Ana içeriğe atla

Hobbes' View of Fear

 The Power of Fear

    The Hobbesian state of nature is a hostile place where everyone is against one another. This perpetual state of conflict, according to Hobbes, arises from humanity's innate passions such as greed and competitiveness. Therefore, Hobbes argues that an artificial power enforcing laws and punishments is needed to escape this never-ending war. However, it appears that the passions causing conflict in the state of nature do not fundamentally differ in a Hobbesian state, raising questions about the effectiveness of Hobbes' ideas in preventing conflict and establishing social order. This essay will analyze the difference between the two states of living and argue that fear, as a motivation to obey the rules, is the core difference between the two.

    Hobbes describes human nature as fundamentally self-centered, with individuals in constant pursuit of fighting over materialistic possessions and glory. In Chapter XVII of Leviathan, Hobbes touches upon the importance of punishments and remarks that "covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all" (223). According to this, covenants can still be made, meaning people can design and establish laws that aim to benefit them collectively. However, without any sovereign power enforcing these laws, they hold no power. As a result, while in the state of nature, people can decide on abstaining from aggressive actions, there is no assurance that others will comply. Hence, it would be disadvantageous for pacifists. They would be oppressed by those who choose violence, suggesting that it is impossible to achieve peace in the state of nature. Therefore, it is clear that people may be aware of the laws but, to collectively obey them, they need motivation such as fear, which cannot be used in the state of nature but is a very effective tool in a Hobbesian state.

    Furthermore, surrendering your rights, power, and will to a sovereign power not only ensures people's security but also establishes social order. The reason is that, for Hobbes, fear is mandatory in maintaining order. Fear compels men "to the performance of their covenants" (223). When they receive a greater punishment than the benefit they gain from breaching the covenant, it becomes more compelling to obey the laws. Although this portrays men as innately immoral and irrational, Hobbes' comparison between animals and men suggests that it is indeed true. In his comparison, Hobbes suggests that men are greedy and competitive and they tend to overestimate themselves (223). Even though this is an overgeneralization, the implication of even a minority of the population having these passions and acting on them would put rational and moral people at a disadvantage. Therefore, in order to survive, everyone must exploit all the tools of war in the state of nature. To prove this, Hobbes points out that if we had been able to coexist harmoniously without some form of punishment coercing us, laws and punishments wouldn’t have existed as we wouldn’t have needed them (222).

    In conclusion, Hobbes' Leviathan proposes that the state of nature is a hostile environment, where human nature's innate passions cause constant conflict. According to Hobbes, establishing a sovereign power to enforce laws and punishments is essential for the establishment of social order and the prevention of conflict. Without a powerful sovereign to enforce laws, they are meaningless, and the passions of the state of nature will continue to dominate. The surrendering of individual rights, power, and wills to the sovereign is essential for the assurance of people's security and the establishment of social order. Fear is a necessary tool for maintaining order, and punishments greater than the benefits of breaking the covenant are essential for compelling people to obey the laws. Fear is also the main difference between the state of nature and a Hobbesian state. In the state of nature, there is no fear, so there is no assurance that people will comply with the laws.


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

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...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı