Transcript PS 226 Hobbes Notes (1) - University of Waterloo
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals (1)
Thomas Hobbes - 1588-1679
QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals (2) • • • • • • • • • • • • 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
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 here, please!
verified by observation
- No wishful thinking (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. Hobbes on human nature and value 1.1. Variability :
We are born with some; others arise from experience (“trial”) We are averse to the unknown as well as to known dangers Appetites and Aversions are
Variable
both (1) in same Individual - - we are continually changing, too and (2) between different people [Note: But REASON is NOT - it is the same in everyone….]
1.2. Goodness
: “
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” [some discussion of this famous claim: (1) it seems not possible to work as a definition, simpliciter (2) it’s about what the individual
calls
good. Presumably he could be wrong?
- compare Aristotle: “every art and every action aim at some good ...”
1.3. Pleasure
, .. (or Delight) is the
appearance, or sense
Displeasure, the appearance, or sense of evil.
of Good; and Molestation or [if good is whatever we desire, then Hobbes’ idea is that its fulfillment brings pleasure to th desirer
PS 226 Hobbes Notes 1 - Morals (5) • • • • • • • • • • • • •
1.4. 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
therefore
is not absolute
for the use of his Power”): and
- Value
is always a
relation
between individuals and
other individuals
[this is economic value that he’s talking about here] (and/or objects)
1.5. Therefore: -> No Common Rule of Good and Evil themselves
[pace Aristotle]
--> rules of good and evil
must 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
from the . They are
nature of the objects
not the same!
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (6) • • • • • • • • • • • •
Sideshows: (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 that “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
thing,
truth
is indeed a matter of “putting words in the right order” - but clarity is one is another.
Note: These are both
sideshows
- unlike what some scholars think...
We will pay no further attention to them here - the lecture explains why ....]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (7) • • • • • • • • • • •
2. Rationality The point of action: to 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
(1)
Utility
expected utility
of the result, multiplied by
if
= it comes about (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 (8) • • • • • • • • • •
2.1 Felicity (happiness) Temporal:
no such thing as perpetual Tranquillity -
No such thing as a “
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
”
2.2 Power
Therefore:
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”) [that deserves thinking about …]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (9) • • • • • • • • • •
“Power” - discussion
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
they otherwise wouldn’t ” others, by force, to do what (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 Answer:
(b)
necessarily
want?
What about
(a)
? That is less clear. But, Yes - if you don’t trust other people...
Or
if you think you have a lot more power than they … [gangster philosophy]
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 (10) • • • • • • • • • •
3. Conflict
“Competition of Riches, Honour, Command, or other power”
General definition
of
interpersonal conflict
:
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 so far as the general case is concerned. 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 (11) • • • • •
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
be
within
each agent’s require such comparisons. All estimations for them can
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 (12) • • • • • •
“Arts of Peace” [= Values enabling Positive-Sum Interactions]
Desire of Knowledge [A’s knowledge doesn’t imply 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 (13) • • • • • • • • •
4. The “State of Nature” [or “Natural Condition of Mankind”] 1.
Definitions
A Distinction: (1) ‘natural condition of mankind’ = ‘the way mankind is ‘by nature’ (2a) ‘state of nature’ = state of society
without government
[i.e.
anarchy
] [note: a further idea (2b): a
moral
state of nature - will be defined below…]
Aristotle thought that man is “by nature a political animal” Hobbes apparently disagrees ...
Note: He’s talking about the
social
it’s at!
state,
always
- Robinson Crusoe isn’t where
The Question:
would
the “natural state of man” be anarchy? Or are we, so to say, born into the State?
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (14) -
The “State of Nature” [Is it “the Natural Condition of Mankind” (?)]
Re this question (would
to say, born into the State?) - Hobbes seems to think that primitive societies are the “natural state of man” be anarchy? Or are we, so
anarchic
.
-
He may be right!
But we may regard this as a
were no
government?
thought experiment
: what
would
happen if there That’s what matters: for
if things Hobbes has his case made!
would necessarily be much worse if that happened,
[But he was generally wrong about what primitive anarchies are like ...
Anthropologists believe that they are predominantly peaceable]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (15) • • • •
Two Ideas of ‘state of nature’ [or, Anarchy] 2a.
political
state of nature = condition of man with
no government
i.e., “The Stateless State”
• • • • • • • • •
2b.
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?
independent. Are they
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]
really
Note: - whether he’s right about that may be the most important single question of political philosophy
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (16) • • • • --
Why consider this? - especially if no place is ever anarchic?
answer: Scientific method
: - Let’s compare how things would be
without
be
with
it. government with how they would - 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 (17) • • • • • • • • • • •
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 (18) • • • • • • • • •
Hobbes’s
Theory
about man in the S of N [note: his
theory
-
not
his
definition]
•
Five characteristics 1.
