Ana içeriğe atla

Hobbes’ Paradox

Hobbes’ Paradox Resolved

According to Hobbes, people are born with passions that ultimately lead them into a never-ending war. They require artificial power to stop killing each other. Unless such a power is erected, Hobbes suggests, leaving the state of nature is impossible since people are not inclined to cooperate and trust each other.

The core reason why it is impossible to leave the state of nature is because of the innate passions people have that drive them to be constantly in conflict. Hobbes states that in the condition of nature, “any reasonable suspicion” renders any covenant or promise invalid since “bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions…” (196). Here, Hobbes highlights the importance of punishments, suggesting that without the motivating fear of punishments, covenants are practically invalid. It is also important to understand what Hobbes means by the condition of nature. He argues that because men are born equal, they feel entitled to attain the same ends. This results in a never-ending conflict where there is no property, and no notions of justice and morality. This portrayal depicts nature as a gruesome place people must leave in order to live a prosperous and peaceful life. However, to do this, Hobbes posits that people must cooperate and establish some form of power that can permeate fear among people so that it can ensure that no one is acting on their passions.

Hobbes suggests that because of this condition of nature, words have no power as there is no assurance that anyone will complete their end of the bargain (202). Although this paints nature as an inescapable place, according to Hobbes, trust and cooperation can be sustained through the consistent spread of terror among people. He asserts that people should willingly surrender their rights, power, and will to a body of power, making him the mortal god (227). That mortal god will ensure that people are obeying laws through punishments that can inflict greater harm than the benefits individuals would receive upon breaching laws. To prove the necessity of such a governing power, Hobbes prompts the reader to consider the state of nature and proposes that these laws and governments wouldn’t have existed if we had had the ability to live harmoniously in the state of nature, underscoring the necessity of sovereign power. This also suggests that there is an escape from this paradox, which stems from surrendering our rights to the sovereign power.

In conclusion, the state of nature is characterized by constant conflict and suspicion, where words hold no power, and covenants are practically invalid. While this makes cooperation and trust impossible, surrendering their rights and power to a governing body, making it a mortal god that can ensure obedience to the laws through punishments, is a plausible escape. Ultimately, Hobbes highlights the importance of fear in sustaining trust and cooperation and the necessity of sovereign power in establishing a prosperous and peaceful society. The paradox of leaving the state of nature is only resolvable by surrendering individual rights to the sovereign power.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edt. C. B. Macpherson. London: Penguin Books, 2017 

Yorumlar

Yorum Gönder

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Rhetoric in Hobbes' Leviathan

  Hobbes’ Word Play Hobbes argues in favor of a monarch or an oligarch. To be more precise, he is in favor of the idea that multiplicity comes with complexity, harming the integrity of the state. In his opinion, men are mostly power-driven, greedy beings who must surrender themselves to a sovereign power that can spread the terror of punishment. According to Hobbes, this fear of punishment is the only effective motivating force that can keep people from brutally murdering each other. While this Hobbesian idea of the state portrays the sovereign’s subjects almost as though they are slaves, this essay will argue that Hobbes is not fundamentally against liberty and allows it within the constraints of laws. Hobbes's description of liberty suggests that only external impediments are against freedom. He states that liberty is “the absence of external impediments” (189) and, although these impediments may take away man’s power to do what he would, they do not prevent men from using th...
1 yorum
Devamı

Rousseau on Legitimacy of State

Hobbes'dan sonra Rousseau okumayı Proust'tan sonra Daphnes ve Chloe okumaya benzetiyorum. Proust aşkı öyle yapay, çıkarcı ve öyle çirkin yansıtıyor ki, ondan sonra okuduğun her romana ister istemez Proust'un realist bakış açısından bakıyorsun. Belki de realizm sevdamı bırakmalıyımdır. Hobbes'un determinist bakış açısı da birçok argümanını epey ikna edici kılıyor. Bazen bu bakış açısından kaçmak istiyor insan. Hobbes kimmiş lan, ben ölümlü tanrıya irademi falan teslim edemem, gayet özgürüm demek istiyor. Yine de gel gör ki Hobbes haklı. Nasıl, Kant ödev ahlakında nasıl ki herkes davranışlarının topluma yansıdığını varsayarak hareket etmeli diyorsa, Hobbes da yapılmak istemediğini yapma diyor. Buna karşı çıkmak da biraz zor. Rousseau abi Social Contract'ında denese de Emile kitabındaki ikna ediciliğini devam ettiremiyor gibi hissediyorum. Birazdan okuyacak olduğun yazıda da oldukça soyut fikirler göreceksin ve yer yer kendine e ama niye diye soracaksın. Bil ki ben de ...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı