Transcript Aquinas on Law (2) -

PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals
Thomas Hobbes - 1588-1679
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
(1)
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Life:
Born of low-class parents
Outstanding in school
Went to Oxford
Became tutor/secretary to various aristocratic households
[including the later Charles II]
Spent various lengthy periods in Europe
Lived through the English Civil Wars
Published Leviathan in 1651
Nearly caught up in Parliamentary witch-hunt
publications prohibited as of 1660
Good-humoured, witty, generous, and kindly, by reports
(2)
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals (3)
Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651)
The science of Man: Tough-Mindedness
Like Machiavelli, Hobbes is interested in
• (a) true premises that can be verified by observation - No wishful thinking
here, please!
•
(b) Rigorous deduction - No sloppy reasoning either.
•
His model is Geometry: let’s get clear and true general starting-points, and
justify everything by deduction from those.
He wants politics to be a “science”
[This was the age of the rise of scientific thinking....]
[Can politics be a science? An interesting question!
[But maybe that doesn’t matter: even if it can’t, maybe we can find sound
principles, anyway - good reasons in the political realm.]
•
•
•
•
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals (4)
•
1. Variability:
•
•
•
Appetites and Aversions are Variable
both (1) in same Individual; and (2) between different ones
[Note: But REASON is NOT]
•
•
Value: “whatsoever is the object of any man’s Appetite or Desire; that is it, which he for his part
calleth Good” (Nothing is “simply and absolutely so”)
•
•
•
e.g., Value of a man = his Price (what would be given for the use of his Power”): and therefore is not
absolute
Value is always a relation between individuals and other individuals (and/or objects)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Therefore: -> No Common Rule of Good and Evil from the nature of the objects themselves
[pace Aristotle]
--> rules of good and evil come either from
a) the Individual [no Common-wealth), or
b) the Government (“Person that representeth Common-wealth”)
c) or an Arbitrator “whom men disagreeing shall by consent set up, and make his sentence the Rule
thereof.”
[Q: does b = c??]
Note: Here Hobbes moves from value to Moral Rules. They are not the same!
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(5)
[Notes on some stuff not in our anthology (first 5 chapters of Leviathan)]
(a) a “materialist” account of sensation
- Hobbes claims that sensations are just “motions”
- the question here is - well, so what?
[the difficult and interesting question whether they are can be left to one side.
Hobbes appeals only to the familiar evidence of commonsense experience; whether that
is also explicable in “material” terms is not obviously relevant.
(b) “Of Speech”: “truth consisteth in the right ordering of names in our
affirmations”
This is a puzzling doctrine, on the face of it it sounds as though all we need to do to know the truth is to put our words together in the
right way!
- but of course, if the “right way” is the way that corresponds to the facts out there, then
we’ll need to do a lot more homework than that!
--> Clarity is indeed a matter of “putting words in the right order” - but clarity is one
thing, truth is another.
[These are both sideshows - unlike what some scholars think...
We will pay no further attention to them here.]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(6)
2. Rationality
•
•
•
•
The point of action: satisfy Desire (to achieve what one values)
Hobbes’ usage (seems identical with contemporary mainstream view): Rationality
consists in ordering one’s actions so as to maximize expected utility =
(1) Utility of the result, if it comes about
multiplied by
(2) Probability of result, given the action under consideration
•
•
•
•
Expected Utility = Net Gain [or loss]
[= Net Pleasure] = [pleasure - pain] = [Gain - Loss]
(stated in hedonistic terms, which may or may not apply...)
Crucial: Rationality is always a matter of the the gain in terms of the values of the
individual doing the deliberating
•
--> That is the crucial feature of Political Liberalism ....
•
Deliberation consists in appraising one’s situation with a view to rational behavior as
previously defined
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
•
•
(7)
Felicity (happiness)
no such thing as perpetual Tranquillity there is No Summum Bonum
[because?] “Life itself is but Motion”
•
Felicity is a “continual progress of the desire, from one object to another -- not
to enjoy once only - but to assure for ever, the way of his future desire.”
•
“The voluntary actions of all men, tend to the procuring and the assuring
of a contented life”
•
•
- -> there is a General inclination of all mankind for power:
“a perpetual and restless desire of Power after power, that ceaseth only in
Death”
(“-- because he cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he hath
present, without the acquisition of more”)
•
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(8)
Power (a note)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In saying “ there is a General inclination of all mankind for power” what kind of “power” is meant?
Distinguish:
(a) Compulsive (coercive) Power: power to compel others, by force, to do what
they otherwise wouldn’t
(b) Productive power: to bring about something which people (the agent
himself, or others) like, and so would be willing to buy (more generally, they
would voluntarily seek the products)
In seeking “felicity”, which do we necessarily want?
Answer: (b)
What about (a)? That is less clear. But, Yes - if you don’t trust other people...
That’s what State of Nature discussions will bring up.... [Hobbes’ claim is that
in the S of N, you can’t trust anyone!]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(9)
Conflict
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“Competition of Riches, Honour, Command, or other power”
More generally: A is “in conflict with” B iff, if A gets what A wants, then B
does not get what B wants.
i.e., those particular ends are incompatible - they can’t both be realized
Hobbes says: Conflict “inclineth to Contention, Enmity, and War:
Because “the way of one Competitor is to kill, subdue, supplant, or repel
the other”
[This sounds much too strong. Many competitions are severely limited with
respect to the methods allowed in them, e.g., all competitive games; and the
commercial market]
important distinctions among competitions:
3.1 The Zero-Sum Game: A’s outcome + B’s outcome = 0
-> More for A = Less for B
This must be contrasted with:
3.2 Positive-Sum Games [see next p.]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(10)
3.2 Positive-Sum Games
There is a possible Gain in net value from playing these
3 cases to distinguish:
(1) both gain
(2) one gains and nobody loses [= “Pareto” improvement]
(3) one gains more than the other loses. (= net positive utilitarian sum)
[Note that (3) requires “interpersonal comparison of utilities”
[in those, we are claiming that person A has gained more, or less, than B: “2
units of good for A, and 5 for B”.
- this is a highly debatable (and much-debated) idea
But (1) and (2) do not require such comparisons. All estimations for them can
be within each agent’s own utilities - no interpersonal comparison.
[note that we can say that “A gained on the deal and B lost” - here we compare
their present situations with their previous ones.]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(11)
•
•
•
•
•
•
“Arts of Peace” [Values enabling Positive-Sum Interactions]
Desire of Knowledge [A’s knowledge doesn’t mean B’s ignorance]
Cooperative building [a house for A doesn’t mean No house for B]
Navigation
Arts
Letters
Society [e.g., parties, meetings, public encounters]
•
•
•
•
Hobbes’ claim: these values “inclineth men to obey a common Power”
- Is he right about that?
It’s crucial whether he is!
- And also, what kind of common power..
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(12)
The “State of Nature”
[or “the Natural Condition of Mankind” (?)]
