Hobbes' Work's Perspective in Western Civilization - Essay Example

and Number of the Teacher’s THOMAS HOBBES Introduction Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English philosopher whose famous 1651 book Leviathan formed the basis for most of Western political philosophy from the social contract theory approach (Rosenberg 9). Fobbes is best known for his work in political philosophy and in the social sciences although he contributed to a diverse range of academic disciplines including physics of gases, geometry, history, ethics, general philosophy, theology and political science (Bunce & Meadowcroft 21). Hobbes’ perspective on human nature as self-interested cooperation is an enduring theory of philosophical anthropology (Wildawski, Chai & Swedlow 161). Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the work of Thomas Hobbes from a social, political and economic perspective in western civilization. The Paradox of Hobbes Even in his own time, Hobbes was considered to have paradoxical views. Though he was perceived as a fierce controversialist and a brusque dogmatist, his main anger was directed against dogmatism of any kind. Similarly, although he was hostile to the intellectual authority of the churches as in the universities, he wanted his own philosophical works to be the authoritative texts within the universities. Though he praised toleration, he advocated an absolute sovereign with total power over intellectual matters. In place of scepticism, Hobbes promoted science although in an extremely sparse form. He cleared away all that he considered doubtful and was left with a “a bare a priori materialism, according to which the universe must consist of material objects causally interacting with one another” (Tuck 129), but the real nature of these objects and their interactions is not known. In the same way, in ethics, Thomas Hobbes eliminated all the complicated ethical theories of his orthodox predecessors whether Aristotelians or humanists, and was left with only the bare principle that people are morally entitled to preserve themselves. Hobbes’ Theory of Human Nature as Self-Interested Cooperation Hobbes had few to receive guidance from on the best way to live, other than sceptics such as Montaigne who had always acknowledged the practical necessity of self-preservation. In alignment with the sceptics, Hobbes also concluded that the laws of one’s country are constitutive of one’s general morality, and that whatever is necessary for one’s preservation has to be morally acceptable. He believed in taking this stance to radical lengths, and considered the sovereign to be responsible even for defining who a human being is, as in stating that “upon the occasion of some strange and deformed birth, it shall not be decided by Aristotle, or the philosophers, whether the same be a man or no, but by the laws” (Tuck 129). Thomas Hobbes’ Theory of International Relations Hobbes is a standard or mandatory figure in international relations theory, and also forms the core of one of the major traditions. Along with Machiavelli and sometimes with Thucydides, Hobbes stands as an archetypal proponent of ‘Realism’. Usually, scholars proficient in the study of Hobbes’ political philosophy deal with the theory of international relations in a very brief manner, within a few paragraphs or sentences. Modern international theorists interpret Hobbes work in a fixed manner. “The basic Hobbesian assumption is that there are no objective principles of morality” (Malcolm 433). Morality is determined only by the sovereign, once the state is formed. Hobbes’ belief was that the state creates morality as well as law, and that there is neither morality nor law outside the state. Hence, the realist view was that ethical standards were not applicable to relations between states. Similar to Machiavelli, Hobbes perceived politics as “the practical art of obtaining and preserving state power as an end in itself” (Malcolm 433). However, Hobbes reaches a higher level than Machiavelli through his clear account of the role played by the urge for power in human psychology. Hobbes’ stance is towards expansion without rational limits, promoted by its own successes, and if not stopped by a superior force will proceed to the confines of the political world. Thus, nationalism evolves almost inherently into imperialism. International policy reiterates the aphorism of Hobbes, that to ascertain the power and means to live well, man wants to obtain more. Wars begun for ensuring security become aggression-filled and self-seeking wars. Hobbes is viewed by some scholars Hannah Arendt (1958) as “a forerunner of imperialism” (Malcolm 434). Hobbes’ modern critics state that the great weakness of this theory “lies in its assumption of a complete equivalence between individual human beings in the state of nature and sovereign states in international relations” (Malcolm 434). States are not vulnerable in the same way as individuals are; moreover, small and large states are not equal. Another weakness is that Hobbes implies there is a national right of self-preservation analogous to the individual one; however it is unclear the actual rights involved and their justification. Similarly, the death of a state would not involve the death of its citizens “since individual citizens often survive changes in national boundaries” (Malcolm 434). Further, another assumption of Hobbes’ that is challenged is that atomic individuals are the only agents in the state of nature, hence sovereign states are the only actors in international relations. Hobbes also believes that at the international level, alliances have made no significant contribution to peace and cooperation. He considers a simplified world in which the sovereign states function independently of each other, ruling out the possibility of the pursuit of self-interest at the detriment of another state. Hobbes appears to have a low opinion of human nature in general, but believes that human nature can be improved. International cooperation could work as a means towards such improvement and also as an outcome of it. This approach is similar to the ameliorism of the rationalist tradition than to the unchanging pessimism of the Realists. However, his complete diregard for teleological metaphysics, and his deriving the principle of individual self-preservation from the natural laws, place Hobbes at a higher level from the mainstream of rationalist natural law theories. “Unlike the Stoic, scholastic or Lockean versions of natural law, Hobbes theory does not take into account the good of mankind. Therefore, it does not have the equivalent of Locke’s concept of the “executive power of the law of nature” which enables a third party to intervene in other people’s matters, to enforce that which is objectively right. Hobbes’ natural laws derived from purely individual long-term self-interest opens a conceptual gap in his theory between the nature of moral rights and duties, as well as jural ones (Malcolm 434). In Hobbes’ Dialogue of the Common Laws a king will be justified in going to war in support of neighbours, if he believes that his own state may be the next target for invasion. Hobbes believed that this would be adequate justification, irrespective of the invading army having adequate reasons for doing so. Thus, in Hobbes’ peculiar international state of nature, moral rights and duties do exist but are not laid out by nature in a particular sytem of mutual harmony or reciprocal relationship. For these reasons, Malcolm (p.456) questions why Hobbes has been considered a Realist. Conclusion This paper has examined Thomas Hobbes’ work in relation to social sciences, and identified the paradoxes in his thought relating to various concepts. Hobbes’ theory of human nature as self-interested cooperation, and his other perspectives on international relations reveal that his concepts were unique, and conflicted with his Realism. Even though Hobbes’ conclusions may not be appealing, it is important to identify that people today share various beliefs with the philosopher. It is commonly expressed today that moral relativism should lead to a kind of liberal pluralism; and the decline of religious dogmatism facilitated the emergence of modern religious toleration. But Hobbes’ work reveals that it need not be so. “Moral relativism, thought through properly, might lead instead to the Leviathan” (Tuck 130), which while destroying older intolerances will replace them by newer ones. Thus, Hobbes illustrates that similar to the sceptics of antiquity who lived under the rule of absolute emperors; and those of the Renaissance lived under Absolutist monarchs, “the rigid and alienating state structures of the modern world may also be an appropriate landscape for sceptics” (Tuck 131). Works Cited Bunce, Robin & Meadowcroft, John. Thomas Hobbes. New York: Continuum Inter- national Publishing Group. (2009). Wildawsky, Aaron, Chai, Sun-Ki & Swedlow, Brendon. Culture and social theory. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. (1998). Malcolm, Noel. Aspects of Hobbes. England: Oxford. (2002). Rosenberg, Aaron. Thomas Hobbes: An English philosopher in the age of reason. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group. (2006). Tuck, Richard. Hobbes: A very short introduction. England: Oxford University Press. (2002). Read More