glory. Therefore, the three fundamental origins of conflict among men are competition, diffidence, and glory. All three serve as different justifications used when initiating into conflict with another, whether it be for gain, safety, or reputation as Hobbes states.
The lack of any common power or security establishes that men will remain in a state of war. For as the principle causes alluded to, the essence of war was to protect and preserve oneself. As long as there is no civil state of order and security in which men would reside, there cannot be an alternative to war in the natural state. Hobbes defines this period of war as not only the fighting of battles but also, “the tract of time wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known, ” and goes on to say at “All other time is Peace (xiii.8).” The result of such embittered conflict in pursuit of self-preservation is what Hobbes terms the incommodities of war where he famously describes “the life of man, solitary, poor, brutish, and short (xiii.9).” The interesting development in Hobbes’s argument is what comes next. Although this fighting seems destructive, which is certainly is, and the act of war seems chaotic, which it definitely would be, the actions of men in the natural state are simply manifestations of his inner passions and desires, which Hobbes contests is not a sin in and of itself, and neither is acting on these passions and desires until it breaks some law that proscribes it. Furthermore, these laws cannot exist without the agreement of all those who involved with respect to who establishes the law.
This depiction of man’s natural state draws an anarchical, chaotic existence in which all men consist of being selfish, cowardly, and self-loving individuals with no sense of honesty or duty and seem to make no consideration to a framework of justice or law, which is what Hobbes is essentially getting at. First, in terms of his depiction of men’s characters, it can be said that there will undoubtedly be selfish or cowardly individuals; individuals led only by love for themselves. This does not decree everyman to this level of character. However, almost as a consequence of such selfish and cowardly people, men must act selfish and apprehensive in order to satisfy their own needs. This brings up one of Hobbes’s most interesting points about the natural state of man.
According to Hobbes, men are justified, morally and ethically, to act in the spirit of self preservation. It is not that in this apparently anarchical system of existence that men are unable to establish a consist judgement of what is right and wrong, it is that when motivated by self-preservation, men will inevitably come into conflict with one another. In the natural state man is very much insecure and his reaction to conserve and protect whatever is defined to his own is according to Hobbes, a fundamental right of nature. It is not simply that individuals have the right to their own life, but that individuals have the right to determine how exactly to go about protecting their lives. The right of nature, or jus naturale, Therefore, in the natural state of man’s existence, no action can be considered an immoral or unjust act simply due to the variability in judgement among different persons. Hobbes claims that on an individual basis justice and injustice does not exist, “they are none of the faculties nether of the body, nor mind...They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude (xiii.13). For that reason, when men in civil society using both their passions and their reason, chose to seek peace, if for no other mean but self-preservation once again. If everyman waged war against every other man who he found fit as a threat, essentially this tactic proves to undermine the principle of self-preservation itself, since the most likely outcome of unabated warfare is death.
Hobbes’s theory of the natural state of man is very different from those of other prominent philosophers such as John Locke or John Stuart Mills. The Hobbesian state of man has often been considered a pessimistic consideration of man’s innate character and interactive nature. Others contend that this natural state is merely theoretical and has never practically existed. Nevertheless, Hobbes formulates a very fascinating and valuable argument for the necessity of civil order in society and effective, legitimate government. Later in this same piece, Hobbes goes on to propose the Two Fundamental Laws of Nature by which men come into contract with one another in order to attain true self preservation through seeking peace. Through The Leviathan Hobbes essentially warns of the dangerous consequences of not establishing a legitimate governing body to maintain order and civility within a society that would otherwise consist of war motivated by self-preservation. War in the natural state is brought on through competition, diffidence, the pursuit of glory, all of which is only possible because of the equality of ability and hope that man maintains. Essentially, when all things become equal and the rule of law does not exist, bellum omnium contra omnes.
No comments:
Post a Comment