[1.2.] The Absence of Law.

 

[1.2.1.] Hobbes and the State of Nature.

 

Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679)[1]

·         In The Elements of Laws, Natural and Politic, Hobbes argued that having a ruler (or rulers) with absolute power is the best way to ensure a peaceful and stable society. This pamphlet was circulated in manuscript form in 1640, during a time of anti-royalist sentiment (Charles I was beheaded in 1649).

·         Hobbes felt he had to flee England to ensure his safety. He went to France in 1640 and didn’t return to England until late 1651, after the end of the English Civil War.

·         Hobbes’ best known work is the book Leviathan (1651). The excerpt in your textbook is from ch.13 of this book. Here he reiterated his defense of the absolute sovereign. This was palatable to Oliver Cromwell, since Hobbes said nothing that implied that a sovereign could not come to power through rebellion.

·         The title “Leviathan” is a reference to an all-powerful sea-monster described in Job 41.

 

Hobbes asked us to imagine what life would be like in “the state of nature,” a world with no governing political authority and no laws. This is a condition of complete anarchy.

 

His conclusion was that life would be really, really bad.

 

And he used this conclusion to argue that the best way of escaping from this terrible state would be for all individuals to enter into a contract to turn over their natural rights to a person (or group of people) who would wield absolute power.

 

In arguing that life in the state of nature is terrible, he made the following points:

 

1.      People are all roughly equal in their abilities. (pp.6-7)[2]

 

Despite individual differences, human beings are roughly equal in

·         body: no one is so much stronger than everyone else that the physical strength of others poses no threat to him

·         mind: no one is so much smarter than everyone else that the intelligence of others poses no threat to him

For this reason we are roughly equal in our abilities to attain the things we want and need.

 

2.      There are three “principal causes of quarrel” among people: (pp.7-8)

 

a)      competition for resources: no two men can enjoy the same resources at the same time, so they will be forced to compete for what they want.

b)      diffidence (the quality of being distrustful): because individuals will feel threatened by each other, they won’t simply defend themselves and their own possessions, but will go on the offensive, conducting preemptive strikes so as to protect themselves.

c)      desire for glory: men desire others to value them as much as they value themselves, and so they attempt to compel others to value them, sometimes by physical violence.

 

 

3.      Life would be a constant state of war.

 

Because of these “causes of quarrel,” in the state of nature there is a continuing state of war:

 

...during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. (p.8)

 

For Hobbes, “war” did not mean around-the-clock combat, but rather the state in which it is known that such combat is likely or possible and in which each individual lives under constant threat of attack.

 

 

4.      Life in this constant state of war is terrible.

 

·         If each individual is under a constant threat of battle from all others, no cultural or commercial undertakings can occur (no agriculture, industry, navigation, building, arts, science... nothing beyond the bare activity needed to live from day to day).

·         Psychological conditions will also be awful: “continual fear, and danger of violent death”

·         Hobbes describes such a life as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” (p.8)

 

Hobbes doesn’t think that there was ever a time when all mankind was actually in such a state. But he does think that pockets of humanity have from time to time existed in such a state, e.g. certain places in 17^th century America.

 

Hobbes anticipated that some readers would be skeptical of his description, that they would not believe things would be so bad in a state of nature. In anticipation of this skepticism, he asked us to think how we ourselves behave under a system of law: we lock our doors at night; any valuables we have we keep locked up in our homes even while we’re there; we sometimes carry weapons to protect ourselves while outside our homes; etc. (p.8)

 

 

5.      Without law, there is no such thing as sin, wrongness, or injustice.

 

In the absence of law, actions are neither just nor unjust, moral nor immoral.

 

The desires and other passions of man are in themselves no sin. No more are the actions that proceed from those passions till they know a law that forbids them, which till laws be made they cannot know, nor can any law be made till they have agreed upon the person that shall make it. (p.8)

 

To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent, that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice. (p.9)

 

 

6.      Still, people in the state of nature do have rights.

 

In the state of nature, people do have certain natural rights; they include: “the right of nature”:

 

• “The RIGHT OF NATURE ... is the liberty each man hath, to use his own power as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgment, and reason, he shall” (Lev. ch.14 ¶1)

 

From the fact that each person has “the right of nature,” it follows that he or she also has a second right:

 

• “The Right to All Things”: “there is nothing he can make use of, that may not be a help unto him, in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth, that in such a condition [i.e., a condition of war] every man has a right to every thing: even to one another’s body.” (Lev. ch.14 ¶4)

 

 

7. To escape the state of nature, people agree among themselves to transfer their rights to an entity with the absolute power to make and enforce laws.

 

In order to escape the state of nature, men make a covenant among themselves to transfer their Right of Nature to a single entity (a person or assembly of persons) who will thereby have the authority to (among other things) enforce covenants.

 

The final cause, end, or design of men, (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others,) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, (in which we see them live in commonwealths,) is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war, which is necessarily consequent (as hath been shown), to, the natural passions of men, when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants … (Lev. ch.17 ¶1)

 

The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another ... is, to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will... ; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgments, to his judgment. ...as if every man should say to every man, I authorise and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner. (Lev. ch.17 ¶13)

 

Thus, in order to escape the state of nature, each individual must agree turn over all his rights to a single entity (either an individual or group) with the power to make and enforce laws.

 

In this way, each individual comes as close as possible to guaranteeing that he will not be attacked by others.

 

 

8. Once you have agreed to this transfer of rights, it would be unjust to violate that agreement by violating the laws made and enforced by the sovereign.

 

 

9. Any “evils” perpetrated by the absolute sovereign are not as bad as the evils of the state of nature.

 

Hobbes recognized the potential for “evil consequences” to follow from a single individual or group having absolute power. But he held that the “evils” of the state of nature would be even worse:

 

...the sovereign power ... is as great, as possibly men can be imagined to make it. And though of so unlimited a power, men may fancy many evil consequences, yet the consequences of the want of it, which is perpetual war of every man against his neighbour, are much worse. (Lev. ch.20, ¶18)

 

Because Hobbes approaches the question of the origin of the political authority by considering what sort of agreement people would make among themselves to escape the state of nature, he is considered to be part of the tradition of social contract theory. [We will soon consider the 20^th century’s leading proponent of social contract theory: John Rawls.]

 

 

 

Stopping point for Wednesday January 10. For next time, read: pp.9-12, which includes excerpts from Colin Turnbull’s The Mountain People.