Hobbes looks into the
state of nature through a determinist and a pragmatist lens. He proposes that everything
has a cause and an effect and every living creature is inherently selfish. This
selfishness drives them to take any action to preserve their life. He, in
accordance with this materialistic perception, portrays the state of nature as
an anarchic environment where there is a constant anxiety that a war might
emerge. The ruthless portrait of the war deprives men of art, society,
literature, commodity, knowledge but it allows them absolute freedom. Although
in the state of nature men are technically free to do anything, the downside of
such a ruthless environment makes the majority of meaningful activities not
plausible depicting freedom as a meaningless concept in the state of nature.
Hobbes argues that men are
obliged to submit themselves under the authority of the commonwealth which
poses a restriction on individuals’ freedom but because the commonwealth allows
the individual to live without the anxiety of war, art, literature, commodity,
and knowledge become available for the individual. It is this precise reason
why Hobbes is not against the idea of freedom. In his Leviathan Hobbes proposes
the underpinnings of the need for a commonwealth to govern the individuals. He
says that “Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a
common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is
called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man”(Hobbes 84),
meaning in the absence of a controlling power people are inherently inclined to
fight with each other. This constant fight where everyone has the equal chance
to kill each other can cause some individuals to lose their property, or most
importantly liberty “deprive him, not only the fruit of his labour, but also of
his life, or liberty”(Hobbes 83). Thereby, according to Hobbes liberty’s
arch-enemy is the state of war, and to free the individual, a set of rules and
order are needed.
Hobbes fundamental basis
for freedom relies on the absence of external impediments and in the light of
this definition, it can be argued that although there are restrictions Hobbes
indirectly or directly proposes, the system formed around the idea of peace and
prosperity will bestow the individual more freedom than the state of nature’s
anarchic structure grants. Hobbes notorious saying “Do not that to another,
which thou wouldest
not have done to thyself” (Hobbes 104),
captures the idea that if such thinking is applied, there would be restrictions
that obstruct people from restricting each other’s freedom in an ideal Hobbesian
society. In that way, a system that grants an equal extent of freedom not
restricted by others can be formed.
On the other hand,
because people are essentially obliged to enter a society when they are born
and leaving that society is irrational, their decision appearing to be made
with free will is inherently driven by the urge to survive. Thereby, their
liberty does not play any role in deciding whether the individual is in a
society or not. The individual may refuse to enter said society and the consequences
of that decision would be miserable leaving the individual with no choice to
enter society and obey the rules. This proposes the idea that in Hobbesian
society freedom is restricted in order to be under the protection of
commonwealth depicting Hobbesian thinking as unsupportive to the idea of
freedom
The extend of freedom is
shaped by the laws of that society meaning their liberty is restricted. Hobbes
says that “The liberty of a subject, lieth therefore only in those things,
which in regulating their actions, the sovereign hath praetermitted:” (Hobbes
141) meaning people are as free as the sovereign power lets them be. Although
Hobbes finds “exemption from laws” (Hobbes 141) absurd because it will cause
war, the fact that individuals do not have any choice and liberty to disobey
the commonwealth implies the idea that there is mandatory imprisonment in
society. This draws Hobbes as an enemy towards liberty because in a Hobbesian
society the individuals’ choice is shaped by aversions and appetites and since
war is displeasing, the individual is forced to enter a society that would
protect him. Ultimately, there is a choice made by the individual but that
choice is stemming from desperation and necessity.
In a nutshell, Hobbes proposes an
ironic lens into what liberty is. He essentially argues that in order for
liberty to be plausible there need to be restrictions. This depicts Hobbes as a
supporter of freedom because according to him some restrictions pave the way
for an environment where people can have more liberty. However, the idea of
society leaves the individual without a choice but to accept society. This
could be considered as an impediment because for the individual to refuse to
enter society, he needs to be get rid of his most essential urge, which is to
survive.
[B] ‘People can never leave the state of
nature. For in order to leave it, they should be able to cooperate and trust
each other. But they cannot cooperate and trust each other in the state of
nature to begin with.’ Discuss.
People
can never trust each other because the concepts of good and evil are not
absolute terms and they change depending on the individual. Hobbes in his
Leviathan points out the instable and tentative nature of such important
notions and assert that such concepts alter based on the individual’s aversions
and appetites. This paves the way for conflicts as someone’s good may mean
other’s evil.
Moreover,
despite the different strengths of people, people are equal in nature because
they can compromise their deficiency with other qualities. Hence, everyone can
kill anyone using different instruments and methods meaning everyone is
essentially equal (Hobbes 83). In the state of nature where there is no law
prohibiting anything, the awareness of this equality drives people to consider
everything as potentially their property. This inevitably creates conflicts and
hence trusting becomes practically impossible as it is never rewarding because
there is no assurance that people will not break their promises.
However,
it is not impossible to form a society where people are governed under the roof
of a greater power which enforces covenants among people and punishes those who
do not abide it. Hobbes portrays war as a devouring phenomenon that deprives
people of the beauty of life. To illustrate, Hobbes argues that in the time of
war, there is no space left for art, music, industry, and culture (Hobbes 84).
Frankly, it shifts the sophisticated structure of society into a very primitive
disposition. Here Hobbes implies that there is a very thin layer between the
sophisticated intellectual civilization and the primitive, ruthless and
unforgiving habitat of humankind. Because of the ugly and detrimental aspect of
war, the humankind is forced to come up with a solution that can obstruct wars
from taking places. The best solution is to propose agreements preventing
people from killing each other, and which will be enforced by a greater power
so that it will be guaranteed that the agreement will be honored. Nevertheless,
this raises a question that begs to be answered: How can people trust the
person with the greater power?
The
cover page of the book showcases a number of human silhouettes forming the
shape of a creature named Leviathan.
This imagery alludes to the idea that people give their power to someone
who is going to govern them, and because of that this governor’s power depends
on the people he governs. Thereby, there is no reason to distrust him since in
the case of corruption or tyranny people can take back their power leaving the
governor powerless. This is further reinforced when the fact that people are
inherently equal is taken into consideration meaning the sovereign power is not
inherently power, its power as mentioned before, stemming from the citizens’
sacrifices.
Laws and covenants compromise the lack of
trust among people. In other words, it is impossible to trust other people but
the covenants enforced by the commonwealth assures people that they will not be
broken. It is not the trust among people that secures the covenants, it is the
commonwealth’s superior power used to enforce covenants that secures them. Therefore, trusting is not mandatory to leave
the state of nature because people don’t need to trust either the commonwealth
or other people.
Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas, and J. C.
A Gaskin. Leviathan. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1998
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder