A state of nature is a hypothetical state of being within a society that defines such a way that particular community behaves within itself. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes proclaimed that, “A state of nature is a state of war.” By this, Hobbes means that every human being, given the absence of government or a contract between other members of a society, would act in a war-like state in which each man would be motivated by desires derived solely with the intention of maximizing his own utility. He claims that acts of kindness, charity and benevolence are always actions that the performer believes will result in a beneficial consequence for himself. Hobbes’ basis for this argument lies in the concept of reason. He writes that human beings are logical creatures and unlike other animals, use reason to make all of their decisions (Leviathan 2, 17).
A law dictated by reason that will benefit a man is called a law of nature. Hobbes lists three fundamental laws of nature that promote the primary motivation of men, which is self-preservation. Hobbes believes that all men are equal insofar as that the weakest man has the power to kill the strongest man. Thus given that every man is vulnerable to any other man, all men have a very strong desire to escape the state where killing each other is acceptable, escape the state of nature.
This can be done, simply put by endeavoring peace which coupled with not making war except to defend oneself, is the first law of nature (Leviathan 1, 14).
The Essay on Man vs. Nature
The natural world is superior to all of humanity. Without reason, land controls us and influences our identities. Through mankind’s power we try to suppress the natural world but never truly succeed. “Progressive Insanities of a Pioneer” by Margaret Attwood, “The Bull Moose” by Alden Nowlan and “Not Just a Platform for my Dance” are comparable poems in a way that all three deal with a theme of the ...
The second law of nature is derived directly from the first. It insists that man lay down his right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men liberty against himself,” (Leviathan 1, 14).
Essentially, in the state of nature, a man has a right to all things. By following this second law of nature, a man gives up certain rights in hopes that other men do the same in pursuit of peace with one another.
This mutual transference of rights is called a contract, or covenant. By adhering to the contract, a man gives up whatever rights set forth by the contract. However, man cannot give up his right to defend himself, for the entire purpose of entering the contract is self-preservation. Once the contract is formed, one must obey Hobbes’ third law of nature, which is to adhere to the contract (Leviathan 1, 14).
It follows the laws of reason, Hobbes argues for man to keep his promises if he hopes to persevere over the long run. The most highly organized social network is called a commonwealth, a web of contracts between members of a community, which according to Hobbes is synonymous to the formation of an entirely new person of which each individual is but a working part (Leviathan 2, 17).
Hence the title of Hobbes’ most famous work, Leviathan, which is a sea monster that lives off of the “sea of individuals.” And who is to rule this commonwealth? Hobbes answers that there needs to be a sovereign, to judge and enforce the laws of the contracts (Leviathan 2, 18).
This sovereign, who is either chosen by the creators of the covenant (institution) or who forces people under his rule (acquisition) has the final rule in enforcing the laws. Essentially what Hobbes is saying by all of this is that human beings are not fit to govern themselves. The notion of the social contract serves the purpose of saving us from ourselves because, according to Hobbes, humans are not able to do that on their own. The idea of acting on behalf of the common good is, while comprehensible in theory, impossible for humans to execute. In criticizing Hobbes argument, it is extremely important to understand that the very theory of the state of nature is purely arbitrary.
Such a state has never existed. While Hobbes states that the idea of a state of nature is hypothetical, a certain validity must be denied in the absence of evidence. His entire argument rests on the assumption of truth in the state of nature. All things proceeding from it have to be taken with the faith of his initial assessment of human nature. While it does not have to be blind faith, as Hobbes does provide certain reason for his argument, the notion of man being a self-serving entity is something which requires a precise degree of accuracy.
The Essay on The Relationship Between Man And Nature
People valued passenger pigeons and were a part of many aspects of human life and culture. Passenger pigeons populations were estimated at five billion individuals in North America during the 19th century. People ate their fatty meat, they used the feathers of passenger pigeons to stuff pillows and mattresses, people also hunted them for sport. In the end though, the last passenger pigeon in ...
Good deeds, Hobbes says are performed by a man in order to benefit primarily himself and others secondarily. This statement is true insofar as that a man will only perform a good deed if it satisfies a need of his. However, at times it brings a man pleasure in helping out a fellow man. Sometimes, there is a need among humans to assist the species as a whole, which while still remaining an act of selfishness as the human performing the act is a member of the species, is not in fact an act of war. There are acts of goodness performed by a man which are not meant to relieve guilt, or gain the favor of another, but simply because a man will feel better by helping another. This is an act based on maximizing one’s own utility, even if it is merely in his own mind.
To those for whom morality and helping the greater good is important, altruistic acts exist even it is within the category of selfish acts. Thus, Hobbes’ theory concerning actions based solely on self-serving motivations is not truly complete. The main critics of Thomas Hobbes’ work are most often those with a more optimistic view of human nature. However, if one is to really look at a man’s actions in depth, a self-serving motivation can always be found. The main problem with Hobbes’ claims is that he does not account for the more Darwinian perspective that helping one’s own species survive is at the same time a selfish and un war-like act. Thus his conclusion that without a governing body, we are essentially at war with one another is not completely true as years of evolution can help disprove.
Works Cited Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Prometheus Books. Amherst, NY.
1988.