• 1. Definitions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A Distinction:
(1) ‘natural condition of mankind’ = ‘the way mankind is ‘by nature’
(2) ‘state of nature’ = state of society without government
[i.e. anarchy]
Aristotle thought that man is “by nature a political animal”
Hobbes apparently disagrees ...
Note: He’s talking about the social state, always.
Robinson Crusoe isn’t where it’s at!
The Question: would the “natural state of man” be anarchy? Or are we, so
to say, born into the State?
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(13)
The “State of Nature”
[or “the Natural Condition of Mankind” (?)]
Re this question (would the “natural state of man” be anarchy? Or are we, so
to say, born into the State?) Hobbes seems to think that primitive societies are anarchic.
He may be right!
- But we may regard this as a thought experiment: what would happen if there
were no government?
-
That’s what matters: for if things would necessarily be much worse if that happened,
-
Hobbes has his case made!
[But he was generally wrong about what primitive anarchies are like ...
Anthropologists believe that they are predominantly peaceable]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
(14)
Two Ideas of ‘state of nature’ [or, Anarchy]
• 1. political state of nature
•
•
= condition of man with no government
i.e., “The Stateless State”
• 2. moral state of nature
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
= Condition of mankind with no morality
i.e., The Amoral condition)
- no conscience, no recognition of any moral principles or restraints.
Note: Hobbes' politically-conceived State of Nature is also, in his view, a moral state of
nature, but it is not defined as such.
Note: these are not exclusive alternatives. They are logically independent. Are they really
independent?
Hobbes thinks not: he thinks that PSN [Political S of N] --> MSN [moral s of n]
[that is: that if government were disestablished, then morality wouldn’t cut it: things
would degenerate into what he claims is an awful condition]
- whether he’s right about that may be the most important single question of
political philosophy
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
(15)
-- Why consider this? - especially if no place is ever anarchic?
• answer: Scientific method:
•
•
•
•
•
- Let’s compare how things would be without government with how they would
be with it.
- If we can prove it would be better, then we’ve got it made!]
Hobbes proposes to prove that government is justified by showing what would
happen if we didn’t have it.
And what he thinks would happen is: things would be AWFUL!
Let’s look at the argument
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
•
(16)
Why the State of Nature will be a State of War
Equal ability -> Equal Hope of attaining Ends
• Three principal causes of quarrel:
•
•
•
1. Competition
-> “if two men desire and cannot both enjoy a thing, they become enemies; and
endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another”
-> if one plant, sow, or build, others may probably be expected to come
prepared to deprive him of the fruit of his labour, and his life, or liberty. And
the Invader again is in the like danger of another.
•
•
•
•
2. Diffidence (fear): -> This gives rise to Anticipation
“ - no more than his own conservation requires.
[The only good defense is a good offense...]
•
3. “Glory” (desire for Reputation: Makes men use of Violence for “trifles” - a
word, a smile, an opinion, a reflection in their Kindred, Friends, Nation ...
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(17)
Hobbes’s Theory about man in the S of N
[note: his theory - not his definition]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Five characteristics of People in the State of Nature:
1. [practical] Rationality (as maximal realization of our values).
2. Equality (> of vulnerability: “The weakest hath enough strength to kill
the strongest”)
3. Scarcity. > Nature doesn't give us everything we want
> But this is in principle ameliorable - e.g. by cooperation
4. Nonaltruism: we don't necessarily love people in general
> They prefer themselves and some few loved ones
> people will "invade and despoil" others if it came to a conflict
5. Amorality
> No natural conscience -morality is artificial
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(18)
Why do these lead to “war”?
- goods are in short supply [3]
- no one has any scruples [5]
- nor any affection for most others [4]
- no trust - so, offense may be the best defense [1]
- everyone knows that everyone else is the enemy [2]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(19)
The “War of All against All”
•
•
•
Claim: During the time men live without a common Power to keep them all
in awe, they are in that condition which is called War - of every man, against
every man
(War, consists not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto,
when there is no assurance to the contrary)
>> All other time is Peace (nothing fancier needed)
The “Payoff” of the War: “.. no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is
uncertain; no Culture of the Earth, 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.”
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
•
•
•
-
(20)
Status of S of N ideas: Was there ever such a time? Hobbes mentions
1) “the savage people in many places of America”
2) >> “except the government of small Families - the concord whereof depends
on natural lust, not government”
3) States in their mutual relations: Kings, and Persons of Sovereign authority -their Forts, Garrisons, and Guns - ; and continual Spies upon their neighbours
[(1) turns out to be problematic and probably due to anthropological
ignorance....
But (2) and (3) are important...
The general question: Can human societies be peaceable without
government?
Some distinctions ..... [recall Introductory slides ... ->
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(21)
[reminder:] Basic Elements for Political Analysis
People Organisms; Minds; sets of Interests and
Abilities
* Society People interacting
> Individuative sense: “a” Society is a collection connected by
interaction: Every member interacts with some other members
Association a group whose members
(1) deliberately and voluntarily associate
(2) for a purpose
Community its members “commune with” other members, feel a sense of
common values, group identity
Nation
Community with an aspiration to be a Political unit
* State
Politically organized society: society with a Government
Government Agency in a society with power to make and enforce laws
Law
Coercively enforceable directive over the whole society
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(22)
Implications of WAAA [war of all against all] for Justice
•
•
•
Claimed Result: nothing can be Unjust in the S of N
‘The Notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice, have there no place”
No common Power -> no Law; no Law -> no Injustice
•
•
Force, and Fraud - in war, “the two Cardinal virtues”
“Justice and injustice are not Faculties of the Body or Mind”
•
•
Implications of No Justice:
-> No Propriety, no Dominion, no Mine and Thine - “but only that to be
every man’s that he can get, for so long, as he can keep it”
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(23)
Hobbes’ methodology is individualistic
- Question: are people individualistic?
- or do they have “ties” to others?
- Hobbes allows family ties [united by “natural lust”, not reason]
- - he doesn’t seem to think much of national ties or social ties
Is this a mistake, or a bias??
- arguably not. He notes international anarchy, e.g.
- There are lots of wars among tribes, nations, etc.
Would more Individualism make for more war? Or less??
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(24)
The “RIGHT OF NATURE”
• This is the Liberty to use one’s own power
• (= To use one’s own Judgement (own Reasons re “aptest means”)
• > “for the preservation of his own Nature” (Life)
NOTE: Is there an assumption that longevity is all that matters?
[a] maybe not
[b] There’d better not be - for it would conflict with too many facts
- e.g., smoking, race-car driving, climbing mountains - or suicide-bombers...
•
•
LIBERTY = absence of external Impediments (which take away part of one’s
power to do what he would; but cannot hinder him from using the power left him,
according as his judgment, and reason shall dictate)
Question: can the “right of nature” literally be a right?
•
•
note: don’t confuse this with the right of self-defense..
We’ll get to that...
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
•
•
•
(25)
The “RIGHT OF NATURE” (2)
Question: Can the “right of nature” be a right?
