Great Works of Western Philosophy - Essay Example

Great Works of Western Philosophy Hobbes The Leviathan by Hobbes is the most accountable dis by the which bases the most talked about political as well as ethical theories by Hobbes. In the book, Hobbes is most concerned with his conception of the ‘state of nature’. According to Hobbes, the state of nature is best perceived as the ungoverned state, where there are no laws, particularly, no moral laws. In other words, it is the state of the condition of mankind in which there are no laws. Hobbes discusses a number of characteristics of the state of nature in Leviathan. There are five elemental characteristics that can be considered as the central features of the state of nature: Approximate equality: Every individual possesses equal amount of vulnerability, which further indicates that anyone of us can be killed or injured by anyone of us. Self or egoism: Self is the epicenter of the desires of men. That means, we are controlled by our own desires and our egoism causes us to do all the activities. Non-altruism: Men is selfish by nature. We can even give in to violence if it satisfies our needs. Relative scarcity: Nature does not provide us unlimitedly. That indicates the considerable amount of scarcity around us, which makes men profit from taking what others already have. Rationality: Men are rationalistic, therefore, they know things going around them. This makes them calculate the best means for their wellness. Hobbes states that a state of War is inevitable provided these are the main characteristic features of the state of nature. The equal state of vulnerability among mankind makes all of us capable of harming each other, and this leads to the increase of negative vibes and fear. Moreover, relative scarcity directs us to competition. Now competition along with the absence of moral values can lead us further to a possibility of invasion and destruction of other people. Then there is rationality which further leads to a generalized notion of fear, so we are scared of everyone as all of mankind are in same situation. In this way, everyone is dragged into the scenario of violence, and this is what Hobbes describes as a state of war with a continual likelihood of violence. Further, Hobbes tries to associate the conception of the state of nature with that of a sovereign authority. The five main qualities mentioned earlier make the state involve in no cooperation among its mankind. In Hobbes’ own words, “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” But as there is no law or government, the question of just or unjust does not value much here. There is no common power to enforce any kind of law, which means there are no moral laws as well. That strongly indicates that men are independent with the right to use their own power to preserve themselves. But does it mean that there is a need of a sovereign authority? The conception of a sovereign is defined in general by the quality of common or mutual agreement and understanding among a group of like-minded people. But if men have the right to use their own power, then what kind of ‘right’ will the term actually be holding? So the appropriate denotation of the term ‘right’ has to be determined. But then, the concept of ‘right’ in this context also contains the notions of ‘ought’ and ‘duty’. In other words, Hobbes points out that we cannot blame people for doing anything, whether we consider those activities to be right or wrong. Because, everyone does things with a perfectly good reason for himself or herself, the reason in terms of his or her own interest. In that sense, the state of nature refers to a version of egoism. But if everything is justified and right, that means there won’t be anything wrong or any violation of rights. Now this can be a little more complicated. If there is no violation of rights, then we do not need to have any rights at all. Hobbes further explores his argumentation on the definition of ‘right’ along with the illustration of the Prisoner’s Dilemma situation. Hobbes argues that there has to be a mutual agreement among mankind with regard to the authentication of rights and wrongs, just and unjust. And this agreement will be in the interest of all mankind. Hobbes calls it the ‘laws of nature’, the general rules found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do things destructive of his life or of others. As Hobbes thinks, the rational men will agree to respect other people’s lives and property, provided that others are willing to do the same. This is where the notion of a ‘sovereign’ is important in order to enforce that mutual agreement. Hobbes argues that without a sovereign, mankind is in a Prisoner’s Dilemma situation. Within the sovereign, we are asked to sacrifice some of our liberty for the benefit of others, particularly, the liberty to ‘invade and destroy’ others. However, this sacrifice can be considered rational only when other people also agree to divest themselves of their similar liberty. And this is how the concept of sovereign is established and developed. The biggest concern is to set up the sovereign. The set up of the sovereign can be achieved only by mutual agreement among mankind in general. In terms of validating these agreements, Hobbes points out that morality can also be an agreement if the moral values are in our mutual interest to agree on. Therefore, the essence of the agreements should be the mutuality of interests, as argued by Hobbes. At the same time, the rationalistic approach also counts a lot, because, mutually agreeing on a sovereign involves rationalistic mechanism to determine the authentication of the agreements in favor of the sovereign. It is in our best interest to decide with the help of this mechanism that we not only should consider self-interest on individual level, but also on a communal level where everyone has his or her consensus on it. Thus, a collective agreement is important in establishing a sovereign where everything would be based on the common interests of the entire community as one entity. This is what Hobbes explains in his Leviathan, and expects in a sovereign. The Hobbesian conception of the state of nature is not without criticism. First of all, the notion of ‘right’ requires more explanation and analysis in this argumentation. In the state of nature, Hobbes talks about rights, especially the right of nature. This is the right to use our own power to preserve ourselves. But then, what will be the definition of this ‘right’? There are several connotations related to the concept of right. The usual connotation indicates that right is something which implies duties on the parts of others. So the notion of right contains the concepts of ‘ought’ and ‘duty’. But Hobbes refuses the existence of such notions in his definition of ‘right’ as he assumes that such things are nonexistent in the state of nature. In that case, Hobbes could have elaborated a little more as to what exactly he means by the concept of ‘right’ in the state of nature. In order to set up a sovereign, we need a system of rationalistic mechanism, a mechanism that would make all of us automatically keep our mutual agreements or understandings. In this context, a question may arise whether morality is an agreement or not. Because, the rules of morality are those in our mutual interest to agree on. It is most likely that the rational men would agree to them, which is a fairly good reason for referring to them as agreements. But that would again raise another question: do we conceive of Conscience as rational or non-rational? Hobbes’ argument of the state of nature does not provide appropriate and convincing solution to resolve this issue. Reference: Cahn, Steven M. Classics of Western Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2002. Read More