HUMA1010 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Scientific Method
28 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Background
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Contemporary of Descartes.
•
English political philosopher, author of Leviathan.
•
Another important figure in the transition from medieval to modern thinking.
•
Introduces the social contract justification for government, political sovereignty.
•
This was the time of the scientific revolution. Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler.
•
The development of scientific method: knowledge comes from empirical experience .
•
The development of science influenced the general background of Hobbes thought.
•
Hobbes and Materialism
The new way of thinking also involves a ‘materialist’ understanding of nature.
•
Meaning: ‘matter is all that exists’. Everything in the universe consists of matter interacting in
accordance with the laws of physics.
•
Hobbes thought that everything in the universe was matter moving around according to the
laws of physics. A common view nowadays, not so common in Hobbes’ day.
•
Hobbes included human beings, their hopes, fears desires and beliefs in this. Everything for
him was just matter moving around according to the laws of physics. Human beings, including
their minds, were subject to the laws of physics. People and their minds are subject to the
laws of physics.
•
Hobbes understood people in dualist terms - immaterial mind and material body
•
Was Hobbes an atheist? No, but he believed God was also just matter moving around in
accordance with the laws of physics.
•
Hobbes and science
Hobbes was a prolific author. Throughout his life he was fascinated with geometry. He
contributed to physics – particularly the theory of gases.
•
He also developed a psychological theory. In his theory he attempted to show how the idea
that human beings were just ‘matter in motion’ might be able to explain human emotions and
sensation.
•
A desire for example is nothing more than a tendency to move towards an object, fear a
tendency to move away.
•
In psychology, one of Hobbes’ key ideas is that in the ‘state of nature’ human beings are
essentially motivated by self interest.
•
Humans could learn concern for others, but this required education.
•
Leviathan
Hobbes most important book was Leviathan (1651)
•
‘Leviathan’ is a word from the Bible, the name of a huge monster that was supposed to live in
the sea. But Hobbes seems to use it to mean something like ‘immense giant’.
•
For Hobbes, human society could be viewed as something like an immense being or giant,
the sovereign ruler who oversees society.
•
This was depicted on the cover for Leviathan.
•
Human beings now generally live under a government. It is generally true in all places
throughout the world, and seems to have been true throughout most of history.
•
Why do human beings form governments? Why do they place themselves under the authority
of a ruler? What is the point of having a government?
•
These are the questions Hobbes was concerned with in Leviathan.
•
Historical background
Hobbes’ views might seem very bleak and harsh. But it is worth placing his answers to these
questions in the historical context in which he lived.
•
He wrote at the time of the English Civil War. This may have affected his views of human
nature, and what life would be like without strong government. Fear of anarchy and disorder.
•
Much of what Hobbes says perhaps becomes more comprehensible if we note that he
seemed to view the idea of anarchy and disorder with horror.
•
Hobbes was in favour of rulers having absolute power
•
The type of ruler he favoured we might now be inclined to describe as an authoritarian
dictator.
•
But Hobbes’ concern was above all to avoid war – including war internal to a country or civil
war.
•
He believed only a ruler with absolute authority could do this.
•
The argument of Leviathan
Hobbes’s essential argument is that if we did not have the constraints of a strong ruler, and
were free to do whatever we wanted, things would be very unpleasant.
•
The ‘state of nature’ would be a ‘war of all against all’ and life would be ‘nasty, brutal and
short’.
•
So Hobbes stands for powerful authority, for the powerful ruler who will stop people doing
whatever they want to do. A strong central authority is needed to stop people destroying each
other.
•
Human Nature
Hobbes's first step, then, is to give an account of what individuals would be like outside of
organised social life, what things would be like without any government.
•
Hobbes gives a ‘scientific’ account of human beings, in terms of matter in motion. A desire is
an inner movement towards an object, an aversion an inner movement away, which produce
corresponding external actions.
•
Above all, human beings are motivated by self-interest, a desire to preserve themselves.
•
An external influence that promotes our continuing existence is felt as pleasure and gives rise
to desire, an inner movement towards the pleasure-causing object, which gives rise to the
appropriate action.
•
One that threatens our continuing existence is felt as pain and produces an aversion, an inner
movement away from the object, giving rise to a different action. No free will - free will is inner
movement that causes you to act
•
Thus, everything human beings do is determined by the need to preserve themselves, to
maximise their pleasure, and minimise their pain. Human beings are inherently selfish,
egoistic and self-seeking.
•
Hobbes rejects the older idea that there is an ideal form of life that human beings ought to
strive towards.
•
Human beings are just creatures with desires. all reducible to the same motivation - the basic
desire to do what will ensure their individual survival.
•
So for Hobbes, human beings are motivated by self-interest.
•
But we also live in a world in which resources are scarce.
•
Since people are motivated by self interest, and goods are scarce, the strong would take from
the weak (or the weak would gang up to attack the strong).
•
Thus, in the state of nature, every individual is the enemy of every other individual. In this
state, there is no security, only the constant threat of violent death.
•
In a world of scarce resources, without a controlling authority, there is the constant danger
that each person will kill the other to gain their property. This is, for Hobbes, a state of war of
all against all.
•
Under these conditions, there is little point in spending time farming, or building. There is
always the danger someone stronger will come along and take it from you.
•
But agriculture and industry are what create wealth. Without the superfluous wealth that
comes from them, there can be no culture, learning, arts or sciences.
•
In the state of nature, there is no stable society.
•
Communities require mutual trust, so there is no community in the state of nature.
•
But: what is ever-present is the possibility of sudden and violent death.
•
Just about everything we regard as of value requires stability, community, and mutual
trust. Things like:
•
Community life, society, friendship
•
villages, cities, buildings
•
‘The economy’, buying and selling, commerce. Getting what you want by working for it or
paying for it rather than just taking it.