[answer: No! We must distinguish ‘de facto’ (“of the fact”) and ‘de jure’ (“of
the law”)
‘Having a right’ is a normative (moral/legal) status:
‘A has the right to do x’ = others are morally required to let A do x’ (= it
would be wrong for those others to prevent A’s doing x)
• [and as Hobbes notes, “Obligation, and Liberty in one and the same matter are
inconsistent”]
• In the State of Nature, by definition, there are no Laws
• - so nothing is normative .. no requirements, no duties ...
• Thus it’s nonsense to say that we literally have as a right what Hobbes says we
have in the thesis of the “right of nature”
• Therefore, we have NO RIGHTS in that condition
--> That is exactly what’s wrong with it!
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(26)
Hobbes’ Theory of Natural Law (the “Laws of Nature”):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
>> Fear of Death, Desire of commodious living, and Hope by their Industry to
obtain them motivate Peace
>> Reason suggesteth convenient Articles of peace called the Laws of Nature
Definition: LAW OF NATURE: A General Rule of Reason, by which one is
forbidden to do what destroys (or subverts the means of preserving), or omit
what promotes, one’s life
Note: by ‘life’ here Hobbes should mean ‘best life’. A Law of Nature is a
generalization about how to Maximize one’s Utility.
Maximizing longevity for its own sake isn’t where it’s at.
Problem: this isn’t “digital”, it’s analogue..
That is: it isn’t, Life or No-Life.
It’s the Life(s) I prefer versus the life(s) I less prefer
- does that matter? We’ll see.....
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(27)
Hobbes’ Theory of Natural Law:
First Law of Nature
• [Hobbes says this is both the “first” in order, and the “fundamental”
law - meaning that all the others follow from the first]
• The Law:
• “That every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as far as he has hope of
obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use,
all helps, and advantages of War.”
•
•
•
•
Two “Branches”:
(a) Seek Peace and Follow It
(b) If you can’t get it, then we have a Right of Self-Defense (i.e. we “may” use all
helps etc)
[note that ‘right’ is now de jure (normative), not just de facto (descriptive). Here Hobbes
proposes that we must convert the so-called “right of nature”, in its purely first-personal
form, in which it has no interpersonal authority, into a rule that does have such authority]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(28)
Hobbes’ Theory of Natural Law:
• Derivation of the Law of Nature:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(1) S of N is a State of War, in which
(2) every one is governed by his own Reason (by definition, there is no
external)
government; Therefore,
(3) “there is nothing he can make use of, that may not be a help unto him, in
preserving his life against his enemies”
(4) So “every man has a Right to every thing” - even
(5) to one another’s body. And
(6) everyone is roughly equal in destructive power; so,
(7) as long as this”natural Right” endures, however strong or wise, our lives
will be short and miserable.
Conclusion: it is irrational not to accept this Law of Nature
This is Hobbes’s solution to Aquinas’ problem (driving morality from facts)
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(29)
Hobbes’ Theory of Natural Law - Game Theoretic treatment
Analysis: the “state of nature” situation presents us with a “Prisoner’s Dilemma”
Illustrated in this classic story: two crooks (Al and Bob) are apprehended in the course of
committing two crimes - a little one and a big one
Penalty for the little one: 1 year in jail
Penalty for the big one: 10 years in jail
The Crown Attorney claps them in opposite ends of the local jail, and makes each a deal:
You confess (“squeal”) and if the other does not, then you get 0 years in jail
If you keep mum and the other does too, you get 1 year in jail
If you both squeal, you both get reduced penalty: 5 years in jail
If he squeals and you don’t, you get 10 years...
What do you (as a “rational criminal”) do??
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(30)
Prisoner’s dilemma: the original Story
Keep
Mum
Keep
Mum
Bob
Squeal
Bob: 1 Yr
Bob: 0 Yr
Al: 1 Yr
Al: 10 Yr
Al’s
Bob: 10 Yr
Bob: 5 Yr
Al: 0 Yr
Al: 5 Yr
Squeal
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(31)
• Prisoner’s Dilemma: More General Version
•
note: A’s outcomes are at the left in each box, B’s at the right
•
Cooperate
• Cooperate 2nd, 2nd
• Defect
•
•
•
•
•
•
1st, 4th
Defect
4th, 1st
3rd, 3rd
The “dilemma”: How will Rational Man Cooperate?
Rational Man always takes his best option
Defect always ranks higher than Cooperate!
- This is the problem haunting Hobbes (and everybody....):
how do we get to where it is better for all of us?
[= The common good!]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(32)
They
Peace
War
You : Civil Soc
You: Slave
They : Civil Soc
They: Master
Peace
You
You : Master
You : S of N
They : Slave
They: S of N
War
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(33)
Hobbes’ Theory of Natural Law
•
Second Law of Nature: The General Liberty Principle:
•
“That one be willing, when others are so too ... to lay down this right to all things; and be
contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself”
•
>> If A does not lay down this Right, then there is no Reason for B to (cites Golden Rule):
“Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them)”
•
Definition of ‘right’: To lay down a man’s Right to any thing, is to divest himself of the Liberty, of
hindering another of the benefit of his own Right
Note: Some would describe this as the “equal” liberty principle
- because we are to accept “so much liberty” as we “would allow others”
- how do you measure liberty, then?? Or do we need to?
Suppose that person A “give up his liberty” to leave the table without washing the dishes, in return for
B “givng up her liberty” to watch TV instead of making dinner...
One couple, AB, would find this very satisfactory, while another would not.
Does a measurement need to be made?
Or is it enough that they agree?
- Hobbes’s answer, I’m sure, is the latter...
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(34)
Hobbes’ Theory of Natural Law
• Third Law of Nature: “That men perform their
Covenants made”
• Note about ‘covenant’ - not just any old exchange or
agreement
• Rather, one in which there is a signficant time gap between
A’s performance and B’s performance
• When this occurs, it is in the later-performing individual’s
interest to renege
• [as in “Take the Money and Run”]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(35)
Hobbes’ Theory of Natural Law
• Law Three is the Source of Justice:
• “in this law consisteth the Fountain and Original of JUSTICE”
• 1. >> no Covenant, no transfer of Right - and every man has right
to every thing --> no actions Unjust
• 2. Covenants, where there is a fear of nonperformance on either part ..
are invalid; No Injustice until the cause of such fear is taken away
• 3. -> Therefore before the names of Just, and Unjust can have place,
there must be some coercive Power
• 4. >> which requires erection of a Commonwealth
• Justice: the constant Will of giving to every man his own.
