h o b b e s

ways the strongest of all desires, when everything is taken into account. In other words, I am making a contrast between saying something is the strongest of natural desires and saying something is the strongest of all of our desires; everything considered. Thus, he says in De Cive, an earlier work, that we seek to avoid death by a certain impulsion of nature, no less than whereby a stone moves downwards. But, as we all know, stones sometimes move sideways, or they get thrown upward. Social institutions and social customs and education and culture can, as it were, work on us in a certain way, so that as civilized persons we act non-naturally or contrary to nature, if you like, affected by institutions and culture as much as by the word of reason.

Hobbes seems to allow this, and he says as much in various places. However, in his political conception he wants to emphasize very basic things. He is aware that he lives in an age in which people appeal to many different kinds of interests—to religious interests, to political interests, to interests that he thinks are based in the end on pride and vainglory and love of dominion—and he is trying to introduce a class of interests common to everyone. That is, although we may differ from the standpoint of our religious and political views, and may have other various interests that are very important to us, we nevertheless share certain fundamental interests in self-preservation, conjugal affection, and the means of a commodious life. Hobbes wants to put all other interests aside and see the kind of argument that we would get for an effective Sovereign based only on these interests. The point is that Hobbes is not saying that other important interests, religious interests for example, don’t exist or are not important to people. He knows perfectly well that they exist and are important. He sees them all around him. But he is trying to give a basis upon which people might agree that an effective Sovereign is over all, over everything else, a desirable thing to have—thinking of the social contract in the third sense I discussed earlier (as an argument why people should accept an existing Sovereign to avoid degeneration back into the state of nature were the Sovereign to lose his power).

§3. The Argument for Hobbes’s Thesis

I shall now pull all this together and give, in a more concise form, Hobbes’s argument for his thesis that the state of nature leads to, and in fact is, a

[ 48 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Human Nature and the State of Nature

state of war. First, however, remember that in the state of nature there is no effective Sovereign to keep men in awe and discipline their passions, and that a state of war is a condition in which the will to contend by battle is publicly recognized. Furthermore, as I quoted Hobbes earlier, a state of war consists “not in battle only or the act of fighting . . . but in a known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is Peace” (Leviathan, p. 62). I take “publicly recognized” to mean that everybody knows, and everybody knows everybody else knows, that this is a state of war; it is common knowledge.

The argument for Hobbes’s Thesis can be summarized as follows:

(a)Equality of natural endowments and mental powers leads to equality of hope in attaining our ends, given the central place in Hobbes’s political doctrine of the desire for self-preservation and for the means of a commodious life. Equality of hope, given the scarcity of natural and produced means of sustaining life, puts people in competition with one another, and makes them potential enemies.

(b)Competition, given the great uncertainty concerning the aims of others and the possibility of their forming alliances and coalitions against us, gives rise to “diffidence,” which in modern usage means a general state of mutual distrust.

(c)Diffidence, made greater by the possibility that some may be moved by pride and vainglory to gain dominion over others, together with the fact that no covenants or contracts can provide security in the absence of a Sovereign to enforce them, makes productive industry seem less worthwhile and predation seem more productive, and this leads people to believe that their security is best secured by anticipatory attack.

(d)Anticipation—as the state of affairs in which the disposition to strike first when the circumstances seem propitious—is generally and publicly known, and is, by definition, a state of war.

Now I’ll comment on this outline of Hobbes’s argument:

(i)Note the meaning of diffidence. Nowadays it means shyness, timidity, or lack of self-confidence. But the derivation from the Latin is: diffidere, which means to mistrust. This is what it means in Hobbes. (Compare Hobbes’s use of “mediocrity of the passions” (Leviathan, p. 80) in the next to last paragraph of Chapter 15, meaning moderation of the passions.)

(ii)Note carefully that as I have stated the argument for Hobbes’s thesis, it assumes that everyone in the State of Nature conducts themselves in a perfectly rational manner. (I shall discuss this in more detail in a moment.) No

[ 49 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

h o b b e s

one is assumed actually to be moved by the love of dominion, or to have their deliberations actually distorted by pride and vainglory. No one is assumed to act irrationally in this argument. Indeed, given the opportunity, anticipatory attack is one’s most rational response to the circumstances. Nor does the argument assume that people have boundless desires for ever greater means to a commodious life. All that is assumed is that they desire to have enough to secure their present and future needs and wants.