[practical]
Rationality
of People in the State of Nature: (as maximal realization of our values).
2. Equality
the strongest”) (> of
vulnerability
: “The weakest hath enough strength to kill
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 (19) -
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 his enemy [2]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (20) • • • •
The “War of All against All” Claim
: During the time men live
without a common Power
in awe, they are in that condition which is called every man
War
to keep them all - of every man, against (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 (21) •
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 .....
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (22) • • • • • • • • • • • •
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, who interact with some members; the set of all who interact with some interactee starting with, say, individual Smith, is a “society”
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 Government Law
Politically organized
society: society with a Government Agency in a society with
power to make and enforce laws
Coercively enforceable directive over the whole society
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (23) • • • • • • • •
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
Our problem: a “society” as defined needn’t be either an association or even a community.
Hobbes thinks it will nevertheless become a State:
Politically organized
society: society with a Government
Government
– which are Agency in a society with
power to make and enforce laws
Coercively enforceable directives over the whole society –
That’s the project!
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (24) -
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??
(My guess: a lot less …)
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (25)
Implications of the War of All against All for Justice:
• • •
Claimed Result: nothing can be Unjust in the S of N
(Hobbes:) “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, are “the two Cardinal virtues” Note: “
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 (26) • This is asserted to be the
The “RIGHT OF NATURE” Liberty
to use one’s
own power
• (= To use
one’s own Judgement
preservation of his own Nature”
(one’s own Reasons re “the aptest means “for the (I.e., one’s Life) Q. What is the “life” we want to “preserve”? Distinguish: (1) Longevity, from (2) The most fulfilling (interesting, enjoyable, valuable….) life for oneself So: which does Hobbes mean?
[a] maybe not
longevity
[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 (27)
The “RIGHT OF NATURE” Question: Can the “right of nature” be a
right
? (2)
[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
have in the thesis of the “right of nature” what Hobbes says we •
Therefore, we have NO RIGHTS in that condition --> That is exactly what’s wrong with it!
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (28) • • • • • • • • •
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
what promotes, one’s life : A General Rule of Reason, by which one is forbidden to do what destroys (or subverts the means of preserving), or omit
Note: by ‘life’ here Hobbes should mean ‘best life’.
generalization about
how to Maximize one’s Utility
. A Law of Nature is a
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 (29)
Hobbes’ Theory of Natural Law: First Law of Nature:
“That every man, o
ught 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.” [Hobbes says this is both the “first” in order, and the “fundamental” law - meaning that
all the others follow from it]
It has 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
form, in which it has no interpersonal authority,
de facto
(descriptive)
.
Here Hobbes proposes that we must convert the so-called “right of nature”, in its purely first-personal
into a rule that does have such authority
]
• • • • • • • • • • PS 226 Hobbes Notes (30)
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” (5) -
even to one another’s body
. (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 (31)
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 (32)
Prisoner’s dilemma: the original Story
Keep Mum Bob Squeal Bob: 1 Yr Bob: 0 Yr Keep Mum Al: 1 Yr Al: 10 Yr Al’s Bob: 10 Yr Bob: 5 Yr Squeal Al: 0 Yr Al: 5 Yr
• • PS 226 Hobbes Notes (33)
Prisoner’s Dilemma: More General Version
note: A’s outcomes are at the left in each box, B’s at the right • •
Cooperate Defect Cooperate 2nd, 2nd 4th, 1st
• • • • • • •
Defect 1st, 4th 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 (34)
They Peace War Peace
You You : Civil Soc They : Civil Soc You: Slave They: Master
War
You : Master They : Slave You : S of N They: S of N
• • • • • • • • • • • • • PS 226 Hobbes Notes (35)
Second Law of Nature: The General Liberty Principle:
“That one be willing,
be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself” when others are so too
... to
lay down this right to all things
; and >> If A does not lay down this Right, then there is no Reason why B should (Hobbes cites The 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 “giving 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 is
the latter
... What matters is
agreement
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (36)
Hobbes’ Theory of Natural Law
•
Third Law of Nature:
Covenants made”
“
That men perform their
• Note about ‘covenant’ agreement
not
just any old exchange or • Rather, one in which there is a significant
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 (37) » Promising: Keep or Break?
A and B make an agreement:
• • •
Keep Keep
B
Break
2nd 2nd 4th, 1st
A
•
•
Break
1st, 4th 3rd, 3rd
• The one who breaks first “wins”; the other is the “sucker” ….. But if they both try to “break”, both are worse off…
- So, what does Rational Man do?
