Hobbes `Leviathan - Of the first and second natural laws, and of contracts

Law of nature

Law of nature is a general rule that is discovered through reason

• affirms human self-preservation

• condemns acts destructive to human life

Unlike civil laws, natural laws are inherently known by all beacuse they can be deduced using innate mental faculties eg reason and philosophy. They do not have to be written down and publicized.

First law of nature

We must seek peace because it is fulfilling our natural right to defend ourself. 

“That every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he can hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use, all helps and advantages of Warre.

The first branch of which Rule, containeth the first, and Fundamental Law of Nature; which is to seek Peace and follow it. The Second, the summe of Right of Nature of Nature, which is, by all means we can, to defend ourselves”

Second law of nature

Mandate to seek peace. 

We must mutually divest ourselves of certain tights (eg right to take away someone else’s life) to escape our STATE OF NATURAL WAR. 

“that a man be willing, when others are too, defense 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”

MUTUAL TRANSFERRING OF RIGHTS = CONTRACT

• bases of the notion of moral obligation 

eg i give up my right to kill you so long as you do the same

Third law of nature

It is not simply enough to make contracts, they must be kept. Foundational concept of JUSTICE.

This is where regimes and the concept of sovereignty come into play to help preserve third law. Combining three first laws of nature is enough to escape the state of natural war.

Electing new sovereign powers

In common-wealths where a sovereign power has already been determined, the subjects can elect no other power, as that power would be contrary to the first power and reduce the people to a state of war, which is counterproductive to the common-wealth. Such an absurdity has recently been seen in England, were a monarch succeeding from 600 years of sovereign power was dethroned.

Hobbes more directly calls out the English Civil War here. The parliamentarians claimed they dethroned King Charles I to save the common-wealth of England, but Hobbes argues they only succeeded in destroying it.

Comparing sovereign powers

Sovereign powers differ not in how much power they have, but in how they wield it. For example

• Monarch’s private interests are largely those of the public (happy people=respected king)

  • Not always the case in democracy and aristocracy

• Monarchs also receive counselling from many different people, but in a democracy and aristocracy only the people allowed to join a sovereign assembly are heard

• Monarchies are subject only to the fickleness of one, but democracies/aristocracies are subject to more fickleness

• Impossible for king to disagree with himself out of jealousy or self interest. but demo/artisto-cracies are obv different

However, monarchies do have power of depriving any one subject ofall their possesions which hobbes admits is problematic.

In case of child inheriting thrones, power is placed elsewhere until monarch is of age.

Importance of Succesors - Hobbe’s “Artifical Eternity”

If monarch doesn’t have the right to pick a successor, or if they die before someone is chosen to inherit their title, then the common wealth dissolves and reverts back to their natural state of war

People in a state of war are incapable of electing a new monarch

Customs of Successions

In monarchy, is succession is passed through words. In absence of words, succession is controlled by custom. It is customary for succession to fall to the next of kin, eg child and then sibling. 

Foreigners can also become sovereignty through marriage, and the line of succession naturally unfolds. It is not unlawful.

It is also lawful for monarch to transfer their power to someone else, eg the most wise King. 

• King James, the “most wise King” who tried to unite England and Scotland. Many objected to King James’s endeavor, although it likely would have prevented the civil war that is presently making both countries miserable.

All people are made equal in nature

Hobbes admits that some are stronger and smarter, but collectively these differences are insignificant. Everyone has equal potential to be killed. The smart get killed by brawn and the strong get killed with brains, potentially.

However, Hobbes also admits that some have more prudence and experience than others. Prudence is proportional to time, hence experience.

Hence, no one can claim any power over anyone unless they take it by force, since everyone is essentially the same.

People’s perception of their own wisdowm

One person usually finds their wisdom to be greater than the next’s. But since everyone thinks this way, it is a point of similarity.

When two people desire the same object, but only one can have it, they become enemies. The other’s destruction becomes part of their desired end. The only way one can secure their own convention is to master as many people as possible to eliminate any power that might endanger them.

Hobbes’ idea of “everyone for themselves” mentality. Everyone is a potential threat, scarity of resources means natural state of war. Contradicts Aristotle’s political man philosophy.

Hobbes’ idea of human

Humans are asocial, with no desire to keep company if there is no power to control them. It is in human nature to fight for three main reasons:

• COMPETITION

Invasions and violence used to master other people and animals

• DEFENSE

People fight from a need of security and safety

• GLORY

Fighting for reputation, including small slights eg minor insults or affronts

People living outside an established and common power are in a state of war, everyone against everyone.

War, according to Hobbes

According to Hobbes, war isn’t only battle, it is the intention or desire for battle. Every other state is known as peace

If life and people are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” then …..

nature renders all people savage, according to Hobbes.

In nature, there is only constant fear and danger of violence, so you must determine your own savagery in relation to the societal contexts you’re in.

People locking their doors at night shows this natural distruct, precautions are always taken, even with rules. 

Passions and desires vs sins against systems

It is no sin to have passions and desires, even if they produce natural savagery. Actions are only considered sins when they go against some established law. Laws cannot be established without first electing someone to make and enact them.

*****Therefore, nothing in nature is unjust: right and wrong are socially constructed ideals that do not exist in nature.*****

Where there is no common power, there can be no common law, and where there is no common law there can be no injustice!!!!!!!

Passions that predispose people to peace (3)

• fear of death

• desire for neccessary things eg food and shelter

• the hope to obtain such vital neccessities

People are drawn to agreements that will help ensure peace, as Hobbes refers to as the Laws of Nature.

Hobbes’ Liberty and Freedom

The absence of opposition.

One is free to do whatever they want to in their own strength and ability to do without interference. Fear and liberty can co-exist

Fear and Liberty cooperating in middle class

Fear as a motivator, compelling factor to willingly do something. This is generally the case with the common wealth where subjects fear the established laws, even though they are technically free to break them. Free will, but consequences within institutions are still very much real. 

• eg paying debt out of fear of imprisonment

Liberty and Necessity - Continual Chain

Liberty and necessity are also consistent. Hobbes argues that all of life is motion, and that each motion is connected to the next (continual chain) that does not stop until something hinders it.

• eg water of a river that has both the ABILITY (liberty) and NEED (necessity) to flow in certain directions.

Same is seen for voluntary actions, but every action is connecting to another in a CONTINUAL CHAIN that stems from necessity.

SOVEREIGN POWER that hinds the continual chain of motion in a common wealth

Sovereign power liberty

Sovereign power can never be abolished or limited, since nothing the sovereign does to a subject can ever be considered injury or injustice. 

The subject is the AUTHOR, if the sovereign power puts a subject to death that is because the subject exercised its liberty in a way which resulted in capital punishment 

True liberty versus civic obligation

True liberty means that a subject can refuse to do certain things, even if those things are commanded by sovereign power.

However, submitting to a common wealth means obligation and liberty all the same.

People will always have a right to defend themselves though, according to Hobbes, freedom to PRESERVE body (so no self harm or suicide)

Refusing sovereign power commands

A subject can refuse sovereign power’s commands if the refusal does not affect the reasons why the common-wealth was created in the first place.

However, no one is at liberty to refuse to fight for the common-wealth in defense of another power. To refuse the common-wealth in the service of another diminishes the power of the common-wealth and destroys the very reason for government. 

In case of war-induced imprisonment and loyalty to sovereignty

A subject’s obligation to the sovereign power lasts as long as the common-wealth, and the right to protect one’s self in nature is a right that can never be taken away.

Thus, the end of protection of a sovereign power signals the end of obedience. If a subject is taken prisoner by another power during war, they are at liberty to become a subject of the power who takes them; however, if one is imprisoned and not given the choice, they are not bound by any covenant and can escape by any means necessary. 

If a sovereign power is captured in war and gives up power for themselves and their heirs, their subjects are released from obligation to the former sovereign power and are obligated to the new, invading power. However, if a sovereign power is held prisoner and does notgive up power freely, a subject is likewise not obligated to obey the invading power.