• --> No “Own” (no Property), no Injustice
• >> No coercive Power erected, no Property
• -> Therefore (claims Hobbes) Justice Requires Government
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(36)
• Justice: When A abandons his Right, A is OBLIGED not to hinder those, to whom
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
such Right is granted. [Note: Recall that This is how we defined ‘having a right’]
“It is his DUTY, not to make void that voluntary act of his own
>> such hindrance is INJUSTICE, and INJURY”
(It is Absurdity to “contradict what one maintained in the Beginning”; and Injustice
voluntarily to undo that, which from the beginning he had voluntarily done
Needed: some voluntary and sufficient sign that one does Renounce to him that
accepteth it
These Signs are either Words only, or Actions only; or both
>> They are the “BONDS, by which men are obliged”
>> Those words have their strength, not from their own Nature, (for nothing is more
easily broken than a man’s word) but from Fear of some evil consequence upon the
rupture
All transfer of right is in consideration of some Right (or some other good ) reciprocally
transferred to himself.
“For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some
Good to himself”
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(37)
CONTRACT: mutual transferring of Right
Note Difference between
(1) transferring Right to the Thing; and (2) transferring Thing itself >
Suppose one Contractor delivers the Thing, leaving the other to perform his part at some determinate
time after - that is the COVENANT situation...
One-Way transfer of Right = GIFT
Sign of Contract: PROMISE.
Signs by Inference: “sufficiently argues the will of the Contractor”
Words alone are an insufficient sign of a Free-gift and therefore not obligatory.
In Contracts: he that promiseth only because he hath already received is to be understood as if he
intended the Right should pass: for otherwise the other would not have performed his part first
-> All Contract or Promise is equivalent to Covenant
-> All contract is obligatory.
1. He that performeth first in the case of a Contract, ... hath it as Due
2. Contract: I merit at the Contractor’s hand that he depart with his right
3. Gift: no merit that the giver should part with his right; but when he has parted with it, that it should
be mine, rather than another’s
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(38)
Hobbes: “Covenant in the condition of mere Nature, upon any reasonable
suspicion, is Void”
>> But if there be a common Power set over them both, with right and force
sufficient to compel performance; it is not Void
>> The bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger,
and other Passions, without the fear of coercive Power
>> In State of Nature, all are judges of the justness of their own fears
-> he which performeth first, does but betray himself to his enemy; contrary to
the Right (he can never abandon) of defending his life ...
- -> the law of nature does not oblige in the state of nature
(binds “in fore interno, but not in fore externo”)
-> Contracts really oblige in Civil Society (only - says Hobbes)
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(39)
>> that which could not hinder a man from promising, ought not to be admitted
as a hindrance of performing.
Contracts you Can’t Make:
Animals: Covenant with Beasts is impossible -> Animals have no rights
God: To make Covenant with God, is impossible
“Oath (to God) adds nothing to Obligation. For a Covenant, if lawful, binds in
the sight of God, without the Oath, as much as with it: if unlawful, it doesn’t
bind, even if it is confirmed with an Oath.
Morality: To Vow anything contrary to any law of Nature is in vain
Physical Laws: To promise the Impossible, is no Covenant ...
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(40)
When is the Deal Off? Men are freed two ways: by Performing; or by being Forgiven
When it’s On: >> Covenants from fear, in the condition of Nature, are obligatory
(Prisoners of war, if trusted with the payment of their Ransom, are obliged to pay it)
Earlier Covenant overrides later
A Covenant not to defend myself from force is always void
I can say this: Unless I do so, or so, kill me;
- but not: Unless I do so, or so, I will not resist you, when you come to kill me
[?]
A Covenant to accuse oneself, without assurance of pardon, is likewise invalid
The force of Words being too weak, there are in man’s nature, but two imaginable
helps to strengthen it:
1) Fear of the consequence of breaking their word
2) Pride in appearing not to need to break it
(The second is unreliable)
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(41)
•
•
Promising and Prisoner’s Dilemma, again:
2nd Party
Keep
Break
You
: 2
You: 4
Keep
They
: 2
They: 1
1st Party
You
: 1
You
: 3
Break
They
: 4
They: 3
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(42)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• about The FOOL
He “hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as Justice”
He agrees that there are Covenants; but he questioneth, whether Reason might not
recommend Injustice [Thrasymachus!]
> “I say it is not against reason. Consider that in a condition of War, for want of common
Power to keep them in awe, all are Enemies
> He which declares he thinks it reason to deceive those that help him, cannot be
received into any society, but by the error of them that receive him;
>> which errors a man cannot reasonably reckon upon as the means of his security
> if he be out of Society, he perisheth
>> if he live in Society, it’s only out of others’ ignorance
Attaining Sovereignty by Rebellion cannot reasonably be expected, but rather the
contrary; and because by gaining it so, others are taught to gain the same in like manner,
the attempt thereof is against reason
->> therefore Keeping of Covenant, is a Rule of Reason
Note how this depends on the condition of Equality of Vulnerability [#2 on slide 17]
Question: how does it apply at the one-on-one level??
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(43)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Economics:
“Whatsoever is done to a man, conformable to his own Will signified to the
doer, is no Injury to him.”
The “received view” on Commutative and Distributive Justice:
Commutative - equality of value of the things contracted for [Grotius]
Distributive - equal benefit, to men of equal merit [Aristotle...]
[Hobbes comments: “As if it were Injustice to sell dearer than we buy; or to
give more to a man than he merits.
“The value of all things contracted for, is measured by the Appetite of the
Contractors”
Economic justice:
-->> “Therefore the just value, is that which they be contented to give.”
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(44)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[Compare with Aquinas (who gets it from Aristotle)
Two sorts of business exchanges
(1) “natural and necessary” - one commodity for another, or for money needed
to buy what is in turn needed - praiseworthy, for it serves natural needs
(2) money for money, or for goods to make money - rightly condemned
trade in itself has “a certain quality of baseness” - “does not of its own nature
involve an honorable or necessary end”
So profit is wrong?
Who’s right - Aquinas or Hobbes?
Answer: Hobbes.
Because profit is mutual advantage via mutual agreement.
Aquinas’ personal vendetta against usury is unfounded ...
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
(45)
Fourth Law of Nature: Gratitude: That a man which receiveth Benefit
from another of mere Grace, Endeavour that he which giveth it, have no
reasonable cause to repent him of his good will.
•
•
[or: Don’t bite the hand that feeds you!
or: don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg!
•
>> For no man giveth, but with intention of Good to himself; Gift is
Voluntary; if men see they shall be frustrated, there will be no beginning of
benevolence, or trust
•
Breach of this Law is Ingratitude
•
•
Note that this is reason “commanding” us
No one can command gratitude ...
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
•
•
•
•
(46)
Fifth Law of Nature: Compleasance: That every man strive to accommodate
himself to the rest
Men are diverse in their Affections; so also, a man that ... will strive to retain
those things which to himself are superfluous, and to others necessary; and for
the stubbornness of his Passions, cannot be corrected, is to be left, or cast out of
Society, as cumbersome thereunto.
Thus regarding Helping the Poor:
“Everyone does what is necessary for his conservation. He that shall oppose
himself against it, for things superfluous, is guilty of the war that
thereupon is to follow and therefore doth that, which is contrary to the
fundamental Law of Nature, which commandeth to seek Peace.”