•
But stability, community and mutual trust cannot exist in the state of nature – or so Hobbes
believed.
•
Thus for Hobbes, life in the state of nature is ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’.
Solitary: because community requires trust. But in a world of self-interest the strong can take
from the weak whatever they want. So most will tend to avoid strangers.
•
Poor: wealth requires stability and industry – no point in these things if they can be taken from
you at any time.
•
Nasty: lack of trust, constant insecurity, poor, potentially violent all the time.
•
Brutish: animal like, lacking in civilization.
•
Short: poverty and hardship produce ill-health.
•
'every man is enemy to every man, wherein men live without other security than what their
own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such conditions there is no
place for industry, no culture of the earth, no navigation, nor use of the commodities by sea,
no commodious building, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts,
no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death.
And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'.
•
The Social Contract
For Hobbes, the state of nature is ‘a horror’.
•
People want to avoid the state of nature, and this is how governments arise – they are a way
of getting away from the horror of the state of nature.
•
More positively, establishing a government is a way of ensuring individual self-preservation.
People cannot achieve their fundamental desire for self-preservation in the state of nature.
•
The heart of the problem is our unrestrained freedom. In a state of nature we are free to do
whatever we want in order to preserve ourselves.
•
As Hobbes puts it, we have a 'natural right' to do whatever it takes to survive.
•
Note: in a state of nature there is no such thing as justice. It is ‘everyone for themselves’ -
everyone is out to get whatever they can.
•
To the extent there is an conception of right, or rightful possession, it is based on force. A
person has a ‘right’ to something if they have had the strength to take it for themselves.
•
For Hobbes, what happens is that some people get together and between them agree to
place themselves under the authority of a ruler. There is a mutual agreement or contract
amongst those involved to do this.
•
This is how they escape from the horrors of the state of nature.
•
Hobbes did not claim the state of nature anywhere actually existed on Earth. It is so horrible
people quickly place themselves under the authority of a ruler.
•
So for Hobbes, governments arise as a result of an agreement or ‘contract’ between people.
•
This is an example of what is called the ‘social contract’ view of governmental authority - the
idea that governments gain their rightful authority from some sort of agreement or contract.
•
It is a very old idea. It can be found in Plato (c.400BC). Hobbes was however the first
prominent advocate of it in the modern period. He was also the first to place the notion of a
social contract at the centre of his thought.
•
There is however a particular feature of Hobbes’s version of the social contract that needs to
be noted.
•
For Hobbes the social contract is an agreement between ‘subjects’, or ‘ordinary people’. It is
an agreement between the members of the ruled class, or those who are ruled.
•
It says ‘I agree to give up my power of “being my own master”, and to place myself under the
authority of this ruler, if you also agree to give up being your own master, and place yourself
under the authority of this ruler.’
•
In other words, it is not an agreement between the ruled and the ruler. The ruler, or
government, is not itself a party to the agreement.
•
The ruler has the right to rule because everybody else has agreed to be ruled by that ruler.
•
The purpose of having a ruler is get away from the constant state of war of all against all. But:
the ruler himself or herself is not a party to this agreement.
•
This raises the following question: if the ruler is not a party to the contract, does the ruler have
any obligations to rule fairly, or generously, or to provide wealth or happiness, for example?
•
According to Hobbes, the answer is ‘no’. The ruler has no obligation to provide wealth or
happiness to the people.
•
The relationship between the ruler and the ruled
By modern day standards, Hobbes’s view of government is extremely harsh and authoritarian.
•
Hobbes thinks that the power of the sovereign needs to be, for all intents and purposes,
unlimited.
•
Unless sovereigns were clearly stronger than their subjects, and their undisputed master, the
threat of lawlessness, murder and pillage would always be present.
•
A strong centralised power is the only way of ensuring peace and security in social life
•
That’s not to say that there were never any conditions under which subjects could legitimately
depose a sovereign. However the conditions are quite limited.
•
Suppose some people form a social contract to place themselves under the power of a ruler.
But it later turns out they are not happy with the way the ruler does their job. Perhaps the ruler
is too cruel or the people are poor under the ruler.
•
Do the people have the right to remove this ruler and get another one? For Hobbes, the
answer to this question is ‘No’.
•
Remember that on Hobbes view the ruler is not a party to the social contract at all.
•
Therefore, the ruler has not made any promise to rule in any particular way (kindly or
otherwise).
•
Therefore, the ruler cannot be said to have broken any contract or agreement if they rule in a
way the people do not like.
•
So, no matter how harsh a ruler, they cannot be removed on the grounds they have not ‘lived
up to their end of the bargain’. They are not a part of any bargain.
•
Again, suppose some people agree to place themselves under a ruler. They promise to place
themselves under the ruler, provided others do likewise. But then they become unhappy with
the way the ruler is ruling.
•
Can the people then say, ‘I know we agreed to place ourselves under the authority of this
ruler. But life under this ruler is bad. Let’s get rid of this ruler and get a new one.’?
•
Can the people change the contract they had with each other?
•
Again, for Hobbes, the answer to this question is ‘No’.
•
For Hobbes, an agreement is binding. If at some earlier point in time a person or group has
agreed or promised to do one thing, they cannot then go back on their word and decide to do
something else.
•
An earlier ‘covenant’, or promise, cannot be over-ridden by a later one.
•
The function of the ruler
Though the ruler is not by any contract placed under an obligation to rule in any way, we can
still talk about the function or purpose of government.
•
Government by a ruler was accepted with the aim of escaping from the ‘war of all against all’.
So the function of government is the avoidance of the state of war of all against all, the
maintenance of peace.
•
For Hobbes, there is one circumstance in which people can be justified in getting rid of the
ruler – if the ruler has ceased to protect them against the war of all against all
•
But people cannot get rid of the ruler merely if they disagree with the way the ruler is ruling, or
think it is wrong.
