Popular Posts

Thursday, February 13, 2014

“The nature of man/woman according to Thomas Hobbes


           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
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Building a fair Hiring process: Overcoming political challenges

  BLESSIE JANE PAZ B. ANTONIO JANICE D. RASAY Divine Word College of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, Philippines Abstract The hiring process and pr...