The observers of this Law, may be called SOCIABLE. The contrary, Stubborn,
Insociable
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
(47)
[The theory behind compleasance is probably Co-ordination:
• Co-ordination
B
•
•
•
•
•
•
x
x
1, 1
y
0, 0
y
0, 0
1, 1
A
Here nobody has an interest in going for y if others do x; (e.g. Rule of the
Road) - but which shall it be? One good answer is: if people are already doing
x, then you should do it too....]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
•
•
•
•
•
(48)
Sixth Law of Nature: to pardon the offences past of them that repenting, desire
it.
Seventh:Look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good
to follow.
->> Whereby we are forbidden to inflict punishment with any other design,
than for correction of the offender, or direction of others.
>> Cruelty is against the Law of Nature [Note: First statement of
Deterrence/Protection Theory of Punishment]
8th Law: [Against Hate Literature] All signs of hatred, or contempt, provoke
to fight >> The law is:That no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture,
declare Hatred, or Contempt of another.
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(49)
•
Property
•
Law Twelve: That such things as cannot be divided, be enjoyed in Common, if it can be; and if the
quantity of the thing permit, without Stint; otherwise Proportionally to the number of them that have
Right. - [Vice: Inequity]
Law Thirteen: If it can neither be divided, nor enjoyed in common, then the Entire Right; or else
(making the use alternate,) the First Possession, be determined by Lot
For equal distribution is of the Law of Nature; and other means of equal distribution cannot be
imagined.
And therefore those things which cannot be enjoyed in common, nor divided, ought to be adjudged
to the First Possessor; and in some cases to the First-Borne, as acquired by Lot
[Questions: Why does “equal distribution” of what cannot be divided, imply first possession?
And: what is the basis for equal distribution?]
But he later says: “To the Sovereign belongeth (8) the whole power of prescribing the Rules, whereby
every man may know, what Goods he may enjoy and what Actions he may do, without being molested
by any of his fellow Subjects: i.e., of Property [=propriety]
Law Fourteen: They that are at controversy, submit their Right to the judgment of an Arbitrator. (And
no man is a fit Arbitrator in his own cause [If one gets “greater profit, honour, or pleasure” due to
victory of one party, then “no man can be obliged to trust him.”]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PS 226 Hobbes Notes
(50)
• Summary on Laws of Nature:
• In one easy sum: Do not that to another, which thou
would not have done to thy self
• [note: consider the case of differing tastes: I don’t like
to be tickled, but she does ...
• [has to be interpreted at the most general level:
• “Don’t do to people what they don’t like, unless they
have themselves violated that very precept...”
• [“The sum whereof consisteth in forbidding us to be our
own judges.” (Elements of Law, 2.5.2)
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals (51)
• The Laws of Nature are Immutable and Eternal:
• for Injustice, Ingratitude, Arrogance, Pride, Inequity, Acceptation of
persons, and the rest, can never be made lawful. For it can never be that
War shall preserve life, and Peace destroy it.
• Note:
• >> The “Laws of Nature” are improperly called ‘laws’:
• - they are but Conclusions, or Theorems concerning what conduceth to
the conservation and defence of themselves;
• whereas Law, properly is the word of him, that by right hath command
over others.
• But yet if we consider the same Theorems, as delivered, in the word of
God, that by right commandeth all things; then are they properly called
Laws [reminding us of Grotius...]
• [?]
•
•
•
•
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals (52)
The Rational Status of the “Laws of Nature”:
They oblige in foro interno (All must desire they should
take place); but in foro externo; - that is, to the putting them
in act, not always.
>> He that endeavoureth their performance, fulfilleth
them; and he that fulfilleth the Law, is Just.
The “Sucker”: For he that should be modest, and tractable,
and perform all he promises, in such time, and place, where
no man else should do so, should but procure his own
certain ruin, contrary to the ground of all Laws of Nature,
which tend to Nature’s preservation.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals (53)
Queries re the Rational Status of the “Laws of Nature”:
Our question: are you just being a sucker if you’re moral?
Why should we cooperate in PD’s?
Two answers:
a) this is a straight deliverance of Reason
[Hobbes can’t say this]
b) because we’re nice
[Hobbes can’t say that either]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals (54)
The Rational Status of the “Laws of Nature”:
Why should we cooperate in PD’s? (continued)
A Third Answer: Iteration ..
Suppose A and B play PD repeatedly
[and they don’t know when the last play is]
A’s defection now invites B’s defection at the next round
Each round you play, you lose more...
Cooperation is then rational
(This is the “folk theorem” on PD
•
•
•
•
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals (55)
The Rational Status of the “Laws of Nature”:
Note on Iteration:
In small communities (≤ 200) people are likely to do
repeated play with the same persons
In large, not...
Chain connection: everybody plays with somebody who
plays with somebody else, who ...
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals (56)
The Rational Status of the “Laws of Nature”:
What’s rational is to form a conscientious aversion to
noncooperation
That’s not the same as cooperation simply being rational
Enforcement: people should (and do) cuss each other out
(or worse) for defecting.
How morality works: everyone is disposed to criticize all
who don’t conform to the fundamental idea
This matters and has some effect
- how much?
That’s the big question!
- so now we move to Hobbes’ political theory ....
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 2 - Government
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(57)
•
Game plan:
Hobbes thinks he has established our need for a Sovereign
(i.e., The State)
Has he?
Here’s what it depends on:
(a) is the State of Nature as bad as he thinks?
(b) even if it is, is the cure Government?
(bi): might morality be enough? Or is it possible
(bii) even if we need government, do we need just any government? Or do
we get to be choosy??
[When we get to Locke, we’ll see argument for Limited government...]
•
Meanwhile, here’s how Hobbes proceeds.
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals (58)
Hobbes’ Argument for government [first version]
• 1. The State of Nature would be terrible for everyone
• 2. The problem is people running on their own individual
senses of what to do
•
•
2.1 Those senses are altogether pre-moral and always are directed toward
maximizing the individual’s gain no matter how
2.2. man in the S of N faces a Prisoner’s Dilemma, and because of the above
will go for the Suboptimal outcome (ie. War)
• 3. Therefore, we need a united central agency that can
overpower any subset of the people i.e., the Sovereign
• 4. Hence, The State ....
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals
(59)
Hobbes’ Argument for government [second version]
• 1. The State of Nature would be terrible for everyone
• 2. The problem is people running on their own individual senses of
what to do
•
•
2.1 individuals trying to come to agreement will be stymied because promises without
the sword are “but words” and without force
2.2. man in the S of N faces a Prisoner’s Dilemma, and because of the above will go for
the Suboptimal outcome (ie. War): we won’t be able to rely on people keeping
agreements. Therefore we won’t make any such agreements, seeing that they are useless
• 3. Therefore, we need a united central agency that can compel people to
keep their agreements.
• 4. To do this, the enforcer needs to be able to overpower any subset of
the people i.e., the Sovereign
• Hence, The State .... [to which we move next]
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [60]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1. Representation theory:
PERSON, is he, whose words or actions are considered, either as his own, or as representing the
words or actions of another man ..