•
The powers of the ruler
For Hobbes, the over-riding function of the ruler is the maintenance of peace.
•
Many of the various powers and duties that Hobbes ascribes to the ruler all follow from the
idea that the primary task of the ruler is the maintenance of peace.
•
Good life. Should a ruler try to provide a ‘good life’ for the people?Hobbes’ answer to this
question is ‘No’. Trying to provide a good life for the people would actually be contrary to the
aims of peace.
•
This is because, for Hobbes, there are many different conceptions of a ‘good life’. Many might
see the good life in material terms – high levels of wealth. But others might see it in religious
terms, in terms of military conquest, the pursuit of pleasure, the flourishing of ‘high culture’.
•
There is, in objective terms, no such thing as the common good. There are different
conceptions of the common good, none of them objectively correct.
•
So if a ruler were to try to bring about the common good in a society, this would necessarily
involve favouring one conception of the good life over another.
•
But this would cause resentment amongst those with a conception of the good life different to
the one favoured by the ruler.
•
This would cause jealousy and conflict within society. It would be a move away from harmony
and peace, towards internal conflict and war.
•
But, for Hobbes, the function of a ruler is to avoid war. So, the ruler should not try to bring
about (one conception of) the good life as this would lead to conflict.
•
Censorship. Hobbes was in favour of censorship of the press, and restrictions on free speech.
Again, the over-riding aim was the maintenance of peace.
•
Hobbes was concerned that free speech and freedom of the press might be used to cause
dissent, or lead to conflict between various groups in society.
•
For Hobbes, this was above all to be avoided. So if a ruler believed it was necessary to
restrict freedom of speech in order to retain peace, it was legitimate for the ruler to do so.
•
Religious freedom. For Hobbes, the ruler ought to be able to rule on matters of religious
belief. Again, the motive is internal peace and avoidaance of conflict.
•
If people are free in matters of religion, then, inevitably, some will adopt some religions, other
people will adopt other religions. Hobbes believed this could lead to internal conflict in society.
•
To avoid this conflict the ruler must have the power to decide on matters of religion.
•
Some other powers Hobbes attributed to the ruler:
The power to make the laws of the land
•
The power to act as judge
•
The power to decide when to go to war with another country.
•
Hobbes is widely seen as advocating government with ‘absolute powers’.
•
Freedom in society
Despite his insistence that the power of the sovereign be effectively unlimited, Hobbes thinks
that a wide field of individual freedom is possible in society
•
If the sovereign has not made a law that regulates a particular area of life, then I am at liberty
to do whatever I please in that area
•
Is there a minimum area of human freedom which should not be intruded upon by
government and law?
•
Yes. We submit to a central authority in order to preserve our life. So we cannot be expected
to do anything that goes directly against our self-preservation e.g. testify against ourselves in
a criminal action
•
Hobbes and liberalism
Hobbes stands at the beginning of the liberal tradition of social and political thought.
•
Liberal thinking starts from the individual and defends individual liberty. As far as possible,
government and law should not encroach on what the individual wants to do. Individuals
should be as free as possible to do whatever they want to do.
•
Hobbes may not look very much like a liberal thinker. He is mainly concerned with showing
the necessity of a powerful ruler.
•
Indeed, Hobbes thinks that individual freedom is the cause of disorder and self-destructive
conflict between human beings. If we didn’t have the constraints of a strong ruler, we would
all exist in the horrible 'state of nature’
•
But Hobbes is the first modern thinker to make the individual human being the starting point in
his thinking about society.
•
He advocates a strong central authority not for its own sake but because he sees no other
way of ensuring individuals will be able to satisfy their desires, and ensure their self-
preservation.
•
Week 10: Thomas Hobbes
Wednesday, 10 May 2017
9:02 am
Background
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Contemporary of Descartes.
•
English political philosopher, author of Leviathan.
•
Another important figure in the transition from medieval to modern thinking.
•
Introduces the social contract justification for government, political sovereignty.
•
This was the time of the scientific revolution. Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler.
•
The development of scientific method: knowledge comes from empirical experience .
•
The development of science influenced the general background of Hobbes thought.
•
Hobbes and Materialism
The new way of thinking also involves a ‘materialist’ understanding of nature.
•
Meaning: ‘matter is all that exists’. Everything in the universe consists of matter interacting in
accordance with the laws of physics.
•
Hobbes thought that everything in the universe was matter moving around according to the
laws of physics. A common view nowadays, not so common in Hobbes’ day.
•
Hobbes included human beings, their hopes, fears desires and beliefs in this. Everything for
him was just matter moving around according to the laws of physics. Human beings, including
their minds, were subject to the laws of physics. People and their minds are subject to the
laws of physics.
•
Hobbes understood people in dualist terms - immaterial mind and material body
•
Was Hobbes an atheist? No, but he believed God was also just matter moving around in
accordance with the laws of physics.
•
Hobbes and science
Hobbes was a prolific author. Throughout his life he was fascinated with geometry. He
contributed to physics – particularly the theory of gases.
•
He also developed a psychological theory. In his theory he attempted to show how the idea
that human beings were just ‘matter in motion’ might be able to explain human emotions and
sensation.
•
A desire for example is nothing more than a tendency to move towards an object, fear a
tendency to move away.
•
In psychology, one of Hobbes’ key ideas is that in the ‘state of nature’ human beings are
essentially motivated by self interest.
•
Humans could learn concern for others, but this required education.
•
Leviathan
Hobbes most important book was Leviathan (1651)
•
‘Leviathan’ is a word from the Bible, the name of a huge monster that was supposed to live in
the sea. But Hobbes seems to use it to mean something like ‘immense giant’.
•
For Hobbes, human society could be viewed as something like an immense being or giant,
the sovereign ruler who oversees society.
•
This was depicted on the cover for Leviathan.
•
Human beings now generally live under a government. It is generally true in all places
throughout the world, and seems to have been true throughout most of history.
•
Why do human beings form governments? Why do they place themselves under the authority
of a ruler? What is the point of having a government?
•
These are the questions Hobbes was concerned with in Leviathan.
•
Historical background
Hobbes’ views might seem very bleak and harsh. But it is worth placing his answers to these
questions in the historical context in which he lived.
•
He wrote at the time of the English Civil War. This may have affected his views of human
nature, and what life would be like without strong government. Fear of anarchy and disorder.
•
Much of what Hobbes says perhaps becomes more comprehensible if we note that he
seemed to view the idea of anarchy and disorder with horror.
•
Hobbes was in favour of rulers having absolute power
•
The type of ruler he favoured we might now be inclined to describe as an authoritarian
dictator.
•
But Hobbes’ concern was above all to avoid war – including war internal to a country or civil
war.
•
He believed only a ruler with absolute authority could do this.
•
The argument of Leviathan
Hobbes’s essential argument is that if we did not have the constraints of a strong ruler, and
were free to do whatever we wanted, things would be very unpleasant.
•
The ‘state of nature’ would be a ‘war of all against all’ and life would be ‘nasty, brutal and
short’.
•
So Hobbes stands for powerful authority, for the powerful ruler who will stop people doing
whatever they want to do. A strong central authority is needed to stop people destroying each
other.
•
Human Nature
Hobbes's first step, then, is to give an account of what individuals would be like outside of
organised social life, what things would be like without any government.
•
Hobbes gives a ‘scientific’ account of human beings, in terms of matter in motion. A desire is
an inner movement towards an object, an aversion an inner movement away, which produce
corresponding external actions.
•
Above all, human beings are motivated by self-interest, a desire to preserve themselves.
•
An external influence that promotes our continuing existence is felt as pleasure and gives rise
to desire, an inner movement towards the pleasure-causing object, which gives rise to the
appropriate action.
•
One that threatens our continuing existence is felt as pain and produces an aversion, an inner
movement away from the object, giving rise to a different action. No free will - free will is inner
movement that causes you to act
•
Thus, everything human beings do is determined by the need to preserve themselves, to
maximise their pleasure, and minimise their pain. Human beings are inherently selfish,
egoistic and self-seeking.
•
Hobbes rejects the older idea that there is an ideal form of life that human beings ought to
strive towards.
•
Human beings are just creatures with desires. all reducible to the same motivation - the basic
desire to do what will ensure their individual survival.
•
So for Hobbes, human beings are motivated by self-interest.
•
But we also live in a world in which resources are scarce.
•
Since people are motivated by self interest, and goods are scarce, the strong would take from
the weak (or the weak would gang up to attack the strong).
•
Thus, in the state of nature, every individual is the enemy of every other individual. In this
state, there is no security, only the constant threat of violent death.
•
In a world of scarce resources, without a controlling authority, there is the constant danger
that each person will kill the other to gain their property. This is, for Hobbes, a state of war of
all against all.
•
Under these conditions, there is little point in spending time farming, or building. There is
always the danger someone stronger will come along and take it from you.
•
But agriculture and industry are what create wealth. Without the superfluous wealth that
comes from them, there can be no culture, learning, arts or sciences.
•
In the state of nature, there is no stable society.
•
Communities require mutual trust, so there is no community in the state of nature.
•
But: what is ever-present is the possibility of sudden and violent death.
•
Just about everything we regard as of value requires stability, community, and mutual
trust. Things like:
•
Community life, society, friendship
•
villages, cities, buildings
•
‘The economy’, buying and selling, commerce. Getting what you want by working for it or
paying for it rather than just taking it.
•
But stability, community and mutual trust cannot exist in the state of nature – or so Hobbes
believed.
•
Thus for Hobbes, life in the state of nature is ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’.
Solitary: because community requires trust. But in a world of self-interest the strong can take
from the weak whatever they want. So most will tend to avoid strangers.
•
Poor: wealth requires stability and industry – no point in these things if they can be taken from
you at any time.
•
Nasty: lack of trust, constant insecurity, poor, potentially violent all the time.
•
Brutish: animal like, lacking in civilization.
•
Short: poverty and hardship produce ill-health.
•
'every man is enemy to every man, wherein men live without other security than what their
own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such conditions there is no
place for industry, no culture of the earth, no navigation, nor use of the commodities by sea,
no commodious building, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts,
no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death.
And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'.
•
The Social Contract
For Hobbes, the state of nature is ‘a horror’.
•
People want to avoid the state of nature, and this is how governments arise – they are a way
of getting away from the horror of the state of nature.
•
More positively, establishing a government is a way of ensuring individual self-preservation.
People cannot achieve their fundamental desire for self-preservation in the state of nature.
•
The heart of the problem is our unrestrained freedom. In a state of nature we are free to do
whatever we want in order to preserve ourselves.
•
As Hobbes puts it, we have a 'natural right' to do whatever it takes to survive.
•
Note: in a state of nature there is no such thing as justice. It is ‘everyone for themselves’ -
everyone is out to get whatever they can.
•
To the extent there is an conception of right, or rightful possession, it is based on force. A
person has a ‘right’ to something if they have had the strength to take it for themselves.
•
For Hobbes, what happens is that some people get together and between them agree to
place themselves under the authority of a ruler. There is a mutual agreement or contract
amongst those involved to do this.
•
This is how they escape from the horrors of the state of nature.
•
Hobbes did not claim the state of nature anywhere actually existed on Earth. It is so horrible
people quickly place themselves under the authority of a ruler.
•
So for Hobbes, governments arise as a result of an agreement or ‘contract’ between people.
•
This is an example of what is called the ‘social contract’ view of governmental authority - the
idea that governments gain their rightful authority from some sort of agreement or contract.
•
It is a very old idea. It can be found in Plato (c.400BC). Hobbes was however the first
prominent advocate of it in the modern period. He was also the first to place the notion of a
social contract at the centre of his thought.
•
There is however a particular feature of Hobbes’s version of the social contract that needs to
be noted.
•
For Hobbes the social contract is an agreement between ‘subjects’, or ‘ordinary people’. It is
an agreement between the members of the ruled class, or those who are ruled.
•
It says ‘I agree to give up my power of “being my own master”, and to place myself under the
authority of this ruler, if you also agree to give up being your own master, and place yourself
under the authority of this ruler.’
•
In other words, it is not an agreement between the ruled and the ruler. The ruler, or
government, is not itself a party to the agreement.
•
The ruler has the right to rule because everybody else has agreed to be ruled by that ruler.
•
The purpose of having a ruler is get away from the constant state of war of all against all. But:
the ruler himself or herself is not a party to this agreement.
•
This raises the following question: if the ruler is not a party to the contract, does the ruler have
any obligations to rule fairly, or generously, or to provide wealth or happiness, for example?
•
According to Hobbes, the answer is ‘no’. The ruler has no obligation to provide wealth or
happiness to the people.
•
The relationship between the ruler and the ruled
By modern day standards, Hobbes’s view of government is extremely harsh and authoritarian.
•
Hobbes thinks that the power of the sovereign needs to be, for all intents and purposes,
unlimited.
•
Unless sovereigns were clearly stronger than their subjects, and their undisputed master, the
threat of lawlessness, murder and pillage would always be present.
•
A strong centralised power is the only way of ensuring peace and security in social life
•
That’s not to say that there were never any conditions under which subjects could legitimately
depose a sovereign. However the conditions are quite limited.
•
Suppose some people form a social contract to place themselves under the power of a ruler.
But it later turns out they are not happy with the way the ruler does their job. Perhaps the ruler
is too cruel or the people are poor under the ruler.
•
Do the people have the right to remove this ruler and get another one? For Hobbes, the
answer to this question is ‘No’.
•
Remember that on Hobbes view the ruler is not a party to the social contract at all.
•
Therefore, the ruler has not made any promise to rule in any particular way (kindly or
otherwise).
•
Therefore, the ruler cannot be said to have broken any contract or agreement if they rule in a
way the people do not like.
•
So, no matter how harsh a ruler, they cannot be removed on the grounds they have not ‘lived
up to their end of the bargain’. They are not a part of any bargain.
•
Again, suppose some people agree to place themselves under a ruler. They promise to place
themselves under the ruler, provided others do likewise. But then they become unhappy with
the way the ruler is ruling.
•
Can the people then say, ‘I know we agreed to place ourselves under the authority of this
ruler. But life under this ruler is bad. Let’s get rid of this ruler and get a new one.’?
•
Can the people change the contract they had with each other?
•
Again, for Hobbes, the answer to this question is ‘No’.
•
For Hobbes, an agreement is binding. If at some earlier point in time a person or group has
agreed or promised to do one thing, they cannot then go back on their word and decide to do
something else.
•
An earlier ‘covenant’, or promise, cannot be over-ridden by a later one.
•
The function of the ruler
Though the ruler is not by any contract placed under an obligation to rule in any way, we can
still talk about the function or purpose of government.
•
Government by a ruler was accepted with the aim of escaping from the ‘war of all against all’.
So the function of government is the avoidance of the state of war of all against all, the
maintenance of peace.
•
For Hobbes, there is one circumstance in which people can be justified in getting rid of the
ruler – if the ruler has ceased to protect them against the war of all against all
•
But people cannot get rid of the ruler merely if they disagree with the way the ruler is ruling, or
think it is wrong.
•
The powers of the ruler
For Hobbes, the over-riding function of the ruler is the maintenance of peace.
•
Many of the various powers and duties that Hobbes ascribes to the ruler all follow from the
idea that the primary task of the ruler is the maintenance of peace.
•
Good life. Should a ruler try to provide a ‘good life’ for the people?Hobbes’ answer to this
question is ‘No’. Trying to provide a good life for the people would actually be contrary to the
aims of peace.
•
This is because, for Hobbes, there are many different conceptions of a ‘good life’. Many might
see the good life in material terms – high levels of wealth. But others might see it in religious
terms, in terms of military conquest, the pursuit of pleasure, the flourishing of ‘high culture’.
•
There is, in objective terms, no such thing as the common good. There are different
conceptions of the common good, none of them objectively correct.
•
So if a ruler were to try to bring about the common good in a society, this would necessarily
involve favouring one conception of the good life over another.
•
But this would cause resentment amongst those with a conception of the good life different to
the one favoured by the ruler.
•
This would cause jealousy and conflict within society. It would be a move away from harmony
and peace, towards internal conflict and war.
•
But, for Hobbes, the function of a ruler is to avoid war. So, the ruler should not try to bring
about (one conception of) the good life as this would lead to conflict.
•
Censorship. Hobbes was in favour of censorship of the press, and restrictions on free speech.
Again, the over-riding aim was the maintenance of peace.
•
Hobbes was concerned that free speech and freedom of the press might be used to cause
dissent, or lead to conflict between various groups in society.
•
For Hobbes, this was above all to be avoided. So if a ruler believed it was necessary to
restrict freedom of speech in order to retain peace, it was legitimate for the ruler to do so.
•
Religious freedom. For Hobbes, the ruler ought to be able to rule on matters of religious
belief. Again, the motive is internal peace and avoidaance of conflict.
•
If people are free in matters of religion, then, inevitably, some will adopt some religions, other
people will adopt other religions. Hobbes believed this could lead to internal conflict in society.
•
To avoid this conflict the ruler must have the power to decide on matters of religion.
•
Some other powers Hobbes attributed to the ruler:
The power to make the laws of the land
•
The power to act as judge
•
The power to decide when to go to war with another country.
•
Hobbes is widely seen as advocating government with ‘absolute powers’.