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (38) •
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
to every thing --> no actions Unjust - and every man has right • 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
there must be some coercive Power
, and
Unjust
can have place, • 4. >> which requires erection of a Commonwealth • • J
ustice: 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 (39)
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 accepteth it
voluntary and sufficient sign
that one does Renounce to him that 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 (40) 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
: whatever “sufficiently argues the will of the Contractor”
Words alone are an insufficient sign of a Free-gift
obligatory
. and
therefore not
• • • • • • • • PS 226 Hobbes Notes (41) 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 [that is: gifts are not payments for specific services rendered; but they still transfer rights, from giver to recipient]
• • • • • • • • • • • PS 226 Hobbes Notes (42)
Hobbes: “Covenan
t
suspicion, is Void” in the condition of mere Nature, upon any reasonable >> 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 (It binds “in fore interno, but not in fore externo”)
[‘fore interno’: “to a desire they take place” … ‘fore externo’: in actual action] -> Hobbes says: Contracts
really oblige
in
Civil Society only [is he right??]
• • • • • • • • PS 226 Hobbes Notes (43) >> 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. [Note: thus, “founding” obligations on
religion
is
pointless
]
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 (44)
When is the Deal Off?
Men are freed two ways: by
Performing
; or by being
Forgiven
[apart from circumstantial changes, such as a heart attack…]
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 Note: The second, Hobbes thinks, is unreliable - but that’s surely individually variable. Some people are highly reliable and take great (and justified) pride in being so …. However, others are not…. And that’s the problem!
• • PS 226 Hobbes Notes (45)
Promising and Prisoner’s Dilemma, again: 2nd Party Keep Break Keep You : 2 They : 2 You: 4 They: 1 1st Party Break You : 1 They : 4 You : 3 They: 3
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (46) • • • • • • • • • •
about The FOOL
The “fool”: “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
security as the means of his > if he be out of Society, he perisheth
>> if he live in Society, it’s only out of others’ ignorance [that is, if others
know
that you think this, you’ll be ignored, or worse …]
• • • • PS 226 Hobbes Notes (47)
contrary
; •
The FOOL, continued ….
Attaining Sovereignty by Rebellion
cannot reasonably be expected, but rather the
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
- in the case of promising, it’s
gullibility -
and this is
not [#2 on slide 17]
obviously equal …
Question: how does it apply at the one-on-one level??
[society at large supports the peaceable and cooperative. But in individual cases, there can be large local disparities of power - the man with the gun has more than the unarmed storekeeper, e.g.] Question: is there any other way to deal with this other than by instituting a pblic police force?
[possible answer: No. A further…]
private
police force might work too - or better … await
• • • • • • PS 226 Hobbes Notes (48)
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 In short: the
right
just
value, is price is the
that which they be contented to give
agreed
price (if not coerced)
.
”
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (49) • • • • • • • • • • • [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 (50)
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
benevolence, or trust ; Gift is Voluntary; if men see they shall be frustrated, there will be no beginning of • Breach of this Law is
Ingratitude
• • Note that this is
reason
No one can
command
“commanding” us gratitude ...
• • • • • • PS 226 Hobbes Notes (51)
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
thereupon is to follow
fundamental Law of Nature, which commandeth to
. He that shall oppose himself against it, for things superfluous, is guilty of the war that
and therefore doth that, which is contrary to the
seek Peace
.” The observers of this Law, may be called SOCIABLE. The contrary,
Stubborn, Insociable
[This is an extremely important passage in relation to the “welfare state” …]
• • • • • • • PS 226 Hobbes Notes (52)
[The theory behind compleasance is probably Co-ordination:
Co-ordination B
x x y
1, 1 0, 0
A
y
0, 0 1, 1 •
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 (53)
Hobbes on the administration of the Laws - forward-looking: 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. [this is relevant to the modern idea of “hate laws” ….]
• • • • • • • • PS 226 Hobbes Notes (54)
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
.
- [corresponding 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]
• • PS 226 Hobbes Notes (55)
Law Fourteen:
of an Arbitrator.
They that are at controversy, submit their Right to the judgment
(And
no man is a fit Arbitrator in his own cause
honour, or pleasure” due to victory of one party, then “no man can be obliged to trust him.”] [If one gets “greater profit, • • • • (This extremely interesting “law” needs a lot of thought. How do we decide which man is to serve as arbitrator?
One obvious answer is: the one who is
agreed to by both parties to the dispute
And they will agree on the basis of his perceived track-record on such things - Also by perception of his common sense and good will • [no small matter this, as we will see later!]
PS 226 Hobbes Notes (56) •
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 (57) •
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 (58) •
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
. • • >> H
e 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 (59)
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 (60)
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 (61)
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 (62)
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 1 - Morals (63)
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 (64)
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]