(1) his own: Natural Person;
(2) another: Artificial person.
.No man is obliged by a Covenant, whereof he is not Author or beside the Authority he gave...
Multitude naturally is not One, but Many; if the Representative consist of many men, the voice of the
greater number, must be considered as the voice of them all.
-> [Hmmm... can this really work?? Here’s his argument:]
The final Cause, End, or Design of men (who naturally love Liberty, and Dominion over others,) in
the introduction of that restraint upon themselves called Commonwealths is the foresight of their
own preservation, and of a more contented life
The Laws of Nature are contrary to our natural Passions. And Covenants, without the Sword, are
but Words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.
Therefore notwithstanding the Laws of Nature -If there is not great enough Power erected for our security, then every man will, and may lawfully
rely on his own strength and art
However great a Multitude; if their actions be directed according to their particular appetites, they
can expect no protection, neither against a Common enemy, nor one another ...
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [61]
• 2. Creating the Commonwealth
• (A) By Institution:
• “The only way to erect such a Common Power is, to confer all their
power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men,
to reduce all their Wills unto one Will
• ->> to appoint one Man, or Assembly of men, to bear their Person;
• > This is more than Concord; it is a real Unity of them all
• >> made by Covenant of every man with every man
• in such manner, as if every man should say to every man, I authorize
and give up my Right of Governing my self, to this Man, or to this
Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him,
and Authorise all his Actions in like manner. This done, the Multitude
so united in one Person, is called a COMMONWEALTH ... This is the
Generation of that great LEVIATHAN
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [62]
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 2. Creating the Commonwealth (continued)
Problem: But what if we never signed?
Hobbes’ Claim:
“Every one, as well he that Voted for it, as he that Voted against it,
shall Authorise all the Actions and Judgements, of that Man, or
Assembly of men, in the same manner, as if they were his own”
[Is this high-handed? - If not, why not??]
Presumed answer: because we are under desperate necessity
- a good answer -- if we are!
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [63]
•
•
2. Creating the Commonwealth
(continued)
(B) By Acquisition: acquired by Force ...
•
> differeth from Sovereignty by Institution, only in this, that men who choose
their Sovereign, do it for fear of one another, and not of him whom they
Institute; but in this case, they subject themselves, to him they are afraid
of.
•
But the Rights, and Consequences of Sovereignty, are the same in both....
•
•
Question: Why are they? Why doesn’t it matter which method is used??
[A further question: Given the “natural equality” of men, is this method
possible?]
[We know it happens: but that is not government from a State of Nature it’s revolution, change from one government to another...]
•
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [64]
•
2. Creating the Commonwealth
•
Problems:
• re (1): we won’t get unanimity. Why will we accept
Hobbes’ claim that a majority is enough?
• re (2) Why are coerced agreements legitimate?
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [65]
•
2. Creating the Commonwealth
• Is the “contract” coerced?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Coercion: A Coerces B into doing x, if:
1) B doesn’t want to do x in the status quo
2) A forcibly alters B’s options such that
3) doing x becomes better for B than the others
[e.g. you hand over your wallet instead of getting shot]
But x is still a step down.
So: coercers worsen people’s situations
- precisely what the Law of Nature forbids....
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [66]
•
2. Creating the Commonwealth
• Is the “contract” coerced?
•
Argument: no it isn’t, because signing it leaves us better off than if we stay
in the State of Nature
• Claim: S of N is worse than any non-SN
•
•
•
[Is that true?
-> If it is, is any sort of state justified??
- e.g. Nazis?? [see Fascism, mentioned a bit later..]
•
•
That’s to think about ....!
Hobbes aims to justify “the” state. ...
•
just any state?? [Apparently.....]
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [67]
• Rights of Sovereigns
• > From this Institution of a Commonwealth are derived
all the Rights, and Faculties of the Sovereign
• 1. they are not obliged by former Covenant and cannot
lawfully make a new Covenant without his permission
• 2. there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part
of the Sovereign and
• consequently none of his Subjects can be freed from his
Subjection
• [Meaning, the Law reaches to everyone, forever after ...]
• Hobbes’ reason, of course, is that we deal with each other,
not with the Sovereign himself...
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [68]
• Rights of Sovereigns
• Hobbes’ reason, of course, is that we deal with each other, not with the
Sovereign himself...
-> IMPORTANT: The “Contract” is of each person with each other
person - not with the Government.
[remember, the government doesn’t exist yet...]
-> the “contract” is strictly notional. So, “where” does it take place?
[answer: in the heart and mind of each person ...]
• 3. “he that dissented must now consent with the rest .... ”
• 4. because every Subject is by this Institution Author of all the Actions
of the Sovereign, -- [Therefore, The sovereign can do No Wrong]
• [note: But he can be “wicked”]
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [69]
• Rights of Sovereigns (continued)
• 5. no man that hath Sovereign power can justly be put to
death; and he (or it) has the Right to Judge the means of
Peace and Defence;
• 6. to be Judge of what Opinions and Doctrines are
averse, and what conducing to Peace [cf. The
• property: a separate slide, to emphasize this ...
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [70]
• Rights of Sovereigns (continued)
• 7. the whole power of prescribing the Rules, whereby every man
may know, what Goods he may enjoy and what Actions he may do,
without being molested by any of his fellow Subjects
• [i.e., of Propriety]
• >> These Rules of Propriety and of Good, Evil, Lawful and
Unlawful in the actions of Subjects, are the Civil Laws ...
• [Immensely important. Does the sovereign get to exercise arbitrary
power over us all??]
• 8. Judicature (hearing and deciding all Controversies, re Law or Fact)
• 9. making War, and Peace with other Nations ... [and of] choosing of
all Counsellors, Ministers, Magistrates, and Officers ... of Rewarding
and Punishing according to the Laws ...
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [71]
•
•
“The power of all together is the same with the Sovereign’s power” [thus it
is nonsense to say that he has less than the people taken all together..]
“But a man may here object, that the Condition of Subjects is very
miserable; as being obnoxious to the lusts, and other irregular passions of
him, or them, that have so unlimited a Power in their hands.”
•
•
Hobbes replies:
>> the estate of Man can never be without some incommodity or other; and
that the greatest, that in any form of Government can possibly happen to
the people in general, is scarce sensible, in respect of the miseries, and
horrible calamities, that accompany a Civil War
•
[is it a good answer??]
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [72]
•
•
Liberty and Necessity
- are Consistent. Because every act of man’s will, and every desire, and
inclination proceedeth from some cause ... they proceed from necessity.
