ALELI AGUSTIN PAGTAMA, MAEd
Divine Word College
of Laoag
Graduate School
Laoag City
Abstract
One
of the essential issues confronting political organization, educational and
professional stratum is the issue of human nature. One of the said issues is the ideology of
Thomas Hobbes on human nature and his attempts to identify the conditions for
social order.
Deploying
a critical analysis method, the paper identifies the strengths and flaws of his
ideologies. Some of his ideas are believable; yet, I decided not to agree with
his proposition of existence of the Monarchy-a system of government. The paper
further provides arguments contrary to Hobbes’ pessimism by explaining John Locke’s
optimism towards human nature. Consequently,
the paper highlights the imperatives of social order in a manner that
accommodates the complexity of human nature.
Key Words
Human Nature,
Monarchy, Ideology
Introduction
There
are issues that confront educators and other professionals teaching various
disciplines on human nature particularly those teaching political, social and
behavioral sciences. As LeBuffe (2002) explains, philosophy of human nature requires
to be understood in terms of laws, and that human action is comprehended in
terms of universal determinism. The principles of human nature proposed by Hobbes is
presented in his books entitled “The Leviathan”. His views along human nature and how state
can control humans are presented. The
ideas of Hobbes clearly provide a picture of humans as rational machines
governed by passions combined with reason. Through reasoning, humans search
happiness, power, status and recognition. The state of nature in Hobbes views
shows that when beings compete of the same objects they become enemies and try
to kill each other; hence, he believes that the political institutions of the
state should take the form of an absolute sovereign.
Educators believed that
the field of evidence is no other than the field of knowledge. This only means that there is a neccesity for
philosophical analysis on the doctrines of various philosophers. Since philosophy is the science of wisdom, it
provides either factual or conceptual knowledge. The ideologies/philosophies of Thomas Hobbes
then needs for a critical analysis to provide in-depth explanations whether to
accept or refute his doctrines.
Ideally, our conception of what
constitutes human nature and by extension the human person’s place and role in
the society has serious implications for social order. Thus in the political
realm, we have the anarchists, who see man as a rational being whose nature is
incompatible with the oppression that society has imposed on it under the guise
of government, Oyeken (2010). The human person is a free being capable of
living peaceably with fellow human beings of equal natural disposition, wants
and drives, Adams (1993) as cited by Oyeken (2010).
On the other hand, Karl Marx (1990) as
cited by Oyeken (2010) has an economic view of human nature. For him, capitalism
is the cause of all human woe; deriving legitimacy from the present
organization of society in such a way that the economic elite’s control of
power and resources ensures it has its way. He envisages an uprising of the
masses whose revolt will put economic and political control into the hands of
the masses in preparation for a transition to a stateless society.
This
paper examines the positions of Thomas Hobbes on human nature and their
implications for social order. This investigation aims to bring to the fore the
gaps between Hobbes’ assumptions and to the reality of human nature
nowadays. It also aims to synthesis by
proving of refuting Hobbes’ description of human nature and further analyzes
its implications for a well-ordered society. At
latter part of the analysis, it presents my arguments basing it on the present
state of nature of man and on the leading ideas of various political
exponents.
The life of Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes (1588
– 1679) is an English political philosopher.
He is widely held as the “father of political science.” According to Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Thomas Hobbes was born on the 5th day of
April 1588. His home town was Malmesbury, in Wiltshire, England. His mother is very little known while his
father is a disreputable local clergyman. Hobbes left Malmesbury in order to
study at Magdalen Hall, Oxford. His study there was supported by his uncle,
Francis Hobbes, who was a Glover.
Hobbes left Oxford in 1608, and became the
private tutor for the eldest son of Lord Cavendish of Hardwick (later known as
the Earl of Devonshire). He traveled with his pupil in 1610 to France, Italy,
and Germany. He then went to London to continue his studies, where he met other
leading scholars like Francis Bacon, Herbert of Cherbury, and Ben Johnson.
The death of Cavendish son led Hobbes to
find another pupil. In 1629, he left for the continent again for a two year
journey with his new student. When he returned in 1631 he began to tutor the
younger Cavendish son.
From 1634 to 1637, Hobbes returned to
the continent with the young Earl of Devonshire. In Paris, he spent time with
Mersenne and the scientific community that included Descartes and Gassendi. In
Florence, he conversed with Galileo. When he returned to England he wrote Elements of law Natural and
Politic, which outlined his new theory. The first thirteen chapters of
this work were published in 1650 under the title Human Nature, and the rest of
the work as a separate volume entitled De
Corpore Politico. In 1640, he went to France to escape the civil war
brewing in England. He would stay in France for the next eleven years, taking
an appointment to teach mathematics to Charles, Prince of Wales, who came to
Paris in 1646.
