Hobbes's State of Nature - Josh Morganstein

By

The Hobbesian state of nature is a "condition of war" (80) of "every man against every man" (78). "The life of man," Hobbes writes, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (76). Hobbes posits that the state of nature results in war because men are roughly equal in their capabilities such that any man can kill another man. This equality, coupled with scarcity, results in what Hobbes calls "diffidence" (75), the anticipation of an attack. From diffidence, arises war. Other causes of war include competition and glory, which respectively stem from men attacking for gain or reputation (77). Since the state of nature is chaotic and unpredictable, "there is no place for the industry" (76) and therefore no creation of any of the landmarks of civilization (culture, navigation, architecture, etc.). Hobbes argues that to remedy the state of nature, men transfer their rights to a sovereign power---this is the process of entering into the social contract. 

There are two parts of the Hobbes reading that I find particularly challenging to grapple with. First, in the state of nature, Hobbes argues that there is no place for "notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice" (78). Language, Hobbes argues, is used merely as a tool for justification: "for one man calleth wisdom, what another calleth fear, and one cruelty, what another justice, and one prodigality, what another magnanimity" (22). In war, according to Hobbes, anything goes. He claims that men should use every advantage to win the war, writing that "force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues" (78). Hobbes's claim is compelling if one buys his argument that the definition of injustice is "the not performance of covenant" (89), or the breaking of law/contract. Where I struggle is trying to reconcile this view with Christianity or any religious view that ultimately grants God the authority to make final moral judgments. The second issue I am grappling with is the application of Hobbes' views to the international level. Hobbes is often seen as one of the foundational authors of realism within the International Relations field. Hobbes writes: "[I]n all times kings and persons of sovereign authority, because of their independency, are in continual jealousies and in the state and posture of gladiators, having their weapons pointing and their eyes fixed on one another, that is, their forts, garrisons, and guns upon the frontiers of their kingdoms, and continual spies upon their neighbors, which is a posture of war. But because they uphold thereby the industry of their subjects, there does not follow from it that misery which accompanies the liberty of particular men" (78). I struggle with this passage because Hobbes wrote this prior to the world wars (which seems to be the exact sort of misery that accompanies the liberty of men, that is, war of everyone against everyone) and because he seems to cite industry as a mechanism for preventing conflict between nation-states (a view often espouses by liberals, not realists). 

Comments

  1. Henry FinaJanuary 18, 2023 at 11:49 AM

    There is an interesting contradiction present in Hobbes writing which you highlight in your first point. If the only true injustice, according to Hobbes, is breaking laws and contracts, but any means may be justified in conflict, then why do we seem to, or at least attempt to, respect honor and decency in war. We enter into associations and contracts to govern proper conduct during conflict, which according to Hobbes does not exist. I am struggling with applying this reading to the modern world because of points like this.
    I found Hobbes' emphasis on industry as a tool of diplomacy very interesting as well. Currently, it is uncommon to find realists who often cite Hobbes advocating for interconnected global economies. Liberals, or globalists, would point to this as an essential tool for peacekeeping and development. During the postwar era it seems that Liberals largely dominated the discourse regarding how the world should recover, but we still exist in the very state Hobbes describes in the passage you cited at the end of your post. Despite the popularity of liberal ideals we still seem postured in a state of constant war and tension. Powers use their influence to engage in proxy conflicts since risking your own citizenry is far less acceptable after the major conflicts of the 20th Century and with the emergence of WMD's. Industry has largely helped keep peace, but it is now one of the only ways a major power can directly act against another through things like sanctions. The recent degradation of the global economy is surely a cause for greater concern from the perspective of both realists and liberals considering that the foundational thinkers of both ideologies regard it as an essential mechanism for keeping the peace.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Cowen and Anderson are both wrong-George

By
In their dialogue, both Cowen and Anderson fail to address important elements of each other's arguments. Cowen's failure is primarily empirical. He dismisses the significance of labor market monopsony out of hand (109). Although economists disagree about the relevance of employer labor market power, Cowen does not sufficiently address the credible evidence of its role in suppressing compensation. This evidence has only grown in the years since Private Government  was published. One consideration as to the relevance of monopsony is the pay-productivity gap. Although libertarian economists chafe immensely at any implication that workers do not benefit from higher productivity, and the popular understanding of the pay-productivity gap is indeed exaggerated, even the most pro-market economists are forced to admit to a degree of "delinkage" between the growth of labor productivity and the compensation of nonsupervisory employees. Interestingly, there is less evidence of de...
Read more

Responding to Jemma and Aara: Another consideration that Rawls does not discuss--- Luis

By
  Hey Jemma and Aara,   Thank you for the thought-provoking blogs! I definitely felt that Okin made her argument less favorable by structuring her last part of Chapter 6 with a sense of constructing a ladder of what social standing has a greater impact on "one's thinking of justice." I agree with you and Aara in that Okin's critique of the unequal gender-based structure is strong and needed to achieve Rawls's basic structure of a well-ordered society. I also believe that stating that gender is the most prevalent identity that will form an individual's concept of "justice" undermines intersectionality. I wanted to add another layer that is not accounted for by Rawls, which Okin hints on.  After reading both blogs, I initially thought about our seminar where Kat and I argued for what Aara was discussing, a knowledge of the global racial empire, or in other terms, the history of racism and colonialism in the original position. I was sold on that argumen...
Read more

Evaluating Harris Whiteness as Property--- Luis Mendoza

By
      In "Whiteness as Property," Cheryl I. Harris builds her work on the image of her grandmother and her ability to use "passing" in her labor and daily life (1710). The main advantage of passing, as stated by Harris, is that it "[increases] the [possibilities] of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). At this moment, I want to focus on her functions of whiteness which comes after her discussion that whiteness is property through its theoretical descriptions. More specifically, I will digest one attribute of whiteness as property: "the rights to transfer or alienability" (1731).              One of Harris's points is that because theories surrounding property state that it must have the aspect of alienability, it makes whiteness as property more difficult to process. The issue is that "whiteness," as Harris states, "is incapable of being trans...
Read more