•
Freedom in society
Despite his insistence that the power of the sovereign be effectively unlimited, Hobbes thinks
that a wide field of individual freedom is possible in society
•
If the sovereign has not made a law that regulates a particular area of life, then I am at liberty
to do whatever I please in that area
•
Is there a minimum area of human freedom which should not be intruded upon by
government and law?
•
Yes. We submit to a central authority in order to preserve our life. So we cannot be expected
to do anything that goes directly against our self-preservation e.g. testify against ourselves in
a criminal action
•
Hobbes and liberalism
Hobbes stands at the beginning of the liberal tradition of social and political thought.
•
Liberal thinking starts from the individual and defends individual liberty. As far as possible,
government and law should not encroach on what the individual wants to do. Individuals
should be as free as possible to do whatever they want to do.
•
Hobbes may not look very much like a liberal thinker. He is mainly concerned with showing
the necessity of a powerful ruler.
•
Indeed, Hobbes thinks that individual freedom is the cause of disorder and self-destructive
conflict between human beings. If we didn’t have the constraints of a strong ruler, we would
all exist in the horrible 'state of nature’
•
But Hobbes is the first modern thinker to make the individual human being the starting point in
his thinking about society.
•
He advocates a strong central authority not for its own sake but because he sees no other
way of ensuring individuals will be able to satisfy their desires, and ensure their self-
preservation.
•
Week 10: Thomas Hobbes
Wednesday, 10 May 2017
9:02 am
Background
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Contemporary of Descartes.
•
English political philosopher, author of Leviathan.
•
Another important figure in the transition from medieval to modern thinking.
•
Introduces the social contract justification for government, political sovereignty.
•
This was the time of the scientific revolution. Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler.
•
The development of scientific method: knowledge comes from empirical experience .
•
The development of science influenced the general background of Hobbes thought.
•
Hobbes and Materialism
The new way of thinking also involves a ‘materialist’ understanding of nature.
•
Meaning: ‘matter is all that exists’. Everything in the universe consists of matter interacting in
accordance with the laws of physics.
•
Hobbes thought that everything in the universe was matter moving around according to the
laws of physics. A common view nowadays, not so common in Hobbes’ day.
•
Hobbes included human beings, their hopes, fears desires and beliefs in this. Everything for
him was just matter moving around according to the laws of physics. Human beings, including
their minds, were subject to the laws of physics. People and their minds are subject to the
laws of physics.
•
Hobbes understood people in dualist terms - immaterial mind and material body
•
Was Hobbes an atheist? No, but he believed God was also just matter moving around in
accordance with the laws of physics.
•
Hobbes and science
Hobbes was a prolific author. Throughout his life he was fascinated with geometry. He
contributed to physics – particularly the theory of gases.
•
He also developed a psychological theory. In his theory he attempted to show how the idea
that human beings were just ‘matter in motion’ might be able to explain human emotions and
sensation.
•
A desire for example is nothing more than a tendency to move towards an object, fear a
tendency to move away.
•
In psychology, one of Hobbes’ key ideas is that in the ‘state of nature’ human beings are
essentially motivated by self interest.
•
Humans could learn concern for others, but this required education.
•
Leviathan
Hobbes most important book was Leviathan (1651)
•
‘Leviathan’ is a word from the Bible, the name of a huge monster that was supposed to live in
the sea. But Hobbes seems to use it to mean something like ‘immense giant’.
•
For Hobbes, human society could be viewed as something like an immense being or giant,
the sovereign ruler who oversees society.
•
This was depicted on the cover for Leviathan.
•
Human beings now generally live under a government. It is generally true in all places
throughout the world, and seems to have been true throughout most of history.
•
Why do human beings form governments? Why do they place themselves under the authority
of a ruler? What is the point of having a government?
•
These are the questions Hobbes was concerned with in Leviathan.
•
Historical background
Hobbes’ views might seem very bleak and harsh. But it is worth placing his answers to these
questions in the historical context in which he lived.
•
He wrote at the time of the English Civil War. This may have affected his views of human
nature, and what life would be like without strong government. Fear of anarchy and disorder.
•
Much of what Hobbes says perhaps becomes more comprehensible if we note that he
seemed to view the idea of anarchy and disorder with horror.
•
Hobbes was in favour of rulers having absolute power
•
The type of ruler he favoured we might now be inclined to describe as an authoritarian
dictator.
•
But Hobbes’ concern was above all to avoid war – including war internal to a country or civil
war.
•
He believed only a ruler with absolute authority could do this.
•
The argument of Leviathan
Hobbes’s essential argument is that if we did not have the constraints of a strong ruler, and
were free to do whatever we wanted, things would be very unpleasant.
•
The ‘state of nature’ would be a ‘war of all against all’ and life would be ‘nasty, brutal and
short’.
•
So Hobbes stands for powerful authority, for the powerful ruler who will stop people doing
whatever they want to do. A strong central authority is needed to stop people destroying each
other.
•
Human Nature
Hobbes's first step, then, is to give an account of what individuals would be like outside of
organised social life, what things would be like without any government.
•
Hobbes gives a ‘scientific’ account of human beings, in terms of matter in motion. A desire is
an inner movement towards an object, an aversion an inner movement away, which produce
corresponding external actions.
•
Above all, human beings are motivated by self-interest, a desire to preserve themselves.
•
An external influence that promotes our continuing existence is felt as pleasure and gives rise
to desire, an inner movement towards the pleasure-causing object, which gives rise to the
appropriate action.
•
One that threatens our continuing existence is felt as pain and produces an aversion, an inner
movement away from the object, giving rise to a different action. No free will - free will is inner
movement that causes you to act
•
Thus, everything human beings do is determined by the need to preserve themselves, to
maximise their pleasure, and minimise their pain. Human beings are inherently selfish,
egoistic and self-seeking.