Hobbes died on 4 December 1679 at Hardwick Hall, one of
the homes of the Cavendish family, with whom he was still associated after
seventy years.
Hobbes’s view of human nature
First and foremost
Hobbes believes that human nature is a “general
inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after
power, that ceaseth only in death”.
According to Hobbes
as cited by Meyer (2011) human beings are programmed, mechanical objects to
pursue self-interested ends, without regard for anything other than the
avoidance of pain and the incentive of pleasure. What motivates human beings,
thinks Hobbes, is self-interest. Human judgment is distorted by self-interest
and can be easily swayed with rhetoric that is often neither directed toward
the public good or the individual's good.
The above-stated
belief simply means human nature is an inherent desire for greater powers. The desire is to dominate and to conquer,
control and subject others under his wings. Such desires are not limited to
power, position but also to own or control resources This supports on the
belief that humans have boundless and aggressive attempt for the acquisition of
abundant resources. Hobbes argues that
the unending yearn for resources and power is not basically rooted in the
expectation for more concentrated joys and more prosperity than one has already
achieved, but that “one cannot guarantee the power and means to live well,
which he have at present, without the acquisition of more” Kope (2009).
Secondly, Hobbes
describes humans in the state of nature as being in “a condition of war of every man against every man”. Hobbes
explains that “the continuous pursuit for
power and resources is not a manifestation of innate greed, there are some that
taking desire in envisioning their own power in the acts of conquest, which
they chase afar than their security requires; if others, that otherwise would
be glad to be at ease within modest bounds, should not by invasion increase
their power, they would not be able, long time, by standing only on their
defence, to survive” . In this view,
Hobbes suggests that even if one were to be content with his/her wealth and
power; surely there would be another who would not be content with his/her own.
Such that, one must constantly remain on the offensive to ensure that one will
not overrun by the attacks of others, who for the same reason also cannot sit
happily idle. Consequently, acting for his/her own preservation, everyone in
the state of nature attacks one another, and thereby produce the “condition of war of every man against every
man".
On this doctrine of
Hobbes, the state of nature is viewed as constant war and continual fear, in
which life is “solitary, poor, nasty, cruel, and short” due to the war of all
against all, as caused by the constant struggle for resources.
The state of nature
derived from Hobbes’ view of human nature proves the condition of war of every
man against every man. He assumes that without strength, and centralized
authority, human beings will perpetually be at war with each other where “every man is enemy to every man.” In
this premise, there is what he call natural
laws. The first of these laws is the first law of nature “by which a man is forbidden to do that, which is harsh of his life, or
taketh away the means of preserving the same”. This law, which states that
a person will use any means in his/her power to preserve his/her life, is
derived from the right of nature, which allows one “to use his own power, preserve himself, preserve his own nature, and
his own life”. From this first law of nature, and given that each person is
in a condition of war of everyone against everyone, Hobbes suggests that “every man, ought to endeavor peace, as far
as he has hope of obtaining it”.
This suggestion gives
the second law of nature, “that a man be
willing, when others are so too, as farforth, as for peace, and defence of
himself he shall think it necessary, 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”. This law of nature allows for the possibility of a
peaceful status, where people in exchange give up their never-ending search for
“power after power”. Because this
peaceful status is contrary to human nature, the Hobbes’ civil society consists
of the introduction of an artificial force, or sovereign, to ensure compliance
to this status, and thereby provide “a
more contented life”.
Anent to this, Hobbes
believes an outside force is necessary to bring men out of the state of nature
and into the civil society because the laws of nature (justice, modesty, and
mercy) of themselves, without the terror of some power, to cause them to be
observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality,
pride, revenge, and the like.
Significantly, Hobbes
believes that people are driven by irresistible passions; however, the war of
all against all results into undesirable and unpleasant situation. People
realize and wish to escape from the unwanted state of nature; however, the
relentless attention and violent required to preserve one’s life in the
presence of unjust others.
Therefore, Hobbes
suggests that the only way to be free from the continual state of war is to
create a civil society through a sovereign power that can terrorize everyone
into complying with what is actually beneficial arrangement. The civil society
can be founded on a collected power, or sovereign, which ensures a peaceful
status by its ability to punish those who would disturb the peace. As Hobbes
states, everyone “shall authorize all the
actions and judgments, of that man, or assembly of men, (the sovereign) in the
same manner, as if they were his own, to the end, to live peaceably amongst
themselves, and be protected against other men”.
To ensure peace, the
mechanism by the sovereign can be the addition of disincentives (except
killing/wounding/maiming) to control the appeal of seeking more property or
harming others. This power of the sovereign to disincentivize war, in Hobbes’
view, can include punishments for crimes. In its truest essence, Hobbes’
sovereign is limited in its power to punish misbehaviors and ensure peace only
by its obligation not to harm its citizens.
The Relevance of Hobbes Theory of Human
nature.
