Political Theory from Hobbes
Three explanations of the state of war (SW)
- SW does not require actual fighting. It is sufficient to be in a SW that there is common knowledge that people are disposed to fight each other - Hobbes provides three explanations of this SW (Ch. 13): 1. competition: violence for gain 2. diffidence: violence for safety 3. glory: violence for reputation It is assumed that it is possible that some people are moved by pride and vainglory to seek dominion over others, and that this possibility must be taken into account in one's deliberations. It may be that no one is actually so moved; what is imporatnt is that many believe that some are. If we cannot exclude the possibility, we have to take it into account and guard against it. The possibility is a basis for mutual suspicion. For example, int he case of two national powers in competition, they naturally tend to distrust each other. It may be that neither power is motivated to dominion or has any of these sorts of passions influencing those who govern it. But still the other side thinks so, and that is enough to exacerbate the state of nature and transform it into a state of war. Thus, the difficulty in the State of Nature is the great uncertainty about the aims and intentions of others. As long, then, as love of dominion and vainglory are psychologically possible, these passions are a complicating factor in the State of Nature. A general state of uncertainty about others' aims and intentions characterizes the State of Nature, so that a concern for our self-preservation forces us to consider the worst possibilities.
Hobbes on Glory
- Violence for reputation 'pleasure in contemplating their own power in acts of conquest, which they pursue farther than their security requires' (Ch. 13) 'men are continually in competition for Honour and Dignity...Man whose Joy consisteth in comparing himselfe with other men, can relish nothing by what is eminent' (Ch. 17) - Note non-derivative and derivative reasons to value of having a reputation for being powerful
Hobbes on the state of nature
- the state of nature (a state of affairs without political authority) would be a state of war between different people - a state without political authority, i.e. without a sovereign that issues commands and uses force to ensure people conform with them - Hobbes had the general thesis, very important to his view, that a state of nature tends to pass over very readily into a state of war. He often talks about a state of nature (which is a state in which there is no effective Sovereign to keep men in awe and keep their passions in check) as being essentially a state of war. - explanation: the state of war is a predictable consequence of individuals exercising their right to preserve themselves where there is no common power exists to regulate their conduct
Two ways of interpreting the State of Nature
1) First, as the state of affairs that would come about if there no effective political authority, or Sovereign, with all the powers which on Hobbes's view, it is necessary for an effective Sovereign to have. 2) As a point of view which persons in society may assume and from which each can understand why it would be rational to covenant with every other person to set up an effective Sovereign. In this sense the Social Contract is collectively rational; from the point of view of the State of Nature, the conditions which reflect permanent features of human nature, each member of society now have a sufficient reason to want the effective Sovereign to continue to exist, and thereby to ensure the stability and viability of existing institutions.
Two interpretations of the State of Nature
1) First, as the state of affairs that would come about if there no effective political authority, or Sovereign, with all the powers which on Hobbes's view, it is necessary for an effective Sovereign to have. 2) As a point of view which persons in society may assume and from which each can understand why it would be rational to covenant with every other person to set up an effective Sovereign. In this sense the Social Contract is collectively rational; from the point of view of the State of Nature, the conditions which reflect permanent features of human nature, each member of society now have a sufficient reason to want the effective Sovereign to continue to exist, and thereby to ensure the stability and viability of existing institutions.
Objection to Hobbes on self-interest
• How can people who are prioritise their self-interest believe that it is rational to create an absolute master who has the power to decide which of them lives or dies. • Hobbes argues that we do not alienate our right to self defence when we authorise the sovereign, but our right to all things, so that in fact the sovereign does become powerful enough to inflict any punishments, including death, that he/she would see fit. o Hobbes admits that authorising the sovereign does mean that every subject in effect says "Kill me or my fellow if you please". o Each of the subjects is putting themselves in a position where the Sovereign possesses vastly greater power. • But possessing the right to self-defence is futile because the sovereign will win any confrontation between them. o Therefore the question is raised - how can self-preserving individuals believe that instituting a sovereign with the ability to kill them on command is rational? • Locke challenges Hobbes's contention that people will in the state of nature decide that it the risks of the state of nature are greater than the risks of life under the sovereign. o This is because in the SON, people are roughly equal in strength and intelligence, and thus there is an even playing field, whereas the sovereign has absolute power and the ability to murder subjects on command. o Locke explicitly argues men would not believe that the advantages of civil society would outweigh the risks to life and property in this state. • Pufendorf provides a natural extension to Locke's argument, who argues that even if we assume Hobbes's account of the state of nature is correct, the risks posed from the sovereign are far greater than the danger faced between humans in the state of nature. • Since there is a rough equality of people in this state will deter widespread violence. o Because any two people know that neither of them is powerful enough to decisively beat the other in war, they will decide to cooperate, rather than compete, seeing as peaceful coexistence is preferable to war. • Reply: Life in Commonwealth is still preferable • Life under sovereign may have some danger, posed by the sovereign, but even under the worst sovereign there will be far better conditions than in the state of nature. • In the commonwealth, there can still be mercantile exchange, industry, property, clothes and water - all of which can be guaranteed by the sovereign, and which cannot prosper in the SON. • Furthermore the probability of the sovereign killing you on any given day is far less than in the state of nature, where death is an ever-present possibility. • The choice for individuals is between a life at the mercy of a sovereign who can but probably will not kill you, or be at the mercy of many individuals all of whom have rational motivation to kill you. • Thus Hobbes seems to be right in suggesting self-preserving individuals would prefer relatively secure mastery by sovereign over a free life in the state of nature fraught with danger and death. • To reply to Pufendorf, Hobbes would argue that glory would still lead to a state of war. • Despite some cooperation, there would exist still significant variation in talent and strength that would encourage many more attacks against those are seemingly weaker and less able to defend themselves. • Such people would be spurred on by vainglory, exacerbating the whole situation.
What is sovereignty?
'One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence. And he that carryeth this Person, is called SOVERAIGNE, and said to have Soveraigne Power; and every one else besides, his SUBJECT.' (121)
Hobbes on competition
'if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end, (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only,) endeavour to destroy, or subdue on another.' The scarcity of resources and the nature of our needs introduce competition. Given the nature of people's needs and desires, and given the tendency of needs and desires to change and to expand there is a permanent tendency for these needs and desire to require more for their fulfillment than is avaiable in nature. This makes for scarcity of natural resources, which is, of course, a relation wherein the amount, or total aggregate of needs and desires is larger than the amount of resources available. This scarcity, Hobbes believes, leads to competition between people. If we wait until others have taken all they want, there will be nothing left for us. So, in a state of nature we must be ready to stake out and to defend our claims. Civil society, on Hobbes's view, does not eliminate this relation of scarcity. He believes that scarcity is a permanent feature of human life. Scarcity is relative and it may be more or less urgent, so htat the wants and needs that remain unsatisfied in civil society are less pressing, less urgent than those that remain unsatisifed in a state of nature. Thus, the civil state wherein an effective Sovereign exist is more agreeable.
How does Hobbes define power?
'the present means to obtain some future and apparent good.' (Ch. 10)
Hobbes on power
'the present means to obtain some future and apparent good.' (Ch. 10) There always exists - 'a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of Power after power, the ceaseth only in Death" (Ch. 11) In the State of Nature the desire for power exceeds its supply for two reasons: 1. the existence of material scarcity 2. the fact that some desire for power not only as a means but in itself, and in order to achieve superiority over others and Glory. Hobbes's largely self-centered, or self-focused, account of human nature serves, in effect, as an emphasis for the purposes of a political conception. It is an emphasis that goes with his stress on the desire for power, where a person's power is defined as a person's present means to obtain some future apparent good (Leviathan p 41). These means include all sorts of things. They include natural faculties of body or mind, or things that are acquired by those faculties. The latter include riches, reputations; they can include "Friends, and the seceret working of God, which men call Good Luck" (Leviathan, p. 41). It is small wonder then, with this broad definition of "power", that we should have desire to have it.
What are the destabilising features of human nature that would make the state of nature unstable?
1) Human beings are sufficiently equal in natural endowments and mental powers (including prudence), and also sufficiently vulnerable to one another's hostility, to give rise to fear and insecurity 2) Human's desires and needs are such that together with the scarcity of the means of satisfying them, people must find themselves in competition with one another. 3) Human psychology is in various ways self-centered and self-focused, and when people take careful thought all tend to give priority to their own preservation and security, and to gaining the means to a commodious life 4) Human beings are in several ways unfit for peaceable association in society: i) they have a liability to pride and vainglory which association with others arouses and which is irrational. That is, this liability often prompts them to act contrary to the principles of right reason (the Laws of Nature), and these passions tempt them to actions highly dangerous both to themselves and to others ii) they have, it seems, no original or natural desires for assocation, or natural forms of fellow-feeling. What appears to be such feelings derive from our self-concern. On the other hand, Hobbes does not think we're malicious, that is, enjoy the suffering of others for its own sake. 5) Defects and Liabilities of human reasoning: i) those arising from a lack of a proper philosophical (scientific) method. Note here Hobbes's attack on the Schools ii) liability of human reasoning, presumably even when a proper philosophy is known, to be distorted and undermined by our proneness to pride and vanglory iii) fragile nature of practical reason when it concerns the conduct of human beings in groups and the appropriate social institutions. This form of practical reason is fragile because Hobbes thinks it must be given a conventional basis. That is, everyone must agree who is to decide what is for the common good and everyone must abide by this person's judgements. There is no possibility of all freely recognizing by the exercise of reason what is right and wrong, or for the common good, and abiding by this knowledge. Social cooperation for the common good requires an effective Sovereign.
Ways of obtaining sovereignty
1. Sovereigny by acquisition: 'by Naturall force; as when a man maketh his children, to submit themselves, and their children to his government, as being able to destroy them if they refuse; or by Warre subdueth his enemies to his will, giving them their lives on that condition.' (Ch. 17, 121 - see also Ch. 20) - I THINK THIS PART IS CONQUEST 2. Sovereignty by institution: 'when men agree amongst themselves, to submit to some Man, or Assembly of men, voluntarily, on confidence to be protected by him against all others.' (Ch. 17, 121) 3. Authorization - The notion of authority has been introduced in the following way. An action of the Sovereign is done by authority when it is performed by a licensed public person whose right it is. In other words, a certain, person, A, does action x by the authority of b if B has the right to do x and B has authorized or granted the right to do x to A. So to authorize someone as your representative or your agent is to give that person the use of your rights. It means that you have given them the authority to act in some capacity on your behalf. Now, the Sovereign is going to be the person whom everyone has authorized to act on his or her behalf in certain ways; in that sense, the Sovereign is our agent, and acts with authority. All sovereignty conferred by contract or consent (cf. his distinction between slaves and subjects (Ch. 20, 141) Notice that, for Hobbes, coercion does not render the contract void.
Hobbes's key texts
1. The Elements of Law, Natural and Politics (MS 1640) 2. De Cive (1642, enlarged edn. 1647) 3. Leviathan (1651)
What is the prisoner's dilemma?
1. There are two prisoners who are thought to be guilty of a serious crime. 2. The evidence is not strong enough to convict them of the serious crime, but is sufficiently strong to convict them of a lesser crime. 3. In this context the prosecutor asks each prisoner whether or not she will confess to the serious crime. 4. If both confess each will get a lighter sentence than otherwise would (6 years rather than 10) 5. If neither confesses the prosecutor can get a conviction only for the lesser crime (2 years) 6. However, if one confesses, but the other doesn't, then the confessor gets lenient treatment for providing evidence to the state (a 1 year sentence) but the other one will get the full 10 years.
Laws of nature 1 - 19
1st Law - to seek peace and follow it 2nd Law - to lay down one's right subject to rule reciprocity 3rd Law - to perform covenants made 4th - 10th Law: injunction to virtues and dispositions of sociable reasonable association 11th - 19th Laws: Precepts of Equity and Natural Justice
What is the Leviathan?
A metaphor for the state, the Leviathan is described as an artificial person whose body is made up of all the bodies of its citizens, who are the literal members of the Leviathan's body. The head of the Leviathan is the sovereign. The Leviathan is constructed through contract by people in the state of nature in order to escape the horrors of this natural condition. The power of the Leviathan protects them from the abuses of one another.
What is the commonwealth?
A multitude of people who together consent to a sovereign authority, established by contract to have absolute power over them all, for the purpose of providing peace and common defense.
What is a Law of Nature?
A precept or rule, found out by reason by which forbidden to do that destructive of our life
Why does Hobbes distinguish an obligation to the laws of nature in foro interno from such an obligation in foro externo?
According to Thomas Hobbes, there are certain laws of nature which exist in the absence of an organized government. These laws are extremely cut throat and place people in extremely dangerous situations where their lives are in danger. Government is the answer to this dangerous situation, but it is here that the question of obligation comes into question. Does one have an obligation to take a chance and follow the laws set forth for them or should they only think of themselves and follow the laws of nature? This is a vital question which I will explore. According to Hobbes, the overriding law of nature is kill or be killed. Hobbes believed that, every man has a right to everything, even to another man's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to everything endureth there can be no security to any man (how strong or wise so ever he be) of living out the time which nature ordinarily allow with men to live. However he also believed, "that a man be willing, when others are so too as far-forth as for peace and defense of himself that he shall think it necessary to lay down this right to all things, and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself." The question now is, when do we have an obligation to strive towards peace when it means giving up our natural rights? According to Hobbes, we always have an obligation to work towards peace, and have an obligation in foro interno, but not always in foro externo. The difference between these two are that in foro interno means inside you, or you believing in something. In this case, it would mean that inside you, you would want to strive for peace because it would mean an end to worrying about your life. No longer would you have to walk around in a state of nature where anyone can come and take your life. Hobbes believed that a person always has an obligation to strive towards peace in foro interno because every man wants one thing more than any other and that is to live. However, Hobbes did not believe that you always had an obligation to work towards peace in foro externo. The reason for this, simply put, you cannot trust other men to do the same unless you can be sure that they will not turn on you and take your life. Hobbes felt that, "For he that should be modest and tractable, and preform all he promises, in such time and place where no man else should do, should be make himself prey to others and procure his own certain ruin, contrary to the ground of all laws of nature, which tend to nature's preservation." Hobbes felt that one's obligation in foro externo ended when fulfilling the obligation would endanger the life of the person. Every law of nature is geared for the preservation of the life of the self and therefore, every man has the right to not do something should it mean that he would have to give up his or her life. In the case of in foro externo obligation towards peace, you do not always have to do it. If you decide you are going to give up you right to everything and do so, but another person does not, they will most likely kill you. Therefore, before one can oblige in foro externo, there must be some sort of safeguard or higher power which will ensure that everyone will give up their right to everything. That is where governments come in. Their job is to make sure that when all men agree to a covenant, in which they give up their rights to everything, that they do not decide to break that covenant and take what they want when they want it. To make sure this breaking of the covenant does not happen, governments set up institutions such as the police to make sure everyone follows the rules of the government. It is only then, when a person can be sure that they will be protected from others, are they obliged in foro externo to strive towards peace and give up their right to everything. Personally, I agree with what Hobbes is saying in this matter, it makes a lot of sense even though it was written so long ago. It still has much relevance today. Take for example the U.S., where most people have obliged in foro externo to strive for peace and give up their natural rights. This is only possible because people are not afraid (for the most part) that others will take advantage of the situation and take what they want. However in other countries where this safety is not felt, there is many instances where people take what they want, when they want it and often at the expense of the people who have given up their right to everything. So as you can see, what Hobbes said so long ago, still has much merit today.
What is a covenant?
Also called "contract" or "social contract," contract is the act of giving up certain natural rights and transferring them to someone else, on the condition that everyone else involved in making the contract also simultaneously gives up their rights. People agreeing to the contract retain only those rights over others that they are content for everyone else to retain over them. Problem with covenant - The reason why the state of nature becomes a state of war, and the reason that is a stable state, meaning that it is hard to get out of it, is that there is no effective Sovereign. Covenants do not do any good, for, as Hobbes siad, words of that sort are of no effect because no one can trust anyone else to keep them. The reason is that the person who performs first has no ways to ensure that the other party will perform in the absence of a Sovereign. In a covenant, the performance required is ordinarily divided in time. One person performs ealier, and then some weeks or months afterwards someone else performs. In between the time the first person performs and the time that the other person is to do their part, the situation may alter, and that person will then have some reason for not honoring the covenant.
Why does Hobbes think that we do not have an obligation to obey God? Why doesn't Hobbes agree with the Right to Creation?
Hobbes says as much in discussing the rights whereby God reigns over us. God does not have this right by virtue of the Right of Creation, which Locke assumes is a moral principle. That is, if God created us, as Locke believes, then being created by God, we have a moral obligation to obey, which obligation depends on the principle that if A creates B then B has an obligation to A. In Hobbes. In Hobbes we don't find such a Right of Creation. We don't find an obligation to God based on either God's creation or our gratitude, but simply on God's irresistible power. Hobbes says, "Whereas if there had been any man of Power Irresistible; there had been no reason why he should not by that Power have ruled...according to his own discretion. To those therefore whose Power is irresistible, the dominion of all men adhereth naturally by their excellence of Power, and consequently it is from that Power, that the Kingdom over men...belongeth Naturally to God Almighty; not as Creator, and Gracious; but as Omnipotent" (Leviathan p. 187). Now what Hobbes has to show, then, is taht given the state of equality, among other things, in the state of nature, the tendency is to lead to a state of war; and to avoid that happening, the great Leviathan with its effective common power of sovereign is necessary.
What is the state of war?
It is important to note here that for Hobbes, a state of war consists "not in battle only, or the act of fighting...but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary" (Leviathan, p. 62) Hobbes is trying to convey to us that, even if all were moved by normally moderate wants and we were perfectly rational people, we are still in danger of a State of War in the absence of an effective Sovereign with all the powers Hobbes says the Sovereign must have to be effective. However bad some Sovereigns may be, the State of War is still worse. Greed, love of dominion, pride and vainglory can be serious complicating elements; but they are not actually necessary to bring it about that the State of Nature will become a State of War. At best, the possibility that some are so moved is enough.
What is the role of the Sovereign?
It seems that in Hobbes's view the role of the Sovereign is to stabilize, and thereby to maintain, that social state in which everyone, normally and regularly, adheres to the Laws of Nature, which state Hobbes calls the "State of Peace." The Sovereign stabilizes society by effectively imposing sanctions that keep everyone "in awe". It is the public knowledge that the Sovereign is effective that makes it rational for each person then to obey the laws of nature. He provides all with the assurance that the Laws of Nature will be enforced. Most people then comply, knowing that the others are also going to comply with him. The Sovereign, or the assembly, Hobbes thinks of as an artificial person, because the Sovereign is someone whom members of society have authorized to act on their behalf. Having authorized them, we own the actions of the Sovereign and recognize them as our own. Representatives and agents are said to be actors in those words and actions of theirs which are owned by those they represent. The Sovereign, then, is a kind of actor, and the Sovereign's actions are owned by us, as the Sovereign represents us.
Make notes on 'the fool'!!! in RAWLS and in SOCRATES
Leviathan takes up egoism as a problem with the introduction of the figure of the 'fool' who thinks it rational to keep or break promises depending on self-interest. In reply, Hobbes argues that social life is an 'iterated game', so that keeping promises always serves our interest in self-preservation. He 'that breaketh his Covenant...cannot be received into any Society...and [this is] consequently against the reason of his preservation' (Leviathan, 205). The upshot is to collapse any distinction between egoistic and moral behaviour by redescribing morality as prudential behaviour and ignoring situations in which duty might diverge from interest.
Hobbes on diffidence
Nowadays it means shyness, timidity or lack of confidence. But the derivation is from the Latin: diffidere, which means to mistrust. This is what it means in Hobbes. - Distrust of others: because one knows that there is a general desire for power one cannot trust others not to attack: 'from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any man to secure himself, so reasonable, as anticipation; that is, by force, or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can, so long, till he see no other power great enough to endanger him: and this is no more than his own conservation requireth, and is generally allowed.' Diffidence, made greater by the possibility that some may be moved by pride and vainglory to gain dominion over others, together with the fact that no covenants or contracts can provide security in the absence of a Sovereign to enforce them, makes productive industry seem less worthwhile and predation seems more productive, and this leads people to believe that their security is best secured by an anticipatory attack.
Pros and Cons of social institutions
PRO - Hobbes does not deny that social institutions and education and culture can importantly change our passions and alter our aims. CONS - Social institutions cannot change the essential aspects of our nature. They don't change our most fundamental interests in self-preservation, in conjugal affections, and in the means for commodious living. The life of man is still 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short' (Leviathan, p62) There is a contrast between saying something is the strongest of natural desires; everything considered. Thus, he says in De Cive, an earlier work that we seek to avoid death by a certain impulsion of nature, no less than whereby a stone moves downwards. But, as we all know, stones sometimes move sideways, or they get thrown upward. Social institutions and social customs and education can, as it were, work on us in a certain way, so that as civilized persons we act non-naturally or contrary to nature, if you like, affected by institutions and culture as much as by the word of reason.
What is Liberty for Hobbes?
Physical concept of absence of external impediments to motion, called by Hobbes natural liberty
What does Hobbes say are humans 'fundamental interests'?
Rawls says that Hobbes identifies three 'fundamental interests' IN THIS ORDER 1) Our interest first in preserving our life (However, at least from things he says elsewhere, he knows perfectly well that people sometimes do irrational things; and he believes that some persons, with full knowledge, prefer death rather than disgrace or dishonor. He says that most men would rather lose their lives than suffer slander; and that a son would rather die than obey an order to kill his father, on the grounds that if he were to obey such an order, he would look infamous and would be hated by all the world; and that, from shame or dishonor, he cannot bear (from De Cive)) Perhaps what Hobbes is saying it that the desire for self-preservation is the strongest of all natural desires, but that while this will explain the primacy he gives to it in his political theory, this doesn't imply that it is always the strongest of all desires, when everything is taken into account. 2) Our interest in securing the good of those who are close to us (what Hobbes calls 'conjugal affection') 3) Our interest in acquiring the means of a commodious life
What is materialism?
The philosophy of materialism states that physical matter and its motion explain all phenomena in the universe and construct the only reality that human beings can experience.
Hobbes's biography
Thomas Hobbes was born in April 1588. The son of a ne'er-do-well minister, Hobbes's uncle sponsored his education at Oxford. He fled into exile in Paris in 1640 and spent the Civil War years in the company of leading French thinkers and the English court in exile. Leviathan was published in 1651. Hobbes then returned to England ande made peace with Cromwell's regime. Died 1679.
What does Hobbes mean by 'conjugal affection'?
We have an interest in preserving the good of those who are close to us. This falls below our primary interest in self-preservation but above our interest in acquiring the means of a commodious life.
Why does Hobbes think that the State of Nature is a State of War?
Why does hobbes think that the state of nature is a state of war? Hobbes remarks that it may seem strange to us "that Nature should thus dissociate, and render men apt to invade, and destroy one another" (that is, it may seem strange to us that the State of Nature so readily becomes a State of War). but, he says that we can understand why this is so by what he calls an "Inference, made from the Passions" (Leviathan p62) We can confirm that we make this inferecne from the passions by looking at actual experience in everyday life, by nothing how we conduct ourselves as we do now, in civil society, when the Sovereign actually exists and there are laws and armed public officers. He says that when we travel we arm ourselves, when we go to sleep we lock the door, even in our house we lock up our chest, and so on (Leviathan p62) By these actions we accuse one another and show that we accept, as it were, this inference from the passions, which says: If a state of nature obtains, then a state of war also obtains, for all practical purposes. For Hobbes, if we take human nature as it is, we can infer that the State of Nature becomes a State of War. Hobbes is not denying that social institutions and education and culture can importantly change our passions and alter our aims. But he supposes that, for the purposes of his political doctrine, his secular moral system, that the main outlines and essential features of human nature are more or less fixed or given.
Three interpretations of the Social Contract
p34 Rawls 1) it is an account of what actually happened and of how the state was actually formed 2) This one is more plausbile, there is a good deal of evidence, Hobbes was attempting to give a philosophical account of how the state could arise. 3) Suppose that the great Leviathan actually exists already. Then we should think of the state of nature as an ever-present possibility that might come about if the effective Sovereign should cease to be effective. Given that possibility, and in view of what he takes to be everyone's fundamental interests in self-preservation, their "conjugal affections" and their desire for the means of a commodious life, Hobbes is explaining why everyone has a sufficient and overriding reason to want the great Leviathan to continue to exist and to be effective. Hobbes if trying to urge us into accepting an existing effective Sovereign. we can understand this intention in light of the climate of the times and the English Civil war.
What is the link between the State of Nature and the Prisoner's Dilemma?
people who contemplate making promises in the State of Nature are looking at somewhat the same situation. One difference is that the state of nature is going to be a recurrent game. In other words, one is going to be involved in this situation with confedereates normally not only once, but time and time again, and that kind of case is going to be different than where there is just one encounter. Still, I take it to be Hobbes's view that the general condition of mankind is that there are only two stable states, one of them being the state of nature, which is a state of war. The other one we might call a "state of the Leviathan," in which there is, as Hobbes sometimes says, an absolute Sovereign who enforces the laws of nature, and makes sure that everyone acts on them. The reason why the state of nature becomes a state of war, and the reason that is a stable state, meaning that it is hard to get out of it, is that there is no effective Sovereign. Covenants do not do any good, for, as Hobbes siad, words of that sort are of no effect because no one can trust anyone else to keep them. The reason is that the person who performs first has no ways to ensure that the other party will perform in the absence of a Sovereign. In a covenant, the performance required is ordinarily divided in time. One person performs ealier, and then some weeks or months afterwards someone else performs. In between the time the first person performs and the time that the other person is to do their part, the situation may alter, and that person will then have some reason for not honoring the covenant. The first person, knowing that, doesn't have grounds for keeping their part of the covenant in the first place. So, normally there would then be no point to making covenants in that state. The way Hobbes puts it is "Therefore he which performeth first, does but betray himself to his enemy; contrary to the Right (he can never abandon) of defending his life, and means of living" (Leviathan, p. 68)
Objection to Hobbes on Hobbesian justification for sovereignty is invalid because men and women cannot do what is required to create a ruler satisfying his definition of a sovereign.
• If we assume that Hobbes's account of state of nature is correct, and his regress argument and his psychological argument, the result of the only kind of "authorisation action they are able to perform will not be the institution of an absolute sovereign. • Hobbes's regress argument essentially holds that we need an unlimited sovereign to guarantee social stability, any form of limited government will eventually regress back into chaos. • This sovereign has unlimited power to decide ALL the questions in the commonwealth, holding power permanently insofar as he has the power to decide most importantly whether or not he should remain in power. • However, we know from text that one could never willingly obey the sovereigns command to punish oneself, as it would endanger one's self-preservation. • Thus we have a self-defence right that we carry into the commonwealth, and humans only surrender their punishment powers to the sovereign only as far as it would not endanger their self-preservation. • Hobbes's definition of self-preservation is not clear, but most importantly, he concede from a narrow definition to a much broader one, that equivocates the self-defense right to the entire right of self-preservation (leviathan 21). • Hobbes contends that the ability of the sovereign to protect his subjects and make their lives secure defines the extent and limits of the subjects rightful obedience to the sovereign. o Since human beings will always be the judge of acition of what furthers their own self-preservation (according to Hobbes' psychology) then Hobbes is forced to say an absolute sovereign reigns at his subjects pleasure. They decide whether they obey his commands. • Thus: • 1. In order for peace to be secured, an absolute sovereign must be created, and an absolute sovereign is defined as one who is master of all his subjects; this sovereign is the final decider of all the questions in the commonwealth, most importantly, the question of whether or not he will remain in power, and in virtue of this question, he holds power permanently. • 2. Hobbesian people empower a ruler by obeying his punishment commands, and they do so whenever they decide such obedience is conducive to their best interests. • 3. But, from (2), it follows that the ruler created by Hobbesian people does not decide all questions, particularly the question of whether or not they obey his commands, and whether or not he will continue to hold power. • Hence, from (3) and (4), Hobbesian people cannot create a ruler who meets the definition of a sovereign in (1) (a ruler who decides all questions and whos reign is permanent), which means from (1) they cannot secure peace.