•
Political Liberty: But as men have made Artificial Chains, called Civil Laws: it is in
relation to those Bonds only it is, that I am to speak now of the Liberty of Subjects
If we take Liberty in the proper sense: freedom from chains, and prison, it is
absurd for men to clamor for the Liberty they so manifestly enjoy
[Note: This brings up the question of “measuring” Liberty. Recall LN2: that we claim
for ourselves only “so much” liberty as we are willng to allow others against us]
•
•
•
•
>> The Liberty of a Subject, lyeth therefore only in those things, which the
Sovereign hath permitted: such as is the Liberty to buy, and sell, and otherwise
contract with one another; to choose their own abode, their own diet, their own trade of
life, and institute their children as they themselves think fit; and the like.
[note Hobbes’ examples: but plenty of governments have proscribed precisely those
things!]
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [73]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
XXIV: Of the Nutrition and Procreation of a Commonwealth
The Nutrition of a Commonwealth consisteth in the Plenty, and Distribution of
Materials conducing to Life
The Distribution of the Materials of this Nourishment ... in a word, Property; belongeth
in all kinds of Commonwealth to the Sovereign
The Sovereign assigneth to every man a portion of land, according as he, and not
according as any Subject, or any number of them, shall judge agreeable to Equity, and
the Common Good. ...
>> The owner has a right to exclude all other subjects from the use of them; and not to
exclude their Sovereign
... For seeing the Sovereign ... is understood to do nothing but in order to the common
Peace and Security, this Distribution of lands, is to be understood as done in order to the
same ... [???]
-- also to assign in what places, and for what commodities, the Subject shall traffic
abroad, ..
It is ... necessary, that men distribute that which they can spare, and transfer their
property, mutually one to another, by exchange and mutual contract.
Therefore it belongeth to the Commonwealth .. to appoint in what manner, all
kinds of contract between Subjects ...are to be made...
[question: why is this last bit “necessary”?]
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [74]
•
•
•
•
•
4. The Law of Nature, and the Civil Law, contain each other, and are of equal extent.
For the Laws of Nature, which consist in Equity, Justice, gratitude, and the other moral
Virtues ... are not properly Laws, but qualities that dispose men to peace, and to
obedience. When a Commonwealth is once settled, then are they actually Laws, and
not before; as being then the commands of the Commonwealth
8. Law is a Command .. only to those, who can take notice of it [Note: This is
Aquinas’ “promulgation” condition]
(-->> Not for fools, children, madmen, or animals)
It is therefore necessary, to consider in this place, what arguments, and signs be
sufficient for the knowledge of what is the Law; that is to say, what is the will of the
Sovereign
[Note: Hobbes assumes that the Sovereign does will the Law of Nature.
• - But - what if he doesn’t??]
•
•
•
The Law of Nature obliges all Subjects without exception, though not written nor
otherwise published.
Every one takes knowledge of it from his own reason, so it must be “agreeable to the
reason of all men”
-> i.e., the L of N doesn’t need publishing [Aquinas: “written on the hearts of all”]
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [75]
•
•
•
•
•
•
Not the Letter, but the Meaning (= authentic Interpretation) of the Law, that
counts. So the interpretors have to be those that the Sovereign shall appoint.
[MISTAKE? Sovereign will always warp them. You need an independent
Judiciary.
(-- But is this really possible??]
Therefore all the Sentences of precedent Judges that have ever been,
cannot all together make a Law contrary to natural Equity:
>> “Nor any Examples of former Judges, can warrant an unreasonable
Sentence, or discharge the present Judge of the trouble of studying what is
Equity ... from the principles of his own natural reason. “
For example, ‘Tis against the Law of Nature, To punish the Innocent; and
Innocent is he that acquitteth himself Judicially
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [76]
• The Case of the Innocent but Legally Convicted Victim:
• -> I say therefore, that there is no place in the world, where this
can be an interpretation of a Law of Nature. For he that judged it
first, judged unjustly; and no Injustice can be a pattern of Judgment to
succeeding Judges. ...
• [OK: where does this leave the Sovereign is he’s a Hitler or Stalin??]
• Again, the word of the Law, commandeth to Judge according to
the Evidence ... neither shall the Letter of the Law be followed to
the condemnation of the Innocent, nor shall the Judge give Sentence
against the evidence of the Witnesses ...
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [77]
• The Good Judge will have:
• 1. Equity: A right understanding of that Principal Law of
Nature called Equity
• 2. Contempt of unnecessary Riches, and Preferments.
• 3. Dispassion: won’t be moved by fear, anger, hatred,
love, and compassion.
• 4. Patience to hear; diligent attention in hearing; and
memory to retain, digest, and apply what he hath heard...
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [78]
• Hobbes on Punishment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Before the Institution of Commonwealth, every man had a right to
every thing >> this is the foundation of that right of Punishing
-> The Subjects did not give the Sovereign that right; but only in laying down
theirs, strengthened him to use his own...
From the definition of Punishment, I infer
1. neither private revenges, nor injuries of private men, can properly be styled
Punishment; because they proceed not from public Authority.
2. that to be neglected, and unpreferred by the public favor, is not a
Punishment; because no new evil is thereby on any man Inflicted
[i.e., Harm = Worsening]
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [79]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3. Evil inflicted without precedent public condemnation, is not to be styled by
the name of Punishment; but of an hostile act ...
5. all evil which is inflicted without intention or possibility of disposing the
Delinquent or (by his example) other men, to obey the laws, is not
Punishment, but an act of hostility ...
7. Harm of Punishment must EXCEED benefit of crime
- otherwise it is “rather the Price ... than the Punishment”
Because it is of the nature of Punishment, to have for end, the disposing of
men to obey the Laws; if it be less than the benefit of the transgression, it
attaineth not [that end]
8. If there be a greater Punishment inflicted than prescribed by Law, the excess
is not Punishment, but an act of hostility..
9. Harm inflicted for a Fact done before there was Law that forbade it, is not
Punishment, but an act of Hostility ..
[obvious question: moral law? Or government-originated law??]
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [80]
• The safety of the People, requireth
• - that Justice be equally administered to all degrees of People; - the
rich, the mighty, the poor and obscure, etc.
• Inequality of Subjects, proceedeth from the Acts of Sovereign Power;
and therefore has no place in the presence of the Sovereign
• The honour of great Persons, is to be valued for their beneficence,
and the aids they give to men of inferior rank
• - which entails equal taxes as well .....
• [which are “the wages, due to them that hold the Public Sword”]
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [81]
• Social Security:
• And whereas many men, by accident unevitable, become unable to
maintain themselves by their labour; they ought not to be left to the
Charity of private persons; but to be provided for by the Laws of the
Commonwealth.
• For as it is Uncharitableness in any man, to neglect the impotent;
so it is in the Sovereign, to expose them to the hazard of such
uncertain Charity.
• But for such as have strong bodies, the case if otherwise; they are
to be forced to work [“workfare”]
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [82]
[does this sound like Canada??!:]
• >> there ought to be such Laws as may encourage all manner of Arts;
as Navigation, Agriculture, Fishing, and all manner of manufacture
that requires labour.
• [Hobbes on the Population Problem:]
• “The multitude of poor, and yet strong people still increasing, they are
to be transplanted into Countries not sufficiently inhabited; where
nevertheless, they are not to exterminate those they find there ... And
when all the world is overcharged with Inhabitants, then the last
remedy of all is War ...
