ALELI AGUSTIN PAGTAMA
Divine Word College
of Laoag
Abstract
One of
the essential issues confronting political organizations, and educational and
professional strata 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 the existence of the Monarchy 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
Some issues confront educators and other professionals teaching various
disciplines on human nature particularly those teaching political, social and
behavioral sciences. As LeBuffe (2002) explains, the 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 book entitled “The Leviathan”. His views on human nature and how the 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 for happiness, power, status and recognition. The state of nature in Hobbes's 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 necessity for
philosophical analysis of 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 need a critical analysis to provide in-depth explanations of 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 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 the reality of human nature
nowadays. It also aims to synthesise by
proving or refuting Hobbes’ description of human nature and further analyzes
its implications for a well-ordered society. At the latter part of the analysis, it presents my arguments based 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 the 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 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 travelled
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's 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 including 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 by rhetoric that is often neither directed toward the public
good nor 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, and position but also to own or control resources This supports the
belief that humans have boundless and aggressive attempts for the acquisition of
abundant resources. Hobbes argues that
the unending yearning 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 has
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. That, one must constantly remain on the offensive to ensure that one will not be 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 produces 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 calls 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 endeavour 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 far-forth, 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, 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 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 in undesirable and unpleasant situations. People realize and wish to
escape from the unwanted state of nature; however, the relentless attention and
violence are 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 a beneficial arrangement. 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’
sovereignty is limited in its power to punish misbehaviours and ensure peace only
by its obligation not to harm its citizens.
The Relevance of Hobbes's 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's view? If you have,
then present it, but support it with the opinion of a certain authority or
author.
I
believe that the ideologies of Hobbes have relevance nowadays and it has no
difference with the reality that we can see in the life of man, especially in
the Philippines. The different social
issues confronting the society require each and everyone to revisit the
doctrines and philosophies of Hobbes which can be of great help to educators
like us to rekindle the moral values of our future leaders and students. In
return, the moral values imbibed in future generations can help us shape a better
society.
From
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 with them. 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 believe that his views offer a more
reasonable account of human nature. His views have implications for the
inherent moral standard for human life. The Hobbesian ideology of human nature
proposes that human behaviour 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 are 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 elitists 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. The position is not for service but merely for
personal gain which is power. For instance, some Filipino showbiz personalities
run for public office to gain power and the Philippine government is ruled
through a political dynasty. This proves
alone 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 including 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 to similar things that are limited in 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 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's ideology implies the
need for an absolute rule like the rules of Monarchy and Dictatorship to ensure the safety of the system. He believes in 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 contract signed between the people.
We can infer that this belief of Hobbes suggests a 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 to 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) to maintain peace and avoid re-entering the war
of all against all as in the state of nature. I believe in 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 was exemplified before during the dictatorial government under the Marcos
Administration that had very close control over the lives of the Filipinos
through Martial Law.
A Critical Look at Hobbes’ Views
I found a
wonderful contrast to George Orwell’s philosophy as cited by Storgaard (2013)
which I also agree with, 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 anarchists is not against organization; however, they
are against organizations 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 in the abuse of authority by the
sovereign people and ended in 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 in 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 the best account of
the state of nature when 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 someone else’s rights in an intentional way or
not. There are instances that what we believe is good can harm another being.
As a citizen
of a democratic country, I do not agree with Hobbes's 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 power
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. Accessed 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
anakbeong.blogspot.com,SocialBar_1,24187607,""
https://lipsgig.com/q9h97sj5?key=23b279e99ed6a529a30f577cdce2aeb9
