PHIL 322 Early Modern Philosophy Unit 6

Hobbes and Bentham

Who was Thomas Hobbes?

16th century England. Raised Calvinist but his religious beliefs are unclear. Empiricist. Contributed to the field of optics.
Major philosophical works - Leviathan (class reading)

What is the significance of the title Leviathan?

It refers to a society united under a government "commonwealth". The Leviathan is a symbol of a powerful creature on earth.

What main questions is Hobbes trying to answer in the portion of Leviathan we're reading?

1. WHY, if at all, should people give up the liberty they naturally have and form a government (the sovereign or leviathan) with liberty restricting laws?

2. HOW do we do it, if it should be done?

3. WHAT type of government is best?

What's the alternative to living under a government with liberty restricting laws?

To live in a "state of nature" where there is no government and no laws. Hobbes -> we can't live (for long) in such a condition. Why not?

1. Because we live in a world with scarce resources

2. But mainly because of human nature

Hobbes, unlike most of the other philosophers we've discussed, was not a dualist. What view did he take of both man and the universe generally?

Hobbes was a materialist about people. He denied any immaterial soul, the world is just matter moving through space and time.

Did Hobbes believe in God?

It's unclear. he talks as if he does, but suggests God is also material but infinite. He thinks of God as personal. He doesn't think there's a great deal else that we can know about God, except that he created the world.

Was Hobbes a determinist?

Yes. Everything we do is necessitated by earlier states of the world and the laws of physics

Did Hobbes believe in free will?

Yes, in a compatibilist sense.

Hobbes viewed man as a complex machine living in a deterministic world. But this leaves unanswered what he thought of our (determined) psychological nature. What view did he take of human nature from this perspective? (ESSAY QUESTION)

Hobbes believed that all of us are determined by nature to be selfish (psychological egoism). Because we can't be happy or get what we want without surviving, self-preservation is the fundamental driving force in human nature. He believes when people like this live in a world of scarce resources, conflict becomes inevitable.

What conclusion (in regard to life in a state of nature) does Hobbes draw from his description of human nature? (ESSAY QUESTION)

We can't flourish, or even survive, in a state of nature. All your time would be devoted to self-defense, and no advanced culture or science would be possible.

If we cannot survive and flourish in a state of nature, then what does Hobbes recommend we do? (ESSAY QUESTION)

Follow the laws of nature.

What are the laws of nature?

1. Seek to make peace with others, but if they won't make peace with you, do what you have to do to survive.

2. Make peace by forming a "covenant" with them (now called a social contract)

3. Keep your agreement. Don't violate the social contract.

What are the terms of the social contract?

1. I will give up as much of my natural liberty as others will, but no more.

2. We will appoint a "sovereign" (leader) who will make laws to keep the peace.

3. We will endow this sovereign with all the powers needed to enforce the laws.

Given our self-interested nature, we must be threatened into keeping our agreement.

What type of "sovereign" (government) does Hobbes favor?

Hobbes favors a monarchy.

Hobbes notoriously advocated giving the sovereign virtually unlimited power and the authority to impose swift and severe punishment for any breach of the social contract. Why?

The sovereign has to have pretty much absolute power. He believes that only an all-powerful sovereign will be able to protect us from other people and other nations and keep the peace.

One naturally worries that Hobbes' sovereign would become a source of oppression rather than a servant of the people. How does Hobbes respond to this worry?

Hobbes admits it's possible but think it's unlikely and definitely worth the risk. We can rebel when the sovereign no longer protects us. Knowing this, a self-interested sovereign won't oppress us.

Who was Jeremy Bentham?

18th century England. Famous legal theorist and philosopher.
Major philosophical works - Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (class reading)

What are the two parts of ethics?

Ethical theory and applied ethics

What is ethical theory and what are its subdivision?

Study of ethics itself.

1. Metaethics

2. Normative ethics

What is normative ethics?

Building a system of ethics that tells us what our most general moral obligations are

Rule-based theory

Part of normative ethics. Focus on providing moral rules we should obey.
Bentham offers us a rule based theory.

Consequentialist (ESSAY QUESTION)

Believes rules require us to ALWAYS choose the action that has the best results.
Bentham was a consequentialist.
Consequentialists need a theory about how we figure out what results are the best results. Must know what has intrinsic value first.

Non-consequentialist (ESSAY QUESTION)

Believes some actions are right or wrong regardless of their results

Intrinsically valuable (ESSAY QUESTION)

Something that is valuable for itself.
Example: happiness, power, etc.

Instrumentally valuable (ESSAY QUESTION)

Something that is valuable as a means to obtain what's intrinsically valuable

Value monist

Says only one thing in the world actually has intrinsic value
Bentham says ONLY happiness is intrinsically valuable

Value pluralist

Says more than one thing in this world has intrinsic value

Hedonist

Says only happiness is intrinsically valuable
Bentham is a value monist and hedonist because he believes only one thing has intrinsic value and that one thing is happiness

Hedonistic utilitarian

The morally right action is one that, from among the available alternatives, probably will maximize the long-term happiness of the WORLD in general

Those who encounter the hedonistic utilitarian philosophy for the first time typically object that if we always just do what promises to make us happy, we’ll get ourselves into a lot of trouble by engaging in nothing but drunken revelry and debauchery. Alternatively, they object that it’s impossible to apply this theory every time we have a choice to make. What are the utilitarian responses to these objections?

How can we possibly calculate the expected utility every time we have a moral choice to make?
Common sense will suffice in the vast majority of cases

What does Bentham say on the topic of proving that our highest moral duty is to promote the general happiness of the world?

Bentham sees hedonistic utilitarianism as a moral axiom. A fundamental moral truth that can't be derived from any more basic moral principle and shouldn’t need to be because it’s self-evidently true.
Bentham says that when pressed, the defenders of the alternatives always end up justifying them by reference to happiness.

A sadist gets pleasure from inflicting pain. Would Bentham say that the pleasure the sadist gets from hurting people is intrinsically good? Is the pain of a punished criminal intrinsically bad?

Yes tot both. All happiness is intrinsically valuable, regardless of the source or the person experiencing it.
Does Bentham endorse sadism? - No, the sadist's happiness is instrumentally evil.
So, Bentham thinks we should not punish criminals? - No, because punishing prevents more unhappiness than it causes for the criminals

What are the theories implicated in the philosophy of punishment? (ESSAY QUESTION)

Deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, restitution, and retribution theory

Deterrence theory (ESSAY QUESTION)

Dissuading others by making an example of the criminal.
Forward looking justification

Incapacitation theory (ESSAY QUESTION)

Physically restraining the criminal to prevent more crime.
Forward looking justification

Rehabilitation theory (ESSAY QUESTION)

Reforming the criminal so they don't commit more crime
Forward looking justification

Restitution theory (ESSAY QUESTION)

Restoring/compensating the victim of crime
Forward looking justification

Retribution theory (ESSAY QUESTION)

Giving criminals what they deserve for their crime, morally
Backward looking justification

What does HU recommend as an approach to punishment? (ESSAY QUESTION)

Bentham says only the punishments with forward looking justification can be used to justify any punishment of crime and only to the extent that by achieving these can we promote general happiness

The most oft-leveled objection to hedonistic utilitarianism alleges that in some cases this normative theory would require us to perform actions that, moral common sense suggests, are patently unjust. Give an example, and indicate how a hedonistic utilitarian like Bentham might respond.

Hangman case:
We can prevent an unhappiness causing riot by hanging an innocent man. Does HU say it's right then?
Bentham says no. The right action is the one which is such that if everyone did this in similar circumstances, then we would have the best hedonic results.