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [83]
•
The OFFICE of the Sovereign .. consisteth in the end, for which he was trusted
with the Sovereign Power, namely the procuration of the Safety of the people;
to which he is obliged by the Law of Nature.
•
But by Safety here, is not meant a bare Preservation, but also
all other Contentments of life, which every man by lawful Industry, without
danger or hurt to the Commonwealth, shall acquire to himself.
And this is intended should be done by a general Providence, contained in
public Instruction, both of Doctrine, and Example;
and in the making, and executing of good Laws
To the care of the Sovereign, belongeth the making of Good Laws.
•
•
•
• But what is a good Law?
•
By a Good Law, I mean not a Just Law: for
• no Law can be Unjust.
•
[!]
The Law is made by the Sovereign Power, and all that is done by such Power,
is warranted, and owned by every one ....
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [84]
• “Good Laws”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A good Law is that which is Needful, for the Good of the People, and withal
Perspicuous.
[criterion of ‘needful’: we’d be worse off without it...
[but who is “we”? What if it makes some people off at the expense of
others?]
[Recall the First Law of Nature: We are to use methods of war only to
defend against the warlike acts of others...]
The use of Laws .. is not to bind the People from all Voluntary actions;
- but to direct and keep them in such a motion, as not to hurt themselves by
their own impetuous desires, rashness or indiscretion
..And therefore a Law that is not Needful, having not the true End of a
Law, is not Good.
[“Letter” vs. “Spirit”]:
The Perspicuity consisteth not in the words but “a Declaration of the Causes
and Motives for which it was made”
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [85]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[Good Applications of Good Laws - ]
The case of the Red Light with No Traffic
The purpose is safety (got by coordination)
In this case, safety is not furthered by waiting
So: should the officer lurking behind a billboard arrest the person who runs the
red light under these conditions?
So: No. For....
It is “not needful”
“The Office of the Sovereign is to make a right application of punishments
and rewards...
and in general “to apply his Rewards so there may arise from them benefit to
the Commonwealth”
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [86]
•
•
•
•
International Matters:
Law of Nations is the same thing as the Law of Nature
(an interesting idea which he doesn’t explore further: “I need not say anything
in this place...”)
[this somewhat conflicts with his citing international context as providing an
example of the state of nature, back in ch. xiii]
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [87]
• Conclusions on Hobbes
•
•
Good stuff:
1. thesis that normative politics is founded on individual practical reason
•
2. Starting with a state-of-nature idea
•
•
•
3. His picture of the “circumstances of justice”: many independent, pretty
rational beings of comparable powers in a situation of rectifiable scarcity,
who are not born with general affection for others nor general conscience
about them
[Why is this part of the “good stuff”?
- Because these are highly plausible assumptions that assume very little.]
•
4. The Laws of Nature. All derived from a first Law prohibiting violence.
•
5. forward-looking on punishment, and on encouragement of cooperation
as the key to social progress
•
6. His list of what Sovereigns should do (as opposed to what they
supposedly have a Right to do)
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [88]
• Conclusions on Hobbes
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hobbes - the “Bad stuff”
1. His argument for the Sovereign
(i) If his depiction of the S of N were correct, we could never escape from it
[because:
a) govt “by institution” is impossible if men cannot cooperate at all
b) govt “by acquisition” [conquest] is impossible if we are literally equally
vulnerable
•
(ii) If (a) is rejected and we accept that the Laws of Nature do have some
“foro externo” force, then the need for government is called into question
•
•
•
The claim: any government is better than no government
becomes implausible given (i) (cf. Locke......)
The claim that government is necessary for the purposes he claims becomes
uncertain..... (given ii)
Hobbes Notes 2 - Commonwealth [89]
•
•
2. His depiction of the rights of Sovereigns - note that we are supposed to
retain the right to self-defense.
Why not a few more, too?
•
3. His claim that in a commonwealth, justice = the will of the Sovereign which he wiggles about...
•
4. His apparent failure to assess the power of moral influence, teaching, and
so forth, which is largely responsible for his view that the political state of
nature would be one of “war”
[which, again, prepares us for Locke ...]
•
Hobbes Appendix: - Fascism [90]
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interlude: Mussolini’s “Fascism”
** Anti-individualistic
** “a nation” = “a few people express the conscience and will of the nation
**” ethnically molded” etc
[uh, huh..]
** It is the State that creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a
people made aware of their moral unity”
• [uh, huh..]
** non-materialistic (and so, opposed to marxism -• [note: earlier, he had been a bigtime marxist...]
• ** not just the guardian
• ** nor organizer of wealth
• ** but “a spiritual and moral fact in itself” - the “custodian and transmitter and spirit of
the people”
• note how:
• ** the growth of empire is a manifestation of vitality”
• [So, go and beat up on the ethiopians, who look like an easy target...]
Hobbes Appendix: - Fascism [91]
• So: All power to the State!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mussolini: “the State
(1) Authority which “ confers legal form and spiritual value on individual wills”
(2) Power - including “beyond its own frontiers”
- i.e., imperialism. Why? Well, because it is
“proof of the universal character of the decisions necessary to insure its development.”
Universal: [the fascist state not only beats up on its own people but on everyone else,
too!]
Anti-Egoism: M. preaches against “egoism”.
Everyone is to devote himself to --- what?
-> If nobody should think anything of themselves, doesn’t that imply that everyone is
worthless? [Or do we “find ourselves in the State”??]
Nonrational Motives: Fascism thrives on social discontent
-> people are easily led to believe that they need a “Leader” who can “set the country
straight.” That is the stuff of demagogues, old and new.
Anti-Liberalism: Mussolini sees the liberal state as a do-nothing state - a bunch of
wimps, mere accountants, “recording results” rather than acting.
[He’s right! Liberalism has the government doing little or nothing. Individual people
have energies and interests of their own. We don’t need a State to tell us what to do...]
Hobbes Appendix: - Fascism [92]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Continual War:
-- aggressive war against other (and weaker) states
-- and against its own people
- such as the Jews
(The rest of the population got its come-uppance in other ways, such as getting
killed at the front in war)
National “Strength”
Liberal politics enabled the U.S. - a nation of wimps! - to become by far the
strongest industrial state in the world - enabling it to beat the fascists in war.
America was strong because Americans did not worship “strength” - did not
work “for America.”
If push comes to shove, wealthier states can indeed make war, as the American
example demonstrated.
What’s the moral?
Too many people apparently think that what we need is ...
more fascism..
Hobbes Appendix: - Fascism [93]
•
•
This is political conservatism:
The view that the state may/should be used to make people better by criteria
that they don’t themselves share
•
•
•
Questions:
1) why did/do people ever buy this stuff??
2) Could Hobbes be serious in claiming this this is OK??
•
Did the people in Nazi Germany really have a duty to help the government
murder all those Jews?
•
On to John Locke ....