Hobbes

empiricism

using your senses to collect (empirical) evidence; gaining knowledge through our senses

what was the justification for political authority in the early 1600s?

god’s will, which was underscored by tradition (this is how we’ve always done it)

when was the constitutional government established

1689, and this is a big deal because the King has to abide by laws now too, and it reflects an increase in rationalism as the basis of politics

what was parliament like in the early 1600s

• made up of lords and commons (nobles and regional representation)

• Kings continued to ignore the parliament – didn’t follow the rule that major policies raising taxes needed permission of parliament

• this tension leads to civil war

how did a system that was so top-down and rigid become the fertile soil for the development of democracy?

• as people became more literate and mobile throughout the 17th century, they also became more fragmented

• 3 types of fragmentation:

  • religious: catholics and protestants, plus further fragmentation between all those protestant mfs

  • economic: old orders (wealth based on land) and the growth of the merchant class (age of exploration, tobacco, sugar, etc being brought in)

  • political: power of the crown vs parliament

petition of right

1688, parliamentarians saying that King needs to stop imposing arbitrary measures and imprisoning whoever he wants (essentially not following Magna Carta)

3 most important aspects of puritan thought

• religious toleration (go to hell if you don’t tolerate)

  • can see this in Locke

• equal rights (god loves us all equally)

  • can see this in Hobbes, Locke, etc

• focus on prosperity (god wants us to work hard and enjoy the fruits of our labour)

  • can see this in Smith

what is Hobbes’ stance on the monarchy?

he is a staunch royalist but is critical of Divine Right; there should be a strong authority, but it shouldn’t be based in religion

Hobbes’ understanding of epistemology

• we know things to be true through our senses (god-given)

• this is subversive because at the time, the main of way of knowing was God’s word

• this indicates his emphasis on individualism – trusting your own senses

why is Hobbes crucial to liberalism despite being a monarchist?

• his focus on individualism, which is very important to liberalism: sees individuals as the building blocks of society

• idea of morality: emphasis on doing what you want (what you want is good, what you don’t is bad)

inductive and deductive reasoning

inductive based in senses and deductive based reason, Hobbes says both sense and reason should be used

Aristotelian view vs Galilean view

Aristotle thought the natural order of the world was static, while Galileo thought it was motion. Hobbes agrees with Galileo

2 types of voluntary motion for Hobbes

appetite (movement towards) and aversion (movement away from)

what does human behaviour respond to?

external stimuli, human nature is largely determined by our context, the motions within us happen in response to the motions outside of us

Hobbes’ definition of good

what we desire (what is bad is what we don’t desire), radical because he is not defining good and bad according to God, introducing radical subjectivity

how does appetite relate to power?

• you’re only as strong as you’re ability to secure some future good

• “the power of a man is his present means to obtain some future apparent good”

• if more than one person wants something, one will have to have the power to attain that thing for themself

• so, everyone must seek to have some power because power is the only way to appease one’s appetite

• this means we must prevent other people from limiting our ability to appease our appetites

how does Hobbes use the word diffidence?

• to say that we are all fundamentally anxious and insecure creatures

• human nature: left on their own, humans will seek to destroy each other

equality of people

• in the state of nature, people are unequal in their possessions of faculties, riches, etc

• but they are fundamentally equal because even the weakest can kill the strongest, we all have reason, we all have equal hopes for a better life, we all believe ourselves to be the most important

• need to assume equality of humans to get out of state of nature (the social contract doesn’t work if there is inequality)

moral ambiguity in the state of nature

moral constructs like justice do not exist

passion and reason's role in leaving the state of nature

• our passions give us the impetus to leave the state of nature

• our reason tells us how to do it

Klosko’s definition of moral law

an objective moral standard, discoverable by reason, binding on all rational beings, at al times and places

commonwealth by acquisition

political community arising through force, such as through conquest

commonwealth by institution

• artificial method of creating political society

• people voluntarily leave the state of nature this way

• people agree to form a political association to give up freedoms in exchange for protection, stability, material prosperity

• this is done by consensus – this consensus is the social contract

why is consensus not the same as democracy?

only happens once

right of nature

right to self-preservation

laws of nature and right of nature

• typically, philosophers would conclude from the laws of nature that there is right of nature

• Hobbes, on the other hand, started with the right of nature and then went to the laws of nature

• according to Hobbes, given that people have a right of nature, we can deduce that there must be certain laws of nature

definition of law of nature for Hobbes

whatever supports the right of nature, ie. whatever preserves the right to self-preservation

first law of nature

every man must seek peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it, and when he can’t obtain it, he must seek to defend his own peace

second law of nature

if everyone is seeking self-preservation, and it is true that we can get self-preservation from a condition of political stability and order, then we must enter into a social contract for our self-preservation

third law of nature

when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust, and whatsoever is not unjust is just

ninth law of nature

that every man acknowledge every other as his equal by nature

in foro interno

we are internal obliged to try and find a stable situation like the commonwealth

in foro externo

• though we have in foro interno, because of obstacles, we need to use our reason to determine when the conditions are right (when we encounter trustworthy people)

• this is in foro externo: being externally obliged to enter into a social contract

laws 4-8

propagate Christian values, Hobbes suggesting that jeapaordising peace, and therefore yourself, is simply not rational

why is morality logical?

it supports our self-preservation

justice and rationality

being unjust is irrational because it threatens the social contract, which ultimately threatens self-preservation

why does radical subjectivity have no place in the commonwealth?

only has a place in the state of nature because the idea of doing whatever you want would threaten the social contract (is therefore irrational)

role of individual consent in social contract

we must consent when the situation allows it because it is simply the rational thing to do as our first priority is self-preservation

summum bonum

• what Hobbes calls the ideal world

• he says we shouldn’t bother thinking about summum bonum and instead think about summum malum, the worst state of affairs, and how we can avoid it

• summum malum is the state of affairs

• even if a clown is in charge of government, it’s still better than civil war

• the sovereign isn’t perfect, as long as they protect your corporeal self, don’t bother thinking about summum bonum

role of self-preservation in the sovereign

the sovereign will recognize that jeopardising the people’s well-being and security would jeopardise his own position

“For all men are by nature provided of notable multiplying glasses (that is their Passions and Self-love) through which, every little payment appeareth a great grievance; but are destitute of those prospective glasses, (namely, Morall and Civill Science) to see a farre off the miseries that hand over them, and cannot without such payment be avoided”

those that look at minuscule issues should focus on the bigger picture/long-term

is the sovereign party to the social contract?

no, the contract is between the individuals who choose the sovereign, who give up their rights in exchange for security and stablility

is it unjust for the sovereign to commit an atrocity?

• no because injustice is to break promises

• the sovereign has not made a promise to not commit atrocities

• it would be foolhardy though because committing an atrocity would not make the people happy

what are the “proper liberties” of the subject?

• Hobbes thought it was up to sovereign to spell out the liberties of the subject

• thought there would be a fair bit of liberty, wouldn’t be a police state

• the sovereign can disregard rights but then the subject would probably be like “what have I got to lose” and remove the sovereign

what happens when the sovereign threatens the life of a subject?

• right of nature kicks in

• thought the third law of nature is to keep promises, the first law of nature, self-preservation, trumps the third law

what tools did Hobbes construct that were picked up by others and became cornerstones of liberalism and democracy?

• focus on the individual

• consent of the people as the seat of political legitimacy