Hellow friend today we will read about the nature of state and human and social contract.
State of nature and Human nature
Hobbes’ political theory is derived from his psychology which in turn is based on his
mechanistic conception of nature. According to Hobbes’, prior to the formation of commonwealth
or state, there existed state nature. Men in the state of nature were essentially selfish and
egoistic. Contrary to Aristotle and medieval thinkers, who saw human nature as innately social,
Hobbes viewed human beings as isolate egoistic, self interested and seeking society as a means to
their ends. Unlike most defenders of absolute government, who start out with the gospel for
inequality, Hobbes argues that men were naturally equal in mid. This basic equality of men is a
principal source of trouble and misery. Men have in general equal faculties; they also cherish like
hope and desires. It they desire the same thing, which they cannot both obtain, they become
enemies and seek to destroy each other. In the state of nature, therefore men are in a condition
of war, of every man against every man and Hobbes adds that the nature of the war consists not
in actual fighting “but in the known disposition there to” force and fraud the two cardinal virtues of
war , flourish in this atmosphere of perpetual fear and strife fed by three Psychological causes:
competition, diffidence and glory. In such a condition, there is no place for industry, agriculture,
navigation , trade; there are no arts or letter; no society , no amenities of civilised living, and worst of
all, there is continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short’.
According to Hobbes, there can be no distinction between right and wrong in the state of
nature. Any conception of right and wrong presupposes a standard of conduct, a common law to
judge that conduct and a common law giver. Again there is no distinction between just and unjust in
the state of nature, for where there is no common superior, there is no law and where there is no lawthere can be no justice.
Hobbes asserted that every human action, feeling and thought was ultimately physically
determined. Though the human being was dependent on his life, on the motion of his body he was
able to some extent, to control those motions and make his life. This he did by natural means, ie, by
relying partly on natural passions and partly on reason. It was reason, according to Hobbes, that
distinguished human beings from animals. Reason enabled the individual to understand the
impressions that sense organs picked up from the external world, and also indicated an awareness
of one’s natural passions. He mentioned a long list of passions, but the special emphasis was on
fear, in particular the fear of death, and on the universal and perfectly justified quest for power. ``
Hobbes contended that life was nothing but a perpetual and relentless desire and pursuit of
power, a prerequisite for felicity. He pointed out that one ought to recognise a general inclination of
all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire for power after power, that ceased only in Death.
Consequently, individuals were averse to death, especially accidental death for it marked the end of
attainment of all felicity. Power was sought for it represented a means of acquiring those things that
made life worthwhile and contented. The fact that all individuals sought power distinguished Hobbes
from Machiavelli. Hobbes observed that human beings stood nothing to gain from the company of
others except pain. A permanent rivalry existed between human beings for honour, riches and
authority, with life as nothing but potential warfare, a war of every one against the others.
Hobbes human relationships is as those of mutual suspicion and hostility. The only rule that
individuals acknowledged was that one would take if one had the power and retain as long as one
could. In this “ill condition” there was no law , no justice, no notion of right and wrong . Thus
according to Hobbes, the principal cause of conflict was within the nature of man. As mentioned
earlier, competition, diffidence and glory were the three reasons that were quarrel and rivalry
among individuals. “The first, make the men invade for Gain; the second, for safety and the third,
for reputation. The first use violence, to make them selves Masters of other men’s persons…. the
second to defend them; the third, for trifles………………”
In a state of nature, individuals enjoyed complete liberty, including a natural right to
everything, even to one another’s bodies. The natural laws were not laws or commands.
Subsequently, Hobbes argued that the laws of nature were also proper laws, since they were
delivered in the word of God. These laws were counsels of prudence. Natural laws in Hobbes’
theory did not mean eternal justice, perfect morality or standards to judge existing laws as the Stoics
did.
It is clear from above observations that what is central to Hobbes’ psychology is not
hedonism but search for power and glory, riches and honour. Power is, of course, the central
feature of Hobbes’ system of ideas. While recognising the importance of power in Hobbesian
political ideas, Michael Oakeshott wrote thus: “Man is a complex of power; desire is the desire for
power, pride is illusion about power, honour opinion about power life the unremitting exercise of
power and death the absolute loss of power “
Thus Hobbes in his well known work, ‘The Leviathan’ has presented a bleak and dismal
picture of the condition of men in the state of nature. However, Hobbes does not extensively
discuss the question of whether men have actually ever lived in such a state of nature. He noted
that the savage people in many places of America have no government and live in the brutish and
nasty manner. John Rawls thinks that Hobbes’ state of nature is the classic example of the
“prisoner’s dilemma” of game – theoretic analysis.
Social contract.
After presenting a horrible and dismal picture of the state of nature, Hobbes proceeds to discuss
how man can escape from such an intolerably miserable condition. ‘In the second part of the
Leviathan, Hobbes creates his commonwealth by giving new orientation to the old idea of the social
contract, a contract between ruler and ruled. Hobbes thus builds his commonwealth. ‘the only
way to erect such a common power as may be able to defend them ( i.e, men) from the invasion of
foreigners and the injuries of one another. ….. is to confer all their power and strength upon one
Man or upon one Assembly of men that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices unto one will
the sovereign himself stands outside the covenant. He is a beneficiary of the contract, but not a
party to it. Each man makes an agreement with every man in the following manner’
“I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man or to this assembly of man on the
condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This is the
generation of that great Leviathan or rather ( to speak more reverently) of that mortal god, to which we owe under the immortal God, our peace and defence.’ It is clear from the above statement that
no individual can surrender his right to self-preservation.
In order to secure their escape from the state of nature, individuals renounce their natural rights to
all things, and institute by common consent, a third person, or body of persons, conferring all rights
of him for enforcing the contract by using force and keeping them all and authorising all his action as
their own. According to Hobbes, the social contract institutes an office which may be held by one
man or an assembly of men but which is distinct from the natural person of the holder. By the
transfer of the natural rights to each man, the recipient becomes their representative an is invested
with authority to deliberate, will and act in place of the deliberation will and action of each separate
man. The multitude of conflicting wills is replaced, not by a common will but a single representative
will.
According to William Ebenstein Hobbesian, social contract is made between subjects and
subjects and not between subjects and sovereign. The sovereign is not a party to the contract, but
its creation. This contract is a unilateral contract in which the contracting individuals obligate
themselves to the resultant sovereign. Then again it is an irrevocable contract owe the individuals
contract themselves into a civil society, they cannot annual the contract. They cannot repudiate their
obligation. Repudiation of a contract is an act of public will of the individuals which they had
surrounded at the time of the original contract. Thus Hobbesian contract is a social and not
governmental contract. In this conception of social contact, the sovereign cannot commit any
breach of covenant because he is not a party to it. By participating in the creation of the sovereign
the subject is anther of all the ruler does and must therefore not complain of any of the rulers’
actions, because thus he would be deliberately doing injury to himself. Hobbes concedes that the
sovereign may commit iniquity but not “injustice or injury in the proper signification”, because he
cannot by definition, act illegally; he determines what is just and unjust and his action is law.
So this is all about it thanks for reading.
State of nature and Human nature
Hobbes’ political theory is derived from his psychology which in turn is based on his
mechanistic conception of nature. According to Hobbes’, prior to the formation of commonwealth
or state, there existed state nature. Men in the state of nature were essentially selfish and
egoistic. Contrary to Aristotle and medieval thinkers, who saw human nature as innately social,
Hobbes viewed human beings as isolate egoistic, self interested and seeking society as a means to
their ends. Unlike most defenders of absolute government, who start out with the gospel for
inequality, Hobbes argues that men were naturally equal in mid. This basic equality of men is a
principal source of trouble and misery. Men have in general equal faculties; they also cherish like
hope and desires. It they desire the same thing, which they cannot both obtain, they become
enemies and seek to destroy each other. In the state of nature, therefore men are in a condition
of war, of every man against every man and Hobbes adds that the nature of the war consists not
in actual fighting “but in the known disposition there to” force and fraud the two cardinal virtues of
war , flourish in this atmosphere of perpetual fear and strife fed by three Psychological causes:
competition, diffidence and glory. In such a condition, there is no place for industry, agriculture,
navigation , trade; there are no arts or letter; no society , no amenities of civilised living, and worst of
all, there is continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short’.
According to Hobbes, there can be no distinction between right and wrong in the state of
nature. Any conception of right and wrong presupposes a standard of conduct, a common law to
judge that conduct and a common law giver. Again there is no distinction between just and unjust in
the state of nature, for where there is no common superior, there is no law and where there is no lawthere can be no justice.
Hobbes asserted that every human action, feeling and thought was ultimately physically
determined. Though the human being was dependent on his life, on the motion of his body he was
able to some extent, to control those motions and make his life. This he did by natural means, ie, by
relying partly on natural passions and partly on reason. It was reason, according to Hobbes, that
distinguished human beings from animals. Reason enabled the individual to understand the
impressions that sense organs picked up from the external world, and also indicated an awareness
of one’s natural passions. He mentioned a long list of passions, but the special emphasis was on
fear, in particular the fear of death, and on the universal and perfectly justified quest for power. ``
Hobbes contended that life was nothing but a perpetual and relentless desire and pursuit of
power, a prerequisite for felicity. He pointed out that one ought to recognise a general inclination of
all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire for power after power, that ceased only in Death.
Consequently, individuals were averse to death, especially accidental death for it marked the end of
attainment of all felicity. Power was sought for it represented a means of acquiring those things that
made life worthwhile and contented. The fact that all individuals sought power distinguished Hobbes
from Machiavelli. Hobbes observed that human beings stood nothing to gain from the company of
others except pain. A permanent rivalry existed between human beings for honour, riches and
authority, with life as nothing but potential warfare, a war of every one against the others.
Hobbes human relationships is as those of mutual suspicion and hostility. The only rule that
individuals acknowledged was that one would take if one had the power and retain as long as one
could. In this “ill condition” there was no law , no justice, no notion of right and wrong . Thus
according to Hobbes, the principal cause of conflict was within the nature of man. As mentioned
earlier, competition, diffidence and glory were the three reasons that were quarrel and rivalry
among individuals. “The first, make the men invade for Gain; the second, for safety and the third,
for reputation. The first use violence, to make them selves Masters of other men’s persons…. the
second to defend them; the third, for trifles………………”
In a state of nature, individuals enjoyed complete liberty, including a natural right to
everything, even to one another’s bodies. The natural laws were not laws or commands.
Subsequently, Hobbes argued that the laws of nature were also proper laws, since they were
delivered in the word of God. These laws were counsels of prudence. Natural laws in Hobbes’
theory did not mean eternal justice, perfect morality or standards to judge existing laws as the Stoics
did.
It is clear from above observations that what is central to Hobbes’ psychology is not
hedonism but search for power and glory, riches and honour. Power is, of course, the central
feature of Hobbes’ system of ideas. While recognising the importance of power in Hobbesian
political ideas, Michael Oakeshott wrote thus: “Man is a complex of power; desire is the desire for
power, pride is illusion about power, honour opinion about power life the unremitting exercise of
power and death the absolute loss of power “
Thus Hobbes in his well known work, ‘The Leviathan’ has presented a bleak and dismal
picture of the condition of men in the state of nature. However, Hobbes does not extensively
discuss the question of whether men have actually ever lived in such a state of nature. He noted
that the savage people in many places of America have no government and live in the brutish and
nasty manner. John Rawls thinks that Hobbes’ state of nature is the classic example of the
“prisoner’s dilemma” of game – theoretic analysis.
Social contract.
After presenting a horrible and dismal picture of the state of nature, Hobbes proceeds to discuss
how man can escape from such an intolerably miserable condition. ‘In the second part of the
Leviathan, Hobbes creates his commonwealth by giving new orientation to the old idea of the social
contract, a contract between ruler and ruled. Hobbes thus builds his commonwealth. ‘the only
way to erect such a common power as may be able to defend them ( i.e, men) from the invasion of
foreigners and the injuries of one another. ….. is to confer all their power and strength upon one
Man or upon one Assembly of men that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices unto one will
the sovereign himself stands outside the covenant. He is a beneficiary of the contract, but not a
party to it. Each man makes an agreement with every man in the following manner’
“I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man or to this assembly of man on the
condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This is the
generation of that great Leviathan or rather ( to speak more reverently) of that mortal god, to which we owe under the immortal God, our peace and defence.’ It is clear from the above statement that
no individual can surrender his right to self-preservation.
In order to secure their escape from the state of nature, individuals renounce their natural rights to
all things, and institute by common consent, a third person, or body of persons, conferring all rights
of him for enforcing the contract by using force and keeping them all and authorising all his action as
their own. According to Hobbes, the social contract institutes an office which may be held by one
man or an assembly of men but which is distinct from the natural person of the holder. By the
transfer of the natural rights to each man, the recipient becomes their representative an is invested
with authority to deliberate, will and act in place of the deliberation will and action of each separate
man. The multitude of conflicting wills is replaced, not by a common will but a single representative
will.
According to William Ebenstein Hobbesian, social contract is made between subjects and
subjects and not between subjects and sovereign. The sovereign is not a party to the contract, but
its creation. This contract is a unilateral contract in which the contracting individuals obligate
themselves to the resultant sovereign. Then again it is an irrevocable contract owe the individuals
contract themselves into a civil society, they cannot annual the contract. They cannot repudiate their
obligation. Repudiation of a contract is an act of public will of the individuals which they had
surrounded at the time of the original contract. Thus Hobbesian contract is a social and not
governmental contract. In this conception of social contact, the sovereign cannot commit any
breach of covenant because he is not a party to it. By participating in the creation of the sovereign
the subject is anther of all the ruler does and must therefore not complain of any of the rulers’
actions, because thus he would be deliberately doing injury to himself. Hobbes concedes that the
sovereign may commit iniquity but not “injustice or injury in the proper signification”, because he
cannot by definition, act illegally; he determines what is just and unjust and his action is law.
So this is all about it thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment