Rocco D’Ambrosca: 02/23/2010
In his book, “Leviathan”, Thomas Hobbes argues that the natural state of man is a state of war. Hobbes argues repeatedly that in a state of nature, which is a state without an established government or commonwealth, man is in a state of war; where every man fights for his own survival at the peril of the other and himself. It will be shown that Hobbes’s view of man’s basic nature is intrinsically wrong; that man’s true nature is that of cooperative community in competition with other communities and is not a constant war of every individual vs individual as argued by Hobbes.
It must first be stated, that Hobbes aims to create a sociopolitical philosophy based on a scientific and rational account of man’s natural psychological nature. He wants to frame things in terms of their inner mechanical workings saying, “what is the heart, but a spring; and the nerves, but so many strings; and the joints, but so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body”, as an example of his planned mentality and approach. Hobbes with this mindset, attempts to understand and assert the inner workings of man’s mind so that he can come to know how man would act in a state of nature.
Hobbes believes that in a state of nature all men are equal saying, “when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he.”; and that, “from this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends.” Hobbes argues that because of this apparent equality, “if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies”, and will, “endeavour to destroy or subdue one another.” Hobbes would be correct in all of this if it wasn’t for his false assumption that in a state of nature man is an isolated island with no inherent ties to any other.
What Hobbes fails to account for, in his analysis of man in a state of nature, is that man is a social creature. Man does not have claws or sharp teeth. Man’s defense mechanism and survival depends upon his rational mind and ability to communicate through language with other men. In a state of nature, man is not an individual in a war against every other. In a state of nature, before existing conceptions of government, man is a member of at the very least a family, and most commonly a tribe or some other type of small community. Hobbes apparently makes some blind assertion as if man is birthed from the womb of the earth and not his mother. If the state of nature truly was as Hobbes believes, our species would never have come to be; as our species would have become extinct through infanticide as our mother’s killed and ate us for fear of starvation or to defend her resources from being taken by the new child.
Hobbes assumes that in the past, early man lived without a common power, and that without this, “power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.” Hobbes is neglecting the now known fact that early man was essentially the same as modern primates in that we lived in groups and functioned as a unified whole for the sake of our mutual survival. Hobbes is very quick to compare man to an animal when in a state of nature, but it seems he is guilty of assuming all the negative traits of animals and none of the positive. Of course man has a killer instinct and a strong inclination for self-preservation, just as any other creature. But, man is also loving and protective of those he considers family, just as many other mammals do, including our close family of primates. If Hobbes is to be basing his sociopolitical argument on the true nature and mechanics of man, he cannot blindly ignore the unavoidable instinctual love of a parent for its child and vice versa.
Hobbes attempts to defend his view with existing examples of his time saying, “the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small families, the concord whereof dependeth on natural lust, have no government at all, and live at this day in that brutish manner.” Here Hobbes is guilty of ignorance in what can be nothing other than the typical superiority complex of arrogance that so many Europeans had in relation to indigenous peoples. Whether Hobbes is referring to the Aztecs, Incans, or Mayans, he is absolutely wrong when he says they have no government. All tribal societies are extremely similar to European monarchy with the tribal chief as the supreme ruler or king. These tribes behave no more brutally in time of war than any European power; but still it is not a war of all against all, but community vs community.
Even in the earliest of times someone was in charge, even if it was a father in charge of his wife and children. As a species, man naturally bands together for mutual protection in fear of the possibility of a state of war. Hobbes argues that in a state of nature there is the compulsory state of war with nothing being just or unjust; that, “the notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” Hobbes believes that, “justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude.” Here Hobbes indirectly admits the greatest flaw in his argument. Man is never alone, he is always in some type of community. Hobbes vision of the state of nature only exists if man believes he is free of consequence. But since man always lives in community, he is never free of consequence and therefore the state of nature as Hobbes saw it never exists or for that matter never existed. Even within the communities of primates, the group will shun and shame those who violate the codes and expectations of the whole. It is this same sense of fear of reprisal that governs man within a governmentally controlled state, small tribal community, or family.
Hobbes in a sense is correct in his belief that a commonwealth or government must be established to save man from his warring nature and allow cooperation so that man as a whole may reach his highest potential. However, the basis for his argument has been shown to be wrongly assumed. Man is very much aware of his potential and that of the other as well. It is for this reason that man, just as many other creatures, bands together in groups for mutual protection and survival. Hobbes vision of the Leviathan is simply an evolved version of the established community government inherent within a family or early tribal community. Social rules and laws that govern communities and government is simply a naturally evolved trait of man as a species, to go along with our highly evolved minds and use of language. It is true that man functions best under established authority and laws, but this always occurs naturally and has always occurred for as long as man has existed in all his forms of evolution. Hobbes argument that the state of nature is a state of war is therefore incorrect. Just as it is today and always has been, the state of nature for man is a state of cooperative community in competition with other communities. It doesn’t matter if it is a family vs family, tribe vs tribe, state vs state, nation vs nation, continent vs continent, or the future potential of world against world. In the end, Hobbes’s view of man’s basic nature is intrinsically wrong, and his call for the Leviathan only partially correct; being fulfilled today in many ways by the United Nations, an organization dedicated to ending all war between nations. This eventual end of national war increases the focus on to the constant ever present domestic war, between the state and the people, as the citizens’ rights and liberties are constantly threatened by the size and power of the state. This greater stability, allowing the free trade and competition of cooperative communities in competition with other communities, without the destructive forces of war, is essentially maintained by the free association of individuals working naturally together for mutual gain, not the overbearing totalitarian force of government.
RoccoJoe.com 