The question here is about the relevancy
of this theory to the present human nature.
What is the relevance of the philosophy
of Hobbes at the present human nature?
Is there any difference between what Hobbes describes as human nature and
the reality that we see in the life of man nowadays? Do you have any argument
to contradict Hobbes view? If you have,
then present it, but support it with the opinion of certain authority or
author.
I believed that the ideologies of Hobbes have relevance
nowadays and it has no difference with the reality that we can see on the life
of man especially in the Philippines. The
different social issues confronting the society requires each and everyone to
revisit the doctrines and philosophies of Hobbes which can be of great help
among educators like us to rekindle the moral values of our future leaders-the
students. In return, the moral values imbibe in future generations can help us
shape better society.
On the point of view of Hobbes, it is worth mentioning his
philosophies on human nature as presented in this paper are exactly proven and
I agree on it. To support this position,
it requires analysis to explain the criteria by which I will judge the
credibility of his views. To believe something credible is founded on valid
reasons; a proper sign of whether something is reasonable, therefore, it is
obviously revealed in reality. To argue my position that the proposed views of
Hobbes of human nature is believable, I will present an analysis of his views
relating to moral standard, necessity to civil society, and political paradigm
and these views manifested in the present days.
Similarly, I also presented in this paper some argumentative views
evident to the exposition of reliable philosophers and a presentation of
evaluation of the arguments.
Based on views of human
nature proposed by Hobbes and their implications for people in the state of
nature and in a civil society, I believed that his views offer a more
reasonable account of human nature. His views have an implications on the
inherent moral standard for human life. The Hobbesian ideology of human nature
proposes that human behavior is driven by “a
perpetual and restless desire of power after power”. According to him,
humans are motivated to perform in life through an intrinsic desire for more
power, abundant resources, and status.
In the pursuit of this aim, there is no corresponding checks and
balances on moral obligation. This pessimistic view of Hobbes is manifested in
the present time of the Philippines. Many Filipinos like politicians, showbiz
personalities and other elitist aim high and work harder to obtain more wealth
by all means (whether in a legal or illegal act) to sustain their survival, influence and power. Position is not for service but merely for
personal gain which is power. For instance, some Filipino showbis personalities
run for public office to gain power and the Philippine government is ruled
through political dynasty. This proves
alone on the view of Hobbes on human nature.
These officials are driven by themselves to acquire more wealth, power
and status. While there are some of
them whose survival is already guaranteed, yet will exploit others for the sake
of living better.
Similarly, Mansour (2006) agreed on the
belief of Hobbes that the “state of
nature people is free, rational, and knowledgeable.” He cited human acts
such include acts of will. Acts of will are deliberative acts, which aim at
maximizing our personal gain, therefore people in the state of nature are
self-interested. Because we all are self-interested in our personal gains, and
because we all desire and aspire similar thing that are limited in the society,
the state of nature will be very competitive. Because of the competition, each
person poses a threat to the other. That is, one’s security is someone else’s
elimination. That is why the state of nature is a “state of war of all against all”.
On the other hand, the views of Hobbes on human nature have specific
implications for the necessity of corresponding civil society. The state of
nature proposed by Hobbes is a “state of
war where life is short and brutal”.
His belief implies that the existence of a civil society is very
important. The sovereign is required to use whatever measures necessary except
harming its members so that it can prevent the state of nature. The need for the influence of a civil society
can be seen in the cases of riots/lawlessness/revolution that follow natural
disasters, when existing law-enforcement agencies are incapacitated.
According to Mansour (2006), Hobbes ideology
implies the need for an absolute rule like the rules of Monarchy and
Dictatorship to ensure safety of the system. He believes on the necessity of
absolute rule because of the natural human hunger for power which threatens the
safety of the contract. Hobbes concludes
that there must be some common power to force people to uphold the contract.
This sovereign would be established by the people as part of the contract,
endowed with the individual powers and wills of all, and authorized to punish
anyone who breaks the covenant. The sovereign operates through fear; the threat
of punishment reinforces the mandates of the laws of nature, thus ensuring the
continued operation of the social contractsigned between the people.
We can infer that the belief of Hobbes
suggest prisoner dilemma. In my point of
view, this suggestion of Hobbes is significant in today’s Philippine
situation. The multifarious issues in
the Philippine Bureaucratic System prove that humans are rationally
self-interested. The value of self-interest leads irrational unwanted outcomes.
Therefore the necessity for punishment of the offenders of social orders is
highly suggested.
The political atmosphere of the civil society proposed by
Hobbes is that the sovereign has an unlimited power to control the lives of its
citizens (provided it does them no harm) in order to maintain peace and avoid
re-entering the war of all against all as in the state of nature. I believed on
what Meyer (2011) has cited “society is impossible without the coercive power of a state”. This
proves alone that the sovereign cannot negate itself to harm its members.
