On Hobbes the Philosopher

Reading the book, The Standard Bookshelf, Great Philosophers by S.E. Frost Jr., I came across the authors view of Hobbes in his Chapter Man and the State 

  pg. 216.
Frost writes,
"The materialist, Thomas Hobbes, based his theory of the state upon the fundamental principle that man has the natural right to do anything which he pleases. The most primitive urge of all men is that of self-preservation. To accomplish this end, man may use any means he deems necessary. In this state of nature man may invade the rights of others with the  result that chaos reigns"

In this assessment of Hobbesian theory, any man can and will violate the very basic rights of another for their own gain and this is to be seen as a natural state of man. In this theory, a man who wishes to obtain land or wealth simply must be stronger than those that he wishes to obtain them from. By that it stands to reason that what Hobbes describes as rights are in fact only permissible actions or objects, since any man can come along and take them away. In a way, we live in that Hobbesian world now.

The next paragraph, "Man is, then, fundamentally a ferocious animal, one who engages in war and pillage, seeking always his own gain. But in such a state no man can be strong enough to preserve himself for long. Each man will destroy the others and he in turn will be destroyed by others."

In this part of the theory all actions are seen to only benefit the one at the expense of all others. The author makes it clear that in the Hobbesian model all men are expendable to the strongest other and in the end it shall be the strongest that survives and thrives until another rises to be stronger still.

He continues, "Thus, to escape from this inevitable end, man creates a society in which he voluntarily gives up his rights in many matters. This is a contract which men make with each other by which they give up certain rights in order to obtain others which they desire. To insure this mutual contract, men transfer power to one ruler or an assembly. After the ruler has been set up and given power, the men must obey."

The creation of "society" is done by the mergence of all interactions and individual actions of all living beings in any geographical area. What the author is trying to establish is Hobbes' inclination to the voting of given power, but then negates that by establishing the subjecting class of individual to obey this ruler. The inherent fault of modern voting is that even those that do not wish for that particular ruler or any rulers at all are subjected to the will of the majority because of some cosmic happenstance of geographical location relative to others. If one objects to those rulers or rulers in the general sense they are vilified and accused of "Utopian Idealism". The author charges that Hobbes was a monarchist, trying to defend the right and rule of the King of England. He made his theory to fit a mold of this belief.

Later in this dissection of Hobbesian theory Frost writes, "Hobbes recognizes, that at times the ruler will be unjust and will wreak hardships upon men. But they have no right to rebel. Hobbes justifies this position by holding that even at their worst, the injustices of a ruler are never so bad as the original state of man before power was given to the ruler."  

This is the mindset of those minarchist, monarchist, communists, socialists and all other forms of rule against individual secession and anarchy. Those that can give up their rights, and in turn the rights of others, for the gain of rule over them and given no form or function to remove these self locked chains are the sort this world is full of at the moment.

This theory is obvious in its practice today in our modern world. Its adherence is cast into all young people through mandatory hours of subjection to state made educational programs. This theory is not one that recognizes the inherent natural rights of man but rather forms them to be basic, aggressive and completely arbitrary to the will of the strongest man around. In nature the theory of " the strongest survive" is given leeway to man's ultimate desire without the least inclination to the fundamental rights of others. It is a theory of "you have right to what you can take and what you can keep, and you have a right to elect those that will take for you, but have no right to reduce or refuse that elected power". Seems pretty counterintuitive to a wholly moral philosophy in my personal opinion.

John Locke, philosopher, had a very different idea of the rights of man. I will detail this authors writings of Locke in a later post.

Follow The Jefferson Papers on Facebook.
Or you can follow me on Twitter.

Discussion on Human Nature

In 1956 C.E. Harris, under Wadsworth Inc, published a book titled Applying Moral Theories. 
I took some notes while reading, they will be in red italicized text.

In this work Harris writes in the chapter The Ethics of Natural Law, " How do we find out what these natural inclinations are? We might first consult psychologists, sociologists, or anthropologists. Some contemporary natural-law theorists use studies from the social sciences to defend their conclusions. However, the natural-law tradition developed before the rise of the social sciences, and a more informal method of observation was used to discover the basic human inclinations. Most natural-law theorists would maintain that these observations are still valid. We can divide the values specified by natural human inclination into two basic groups: (1) biological values, which are strongly linked with our bodies and which we share with other animals, and (2) characteristically human values, which are closely connected with our more specifically human aspects. (We will not call this second group uniquely human values because some of the inclinations that point to these values, such as the tendency to live in societies, are not unique to human beings.) We can summarize the values and the- natural inclinations that point to them as follows:
 1. Biological Values

a.  Life. From the natural inclinations that we and all other animals have to preserve our own existence, we can infer that life is good, that we have an obligation to promote our own health, and that we have the right of self- defense. Negatively, this inclination implies that murder and suicide are wrong.