•
Hobbes rejects the older idea that there is an ideal form of life that human beings ought to
strive towards.
•
Human beings are just creatures with desires. all reducible to the same motivation - the basic
desire to do what will ensure their individual survival.
•
So for Hobbes, human beings are motivated by self-interest.
•
But we also live in a world in which resources are scarce.
•
Since people are motivated by self interest, and goods are scarce, the strong would take from
the weak (or the weak would gang up to attack the strong).
•
Thus, in the state of nature, every individual is the enemy of every other individual. In this
state, there is no security, only the constant threat of violent death.
•
In a world of scarce resources, without a controlling authority, there is the constant danger
that each person will kill the other to gain their property. This is, for Hobbes, a state of war of
all against all.
•
Under these conditions, there is little point in spending time farming, or building. There is
always the danger someone stronger will come along and take it from you.
•
But agriculture and industry are what create wealth. Without the superfluous wealth that
comes from them, there can be no culture, learning, arts or sciences.
•
In the state of nature, there is no stable society.
•
Communities require mutual trust, so there is no community in the state of nature.
•
But: what is ever-present is the possibility of sudden and violent death.
•
Just about everything we regard as of value requires stability, community, and mutual
trust. Things like:
•
Community life, society, friendship
•
villages, cities, buildings
•
‘The economy’, buying and selling, commerce. Getting what you want by working for it or
paying for it rather than just taking it.
•
But stability, community and mutual trust cannot exist in the state of nature – or so Hobbes
believed.
•
Thus for Hobbes, life in the state of nature is ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’.
Solitary: because community requires trust. But in a world of self-interest the strong can take
from the weak whatever they want. So most will tend to avoid strangers.
•
Poor: wealth requires stability and industry – no point in these things if they can be taken from
you at any time.
•
Nasty: lack of trust, constant insecurity, poor, potentially violent all the time.
•
Brutish: animal like, lacking in civilization.
•
Short: poverty and hardship produce ill-health.
•
'every man is enemy to every man, wherein men live without other security than what their
own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such conditions there is no
place for industry, no culture of the earth, no navigation, nor use of the commodities by sea,
no commodious building, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts,
no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death.
And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'.
•
The Social Contract
For Hobbes, the state of nature is ‘a horror’.
•
People want to avoid the state of nature, and this is how governments arise – they are a way
of getting away from the horror of the state of nature.
•
More positively, establishing a government is a way of ensuring individual self-preservation.
People cannot achieve their fundamental desire for self-preservation in the state of nature.
•
The heart of the problem is our unrestrained freedom. In a state of nature we are free to do
whatever we want in order to preserve ourselves.
•
As Hobbes puts it, we have a 'natural right' to do whatever it takes to survive.
•
Note: in a state of nature there is no such thing as justice. It is ‘everyone for themselves’ -
everyone is out to get whatever they can.
•
To the extent there is an conception of right, or rightful possession, it is based on force. A
person has a ‘right’ to something if they have had the strength to take it for themselves.
•
For Hobbes, what happens is that some people get together and between them agree to
place themselves under the authority of a ruler. There is a mutual agreement or contract
amongst those involved to do this.
•
This is how they escape from the horrors of the state of nature.
•
Hobbes did not claim the state of nature anywhere actually existed on Earth. It is so horrible
people quickly place themselves under the authority of a ruler.
•
So for Hobbes, governments arise as a result of an agreement or ‘contract’ between people.
•
This is an example of what is called the ‘social contract’ view of governmental authority - the
idea that governments gain their rightful authority from some sort of agreement or contract.
•
It is a very old idea. It can be found in Plato (c.400BC). Hobbes was however the first
prominent advocate of it in the modern period. He was also the first to place the notion of a
social contract at the centre of his thought.
•
There is however a particular feature of Hobbes’s version of the social contract that needs to
be noted.
•
For Hobbes the social contract is an agreement between ‘subjects’, or ‘ordinary people’. It is
an agreement between the members of the ruled class, or those who are ruled.
•
It says ‘I agree to give up my power of “being my own master”, and to place myself under the
authority of this ruler, if you also agree to give up being your own master, and place yourself
under the authority of this ruler.’
•
In other words, it is not an agreement between the ruled and the ruler. The ruler, or
government, is not itself a party to the agreement.
•
The ruler has the right to rule because everybody else has agreed to be ruled by that ruler.
•
The purpose of having a ruler is get away from the constant state of war of all against all. But:
the ruler himself or herself is not a party to this agreement.
•
This raises the following question: if the ruler is not a party to the contract, does the ruler have
any obligations to rule fairly, or generously, or to provide wealth or happiness, for example?
•
According to Hobbes, the answer is ‘no’. The ruler has no obligation to provide wealth or
happiness to the people.
•
The relationship between the ruler and the ruled
By modern day standards, Hobbes’s view of government is extremely harsh and authoritarian.
•
Hobbes thinks that the power of the sovereign needs to be, for all intents and purposes,
unlimited.
•
Unless sovereigns were clearly stronger than their subjects, and their undisputed master, the
threat of lawlessness, murder and pillage would always be present.
•
A strong centralised power is the only way of ensuring peace and security in social life
•
That’s not to say that there were never any conditions under which subjects could legitimately
depose a sovereign. However the conditions are quite limited.
•
Suppose some people form a social contract to place themselves under the power of a ruler.
But it later turns out they are not happy with the way the ruler does their job. Perhaps the ruler
is too cruel or the people are poor under the ruler.
•
Do the people have the right to remove this ruler and get another one? For Hobbes, the
answer to this question is ‘No’.
•
Remember that on Hobbes view the ruler is not a party to the social contract at all.
•
Therefore, the ruler has not made any promise to rule in any particular way (kindly or
otherwise).
•
Therefore, the ruler cannot be said to have broken any contract or agreement if they rule in a
way the people do not like.
•
So, no matter how harsh a ruler, they cannot be removed on the grounds they have not ‘lived
up to their end of the bargain’. They are not a part of any bargain.
•
Again, suppose some people agree to place themselves under a ruler. They promise to place
themselves under the ruler, provided others do likewise. But then they become unhappy with
the way the ruler is ruling.
•
Can the people then say, ‘I know we agreed to place ourselves under the authority of this
ruler. But life under this ruler is bad. Let’s get rid of this ruler and get a new one.’?
•
Can the people change the contract they had with each other?
•
Again, for Hobbes, the answer to this question is ‘No’.
•
For Hobbes, an agreement is binding. If at some earlier point in time a person or group has
agreed or promised to do one thing, they cannot then go back on their word and decide to do
something else.
•
An earlier ‘covenant’, or promise, cannot be over-ridden by a later one.
•
The function of the ruler
Though the ruler is not by any contract placed under an obligation to rule in any way, we can
still talk about the function or purpose of government.
•
Government by a ruler was accepted with the aim of escaping from the ‘war of all against all’.
So the function of government is the avoidance of the state of war of all against all, the
maintenance of peace.
•
For Hobbes, there is one circumstance in which people can be justified in getting rid of the
ruler – if the ruler has ceased to protect them against the war of all against all
•
But people cannot get rid of the ruler merely if they disagree with the way the ruler is ruling, or
think it is wrong.
•
The powers of the ruler
For Hobbes, the over-riding function of the ruler is the maintenance of peace.
•
Many of the various powers and duties that Hobbes ascribes to the ruler all follow from the
idea that the primary task of the ruler is the maintenance of peace.
•
Good life. Should a ruler try to provide a ‘good life’ for the people?Hobbes’ answer to this
question is ‘No’. Trying to provide a good life for the people would actually be contrary to the
aims of peace.
•
This is because, for Hobbes, there are many different conceptions of a ‘good life’. Many might
see the good life in material terms – high levels of wealth. But others might see it in religious
terms, in terms of military conquest, the pursuit of pleasure, the flourishing of ‘high culture’.
•
There is, in objective terms, no such thing as the common good. There are different
conceptions of the common good, none of them objectively correct.
•
So if a ruler were to try to bring about the common good in a society, this would necessarily
involve favouring one conception of the good life over another.
•
But this would cause resentment amongst those with a conception of the good life different to
the one favoured by the ruler.
•
This would cause jealousy and conflict within society. It would be a move away from harmony
and peace, towards internal conflict and war.
•
But, for Hobbes, the function of a ruler is to avoid war. So, the ruler should not try to bring
about (one conception of) the good life as this would lead to conflict.
•
Censorship. Hobbes was in favour of censorship of the press, and restrictions on free speech.
Again, the over-riding aim was the maintenance of peace.
•
Hobbes was concerned that free speech and freedom of the press might be used to cause
dissent, or lead to conflict between various groups in society.
•
For Hobbes, this was above all to be avoided. So if a ruler believed it was necessary to
restrict freedom of speech in order to retain peace, it was legitimate for the ruler to do so.
•
Religious freedom. For Hobbes, the ruler ought to be able to rule on matters of religious
belief. Again, the motive is internal peace and avoidaance of conflict.
•
If people are free in matters of religion, then, inevitably, some will adopt some religions, other
people will adopt other religions. Hobbes believed this could lead to internal conflict in society.
•
To avoid this conflict the ruler must have the power to decide on matters of religion.
•
Some other powers Hobbes attributed to the ruler:
The power to make the laws of the land
•
The power to act as judge
•
The power to decide when to go to war with another country.
•
Hobbes is widely seen as advocating government with ‘absolute powers’.
•
Freedom in society
Despite his insistence that the power of the sovereign be effectively unlimited, Hobbes thinks
that a wide field of individual freedom is possible in society
•
If the sovereign has not made a law that regulates a particular area of life, then I am at liberty
to do whatever I please in that area
•
Is there a minimum area of human freedom which should not be intruded upon by
government and law?
•
Yes. We submit to a central authority in order to preserve our life. So we cannot be expected
to do anything that goes directly against our self-preservation e.g. testify against ourselves in
a criminal action
•
Hobbes and liberalism
Hobbes stands at the beginning of the liberal tradition of social and political thought.
•
Liberal thinking starts from the individual and defends individual liberty. As far as possible,
government and law should not encroach on what the individual wants to do. Individuals
should be as free as possible to do whatever they want to do.
•
Hobbes may not look very much like a liberal thinker. He is mainly concerned with showing
the necessity of a powerful ruler.
•
Indeed, Hobbes thinks that individual freedom is the cause of disorder and self-destructive
conflict between human beings. If we didn’t have the constraints of a strong ruler, we would
all exist in the horrible 'state of nature’
•
But Hobbes is the first modern thinker to make the individual human being the starting point in
his thinking about society.
•
He advocates a strong central authority not for its own sake but because he sees no other
way of ensuring individuals will be able to satisfy their desires, and ensure their self-
preservation.
•
Week 10: Thomas Hobbes
Wednesday, 10 May 2017 9:02 am
Document Summary
Another important figure in the transition from medieval to modern thinking. Introduces the social contract justification for government, political sovereignty. This was the time of the scientific revolution. The development of scientific method: knowledge comes from empirical experience. The development of science influenced the general background of hobbes thought. The new way of thinking also involves a materialist" understanding of nature. Everything in the universe consists of matter intera accordance with the laws of physics. Hobbes thought that everything in the universe was matter moving around according laws of physics. A common view nowadays, not so common in hobbes" day. Hobbes included human beings, their hopes, fears desires and beliefs in this. Everyt him was just matter moving around according to the laws of physics. Human beings, their minds, were subject to the laws of physics. People and their minds are subject laws of physics. Hobbes understood people in dualist terms - immaterial mind and material body.