Hence, the organized society will be ruled by continuous fear.
This view is exemplified before during the dictatorial
government under the Marcos Administration that have very close control over
the lives of the Filipinos through the Martial Law.
A Critical Look on Hobbes’ Views
I found
out of a wonderful contrast to George Orwell’s philosophy as cited by Storgaard
(2013) which I also agree, where he proposes the opposite that humans will
perpetually be at war because of strong centralized authorities. He added that
revolution is an answer to sovereign tyranny. It is highly emphasized according
to him that anarchist is not against
organization; however, they are against organization based on authority like
the Sovereign State. Contrary to Hobbes, John Locke as cited by Mansour
(2006) also justifies revolution against the government, only if it
fails to preserve the liberties of its citizens.
Tracing back the history of the Philippines,
when President Marcos declared martial law (the rule of dictatorship as aimed
by Hobbes provided that no harm shall be made) generally the People Power
Revolution succeeded. It resulted into
abuse of authority by the sovereign people and ended into disorder. Truly,
there is a necessity for a sovereign to control the humans and people in the
state of nature who may not be rational; nevertheless, the resilient
centralized authorities can cause upheavals.
In this point, the necessity for a sovereign
on my point of view is adjudged provided that the sovereign State shall respect
the rights of the citizens who in no case shall violate the human rights.
Conclusion
Following an exposition of
the logical extensions of views of human nature, I have argued that the views
of Hobbes is reasonable, based on the physical manifestation of several
implications. His views have implications thereof, have all been shown to be manifested
in reality and therefore are (based on arguments above) equally believable.
Truly,
I would say that Hobbes gives a best account to the state of nature where he
describes a scenario of how the State of Nature would be like, a state of war
of all against all. Yes, we can be moral; however, we still disobey on someone
else’s rights in an intentional way or not. There are instances that what we
believe is good can harm other being.
As a
citizen of a democratic country, I do not agree with Hobbes state- the
Monarchy despite his good arguments. He only looks for a government that will
preserve and uphold the contract and that is Monarchy. The absolute monarchy as described by Wikipedia
Organization (2013) is known to be a government of the monarch being the source of power in the state.
The monarch is not legally bound by any constitution and has the powers
to regulate his or her respective government.
In this tendency, the sovereign can lead to abuse its power.
References:
Kope, Andrew. 2009. Human Nature: Hobbes and Locke. Accessed on November 11, 2013. Available at http://publish.uwo.ca/~akope2/papers/philosophy/AKope_Hobbesand
Locke.pdf
LeBuffe, Michael. 2002. “Paul-Henri
(Baron) d'Holbach”.Accessed on November 14, 2013. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/holbach
Mansour, Hossam. 2006.
Locke’s And Hobbes’ States of
Nature. Accessed on November 13,
2013. Available at http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=118
Meyer, Brock.
2011. Concepts
of Human Nature at the Heart of Political Philosophy.Accessed on November 13, 2013. Available at http://voices.yahoo.com/human-nature-john-locke-thomas-hobbes-8084874.html
Oyekan, Adeolu Oluwaseyi. (2010). Human Nature and Social Order: A
Comparative Critique ofHobbes and Locke.
Thought and Practice: A Journal of the Philosophical Association of
Kenya (PAK)New Series, Vol.2 No.1. Accessed on November 13, 2013. Available at https://www.google.com.ph/search?/complete/search?client=serp&hl=fil&gs_rn=31&gs_ri=serp&pq=Human%20Nature%20and%20Social%20Order%3A%20A%20Comparative%20Critique%20of%20Hobbes%20and%20Locke&cp=180&gs_id=8&xhr=t&q=Human%20Nature%20and%20Social%20Order%3A%20A%20Comparative%20Critique%20of%20Hobbes%20and%20Locke.%20%20Thought%20and%20Practice%3A%20A%20Journal%20of%20the%20Philosophical%20Association%20of%20Kenya%20(PAK)%20New%20Series%2C%20Vol.2%20No.1.%20&ech=2&psi=fqeEUovWD8bpiAfX6oDABg.1384426376217.3&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=kKuEUovQI8LZigfFx4DwBA
Storgaard, Claus B. 2013. Essays: George Orwell, Socialist,
Anarchist or what...?Accessed on November 13, 2013.
Available at http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/opinion/essays/storgaa
rd1.html
Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2013.
Thomas Hobbes. Accessed November
10, 2013. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes/
The European Graduate School.Thomas
Hobbes – Biography. Access on November 11, 2013. Available at http://www.egs.edu/library/thomas-hobbes/biography/
Wikipedia Organization. 2013. Constitutional monarchy.Accessed on
November 13, 2013. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy
Wikipedia, Organization. Thomas Hobbes.Accessed on November
11, 2013. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas Hobbes