Who do we owe this obligation to? If our lives are our own then who should we be holden to to determine the value of our own lives? If there is no other will than our own that we must be subjected to, the obligations to promote our own life or health do not exist. If the freedom to do these things exists, obligations to others do not exist on the theory of natural biological values.


b.     Procreation. From the natural inclination that we and all animals have to engage in sexual intercourse and to rear offspring, we can infer that procreation is a value and that we have an obligation to produce and rear children. Negatively, this inclination implies that such practices as sterilization, homosexuality, and artificial contraception are wrong.

The position to say that there is a "natural inclination to engage in sexual intercourse" is to deny the fact that some humans choose not to have children and even more that refuse to have sex, based on social or religious beliefs. Again Harris tries to objectively place value on these actions, when in life these choices would be made from a subjective value by the individuals. What Harris is trying to define is the search for personal satisfaction and pleasure, it may not have anything to do with intercourse or reproduction at all. 

Harris also tries to place an individual moral view on Homosexuality. If under his theory all humans are drawn to seek sexual pleasure he places no definition on from where this pleasure shall come from. 

His point on Sterilization needs to be taken into consideration as well. Some humans are born without the needed faculties to reproduce and other from biological or medicinal reasons are encouraged not to. But if one chooses to believe that sterilization is wrong one must continue to believe that the natural inability to conceive s inherent as well as now made possible by science.


 2. Characteristically Human Values
a.     Knowledge. From the natural tendency we have to know, including the tendency to seek knowledge of God, we can infer that knowledge is a value and that we have an obligation to pursue knowledge of the world and of God. Negatively, this inclination implies that the stifling of intellectual curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge is wrong. It also implies that a lack of religion is wrong.

Again Harris insists that there is some obligation to seek  knowledge and religion.But makes no mention of to who this obligation is to. Since the choosing of religion is made after a conscious thought of what religion is and its subjective value to the individual in their own lives, this would discredit the theory of obligatory religion. And since knowledge is obtained by experience or reactions to situations, if one man were to experience a life much different than another which would you call unknowledgable of what he has not experienced? 

b. Sociability. From the natural tendency we have to form bonds of affection and love with other human beings and to associate with others in societies, we can infer that friendship and love are good and that the state is a natural institution and therefore good. We thus have an obligation to pursue close relationships with other human beings and to submit to the legitimate authority of the state. We can also infer that war can be justified under certain conditions if it is necessary to defend the state. Negatively, this inclination implies that activities that interfere with proper human relationships, such as spreading slander and lies, are wrong. Actions that destroy the power of the state are also wrong, so natural law finds a basis for argument against revolution and treason, except when the state is radically unjust.

This case cannot be made more clear, under the theory set forth in this passage Harris has subjected every human to the will and rule of others. He has offered the natural state of liberty to the rulers and rule makers. Harris tries to make the case that everyone that is not part of "the state" is to be mastered by it. This goes against the idea of personal responsibility, sovereignty, and freedom itself. The Natural state of man does not call for a subservient class led by those who feel the need for power and control. The sociability of man is not concrete, it is not a set parameter or level, each person chooses the levels of sociability they are comfortable with, while some choose no social interaction with others and become hermits and shut ins, this natural social obligation is thrust aside by personal value of interaction with others.

In any state where a man is not allowed to leave on a voluntary basis, the state is unjust. It is tyranny of man to not allow his departure from the state and its control and influence. Harris here tries again to apply his personal view of such acts and situations, ignoring the ability and will of the individual over the mandate of the collective state.

  These natural inclinations are reflections of human nature, and the pursuit of the goods they specify is the way to individual fulfillment. Aquinas himself makes it clear that the list of values, which in most respects follows his account, is incomplete; other natural-law theorists have expanded the list to include such things as play and aesthetic experience. However the list given here has had the greatest historical influence, and we shall assume it is basically complete.

  The more important issue raised by this list is the potential for conflict between the various values. What should we do when our need to defend ourselves requires that we kill someone else?
Defense of life is a primitive drive of survivability, it would be under the natural law theory a subjective value according to the individuals value of his own life over that of another. For some this seems a ridiculous statement, Of course one would want to live, but what then do we say of those that commit suicide, they did not value the life they had and chose to end it by their own means, 

What should we do when sterilization is necessary to prevent a life-threatening pregnancy?
Who is "we"? This imaginary collective, state or society has no bearing on the choices and outcomes of the individual, at least not when one recognizes that each individual is a sovereign being and his alive in them own selves. 

What should be done when contraception seems necessary in order to limit family size so that families can properly educate the children they already have?
This again implies action or will of an outside source or governance takes precedence over the sensibilities and actions of the individual. This places the value of the education of children outside of those to whom they are in the care of or have given birth to.

In each of these examples, one aspect of natural law seems to conflict with another, and the question arises whether these values have a hierarchy on which a decision can be based. The answer to this question brings into focus one of the most important and controversial aspects of natural law—moral absolutism.
While I do  not agree with Mr. Harris on moral absolutism, he is correct that these examples conflict with one another in the basic sense that they exist in a subjective view. 
While Mr. Harris and many other may feel that what he has stated here and what is perceived in the world as right or wrong, there exist others who differ on these points. Whether either be wrong or right on their beliefs remains based on experiences and resolutions made of conscious control.