Are Hobbes theories of Politics on a Sicence of Human Nature as scientific as he might like to think - Essay Example

?Hobbes Theories on the Politics of the Science of Human Nature How scientific are these theories Introduction Born in 1588, Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher who worked extensively in political philosophy. His work was so influential that it formed the foundation for political philosophy that follows the social contract theory. The writings and viewpoints of Hobbes are often considered to be depressing and a very negative consideration of human nature and political systems as a whole. He believed that the only way for humans to survive effectively was in a society that had a sovereign who had absolute power, due to the fact that conflict is a necessary component of human nature. However, his theory was based around his knowledge and experience with society at one particular point in human history, and did not consider the possibility of sovereign power being misused. Because of this, his theories are not scientific in nature, and cannot reasonably be applied to current society. Hobbes’ Theories Hobbes is often considered to be the founding father of current political philosophy, and his ideas have influenced debates and discussion of human nature and politics since his own time and through to the present day. His proposal that human society requires a sovereign who has complete power and is the only source of political decision-making, is supported by few. However, many of the ideas that Hobbes presented are fascinating especially in modern times where people strive for independence and question any form of authority. Hobbes work was detailed, and he presented his proposals and theories clearly, backing them up with examinations of human nature and what he considered to drive human actions. Throughout his life, Hobbes published a number of writings such as The Elements of Law, De Cive and Leviathan. Through these he worked he worked on his own arguments and also to defend the king against those who did not consider his authority to be valid. Human nature is a term that relates to the characteristics of humans that are felt naturally, such as ways that people feel, think and act. This has been the focus of studies by many theorists throughout history, including recent times. Western philosophy, including that of Hobbes, has been interested in what causes these characteristics to exist and how they affect various regions. There are many different approaches to this, with some people believing that human nature is purely innate, others that it is the result of choice and still others believing in a combination of the two factors. For Hobbes, his work focused primarily on how politics affected human nature, and how human nature affected politics. Hobbes was one of many theorists that forwarded the idea of an innate fixed human nature, and his viewpoint was predominantly individualistic. Hobbes’ most famous work is the Leviathan and the publication argued many of his points and theories in depth. This book set about to define what drives the actions of humans and to develop a model for their motivation and how humans can be organized into society. Specifically, much of Hobbes’ focus in the book was political Unlike many of his contemporises, Hobbes’ focus cam from his study of physics, and he believed that action in humans was result of mechanical reactions to inputs from their senses. He considered that this came about through impulses that were guided both by instinct and human volition . Throughout his work, Hobbes deeply examines human nature and all aspects of the mind and the relationship between the mind and the body. He considers factors such as imagination, perception, reason and emotion, and uses this information to provide a basis for his political arguments. One aspect of his theory is the power of the person, which Hobbes considers to include the ability to satisfy desires both now and in the future, as well as the ability to exert control over others. He considers it is essential that a person’s power compete with the power of other people. Through his work he argues for the idea of an Absolute Sovereign who has complete and unlimited control including control in who succeeds him. He considers this to be necessary as competition is an inevitable component of human nature, and that men have the ability to kill one another as a result of this competition . Hobbes believed that without a sovereign power life would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’ . Hobbes’ society versus ours The theories and ideas that Hobbs forwarded about politics and the science of human nature were based in a particular time period and political situation that is very different than our own. He lived in England, and he was very familiar with the sovereign ruling system that was present in England at the time. Here, the sovereign had power over everyone in the state, however, it was possible for a king or queen to be tried for treason against the crown and put to death, and individuals were able to question the laws that were given to them. He had little to no experience with alternative forms of government. Hobbes’ perception of the drivers of human motivation is often considered to be exceptionally pessimistic . He considers a sovereign power to be necessary because of the nature of humans, proposing that if we were left to our own devices our lives would be short and painful. Hobbes lived in a time of dramatic political turmoil that had widespread effects. The once-stable country was divided against itself through economics, religion, region and politics, all of which played a role in decreasing the quality of life for many. He lived through a time of significant chaos and he saw the detrimental effect that this had on his society. It is likely that this substantially influenced his own opinions, causing him to regard change as something that should be avoided. Throughout most of his lifetime, Hobbes never saw positive effects of change and upheaval. Because of this, it is conceivable that much of Hobbes’ theories were not based on scientific observation, but on personal, and emotional, experiences. Consequently, applying these to current society can be difficult. The modern society that we live in is very different from what Hobbes experienced in his own time for other reasons also. One factor of this is the rise in democracy over sovereignty based systems. Democracy has become the desired state by most developed countries, although there are various forms of this. England is still a monarchy; however, it also has a parliamentary system, and the sovereign does not have complete control over the laws. In fact, many people consider the royal family to be more in position for cultural reasons that power, as most power resides in the parliament. In Hobbes’ time, there was a parliamentary system present, however there was much debate about the allocation of power between this and the sovereign. Despite the predictions of Hobbes, society has not fallen apart because we do not have a single ruling authority, indeed many countries are very effective under the democratic system. This indicates that either Hobbes’ original theories and predictions were wrong, or that they simply do not take not account the change in society as time progresses. Democracy has arisen from a strong desire for independence. For many people, having an all-powerful leader would not be a good thing, even if they were well provided for. This desire to be independent and to make choices on an individual level was not significantly present in Hobbes’ time. In fact, the notion may have been completely unfamiliar to them. Another way that society has changed since Hobbes first wrote his theories is that the increase in technology and agriculture has decreased our dependence on each other. Hobbes’ work was based on the idea that competition is an inevitable component of the human condition. However, at that point in time, resources were scarce and many people went hungry as a consequence. While hunger is still present throughout the world, the cause of this is different. There are easily enough resources to feed and provide for everyone, however, these resources are unevenly distributed. Consequently, the society that we now live in is radically different than what Hobbes experienced, and this has resulted in different drivers of human action and experience. Hobbes appears to perceive human actions as being predominantly focused on promoting their own desires above anyone else. While, this can be seen in many aspects of current society, there are also a large number of examples of people working together for the common good, often at cost to themselves. Such examples include non-profit groups, international aid, and rescue and relief efforts throughout the world. For the most part, countries do not have all-powerful rulers, yet the world today is nothing like what Hobbes predicted. Strengths and limitations of Hobbes’ theories To many, the theories that Hobbes presents seem outlandish and absurd. Clearly, there is no need for an absolute sovereign in our current society. However, if we look closely in many ways Hobbes viewpoints do still apply in the present day despite the substantial changes that have occurred in social relations from his original theories to the present day. Hobbes’ work is based on the idea that conflict between individuals is inevitable, and that without some form of ruling force this conflict would quickly turn murderous, and little progress would be made for the society as a whole. Most, if not all, states and countries in the world have some form of governing body, whether it is an individual sovereign, a tyrant, a government or some combination of these factors. It is difficult to imagine how society would function without this. Without the influence of some overarching power, some group determining what should and should not be done, would humans ever progress as a nation? However, while Hobbes appears to be correct in his consideration of the need for a ruling power, one must ask whether this power should be absolute as Hobbes suggests, or democratic, as is the desired model in current society. One substantial limitation of Hobbes’ theories is that there is no consideration of what will happen if things go wrong. Under Hobbes’ model, a society should be ruled by someone with absolute power, and this will result in the betterment of the people as a whole and the ability for the state to grow and progress. However, what happens if the absolute leader is corrupt? If he does not care for his people but is simply interested in his own pleasure? Hobbes does not consider this. Indeed, he considers the ability for a sovereign to be tried and deposed or put to death as a negative component of the English system, and one that should be removed. Modern society is opposed to sovereign rulers with absolute power for mainly this reason. It is not the times where the ruler is good, just and fair that are a cause for concern. Predominantly, it is the occasions where rulers act as tyrants and people suffer as a consequence that drive the opinion that democracy is the most beneficial means of leadership. Thus, although Hobbes’ viewpoints may be valid based on a model society and a model leader, they do not take into account situations where this does not occur, nor do they present any models for what should be done in this situation. Therefore, he does not present a scientific argument where all possibilities are considered; instead, he gives a one-sided argument based on personal opinion and observation. Human nature and politics There were two main influences to Hobbes’s work aside from the political background. The first of these was religious authority, a group that Hobbes took great offense to. The second influence was the scientific method which was beginning to emerge and that Hobbes was interested and active in. Hobbes theories mark the beginning of the rational choice argument, which is currently used in many different fields. His focus is on determining the most logical way for a group of people to increase their individual welfare, and finds that this comes through cooperation. This mindset and approach is a scientific one that continues to be used today in such approaches as The Prisoners Dilemma which is a form of game theory that is used to examine cooperation. Here two people are arrested for a crime which they were both involved in. Each person is mainly interested in their own freedom and does not care about that of the other person. The prisoners are separated and given the option of confession or remaining silent. If an individual confesses then they go free and their partner does significant time, however, if both confess, then they both are convicted, although the time served is lower than if only one is imprisoned. Finally, if both individuals remain silent, they both go free. The best move for the prisoners to make is to both remain silent, however, this involves cooperating with, and trusting the other prisoner. Thus, from an individual perspective, it may be better to confess as there is no risk of the longest jail sentence. There are many similarities between the theory which Hobbes presents and game theory. Both approaches are scientifically based, and examine the nature of cooperation versus self interest. However, while game theory examines all possible outcomes of the encounter, Hobbes does not. This is a significant limitation and means that Hobbes is considering only an ideal situation that may not align with all environments or societies. Certainly, the model that Hobbes presents is not closely aligned with modern day society. Evidence suggests that people who obtain the sort of power that Hobbes suggests are often corrupted by it, and stop caring about the people that they are serving. Conclusion Hobbes argues that society needs an absolute sovereign who exerts control over a wide range of areas, and whom the subjects are not free to displace or to disagree with. He considers this to be necessary because of the inherent nature of humans that leads to conflict. This idea is based on game theory, which is a scientific approach that is still being used today to examine the benefits and risks of cooperation. However, one way that Hobbes’ theories differ from game theory is that he does not consider what would happen if the society does not behave in the way that he predicts. In particular, his viewpoint of an absolute sovereign is based on someone who is seeking what is best for people. However, as is widely recognised in modern society, power has a tendency to corrupt, and many people in these types of positions become self-focused and no longer care about their subjects. Consequently, although Hobbes’ approach is scientific, he considers only a narrow space in time where people (mostly) wielded power fairly. Many of his arguments do not readily apply to the current world as most cases were absolute sovereign power does exist, this readily results in an exploitation of the people, rather than being beneficial for them. References Read More