At step (d) it is assumed that it is possible that some people are moved by pride and vainglory to seek dominion over others, and that this possibility must be taken into account in one’s deliberations. It may be that no one is actually so moved; what is important is that many believe that some are. If we cannot exclude the possibility, we have to take it into account and guard against it. The possibility is a basis for mutual suspicion. For example, in the case of two national powers in competition, they naturally tend to distrust each other. It may be that neither power is motivated to dominion or has any of these sorts of passions influencing those who govern it. But still the other side thinks so, and that is enough to exacerbate the state of nature and transform it into a state of war. That is the way I would interpret Hobbes’s emphasis on pride and vainglory. He does not for his purposes need to base his political theory on it, as some interpreters might think. We can say that if pride and vainglory, and the will to dominion is a possibility, then that is enough for his purposes. Thus, the difficulty in the State of Nature is the great uncertainty about the aims and intentions of others. As long, then, as love of dominion and vainglory are psychologically possible, these passions are a complicating factor in the State of Nature. A general state of uncertainty about others’ aims and intentions characterizes the State of Nature, so that a concern for our self-preservation forces us to consider the worst possibilities.

(iii)Hobbes also does not need to assume that people generally desire more “power” (as means for their good = means to fulfill their desires) without bound. Most people may be content with moderate means (for a commodious life). So long as some do strive for dominion, all must strive for dominion as means to their own security. Gibbon said: “Rome conquered the ancient world in self-defense.” (He meant this in sarcasm.)

(iv)The significance of Hobbes’s argument lies in part in the fact that it rests on quite plausible assumptions about the normal conditions of human life. For example, again it does not assume that everyone is actually moved

[ 50 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Human Nature and the State of Nature

by pride and vainglory to seek dominion over others. That would be a questionable assumption. It would give his conclusion, but much too easily. What makes his argument frightening and gives it significance and dramatic power is that he thinks that normal, even quite nice, people can be put in this sort of situation, and it will degenerate into a state of war. You lose the significance of the view if you overemphasize the desire for power and domination. The force of Hobbes’s thesis, and why it is so significant an achievement (even though Hobbes does not frame it in such a careful and rigorous fashion), is that the premises rest solely on normal and more or less permanent circumstances of human life as they quite plausibly might be in a State of Nature. The point is: we don’t have to be monsters to be in deep trouble.

(v)Remember that Hobbes’s psychological and other assumptions need not be strictly true of all human conduct. He is not a thoroughgoing psychological egoist, as we have seen. His assumptions about basic human interests need only be accurate enough to represent the major influences on human conduct in the kinds of social and political situations he is concerned with. On the interpretation proposed, Hobbes’s secular moral system is meant as a political doctrine; and as such, it is appropriate that it stress certain aspects of human life. The relevant question is, are his assumptions true enough to model some of the major psychological and institutional forces that influence human behavior in political situations?

(vi)Hobbes is trying to convey to us that, even if all were moved by normally moderate wants and we were perfectly rational people, we are still in danger of a State of War in the absence of an effective Sovereign with all the powers Hobbes says the Sovereign must have to be effective. However bad some Sovereigns may be, the State of War is still worse. Greed, love of dominion, pride, and vainglory can be serious complicating elements; but they are not actually necessary to bring it about that the State of Nature will become a State of War. At best, the possibility that some are so moved is enough.

(vii)A useful exercise is to see how far the assumption of Hobbes’s thesis can be weakened still further in the sense that people in a State of Nature are in a State of War even though their psychology is less self-centered and they are more virtuous, or moved by wider attachments and affection. For example, suppose all are motivated according to Hume’s account of limited altruism. Consider here the case of religious wars, for example in the 16th

[ 51 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

h o b b e s

and 17th centuries. We can suppose that all are devout and faithful to their conception of religious obligation and still they can be thrown into a State of War. Remember that Hobbes is writing against the background of this history and the English Civil War.

Finally, as an aside, let me say that in looking at a text of this sort, which is so large, and with so many elements in it, if you are to get as much out of it as you can, you must try to interpret it in the best and most interesting way. There is no point in trying to defeat it, or to show the author was wrong in some way, or that his argument doesn’t follow. The thing is to make as much out of it as you can and to try to get a sense of how the overall view might go, if you put it in the best way. Otherwise, I think it is a waste of time to read it, or to read any of the important philosophers.

Hobbes Lecture II: Appendix A

Handout: Outline of Hobbes’s Claim that the State of Nature → a State of War

1.State of Nature = df. state of affairs in which there is no Sovereign power to keep everyone in awe. State of War = df. state of affairs in which the will to contend by battle is publicly recognized. A State of War consists not in actual fighting but in a known disposition thereto during a stretch of time in which there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.

2.Argument for the Claim that the State of Nature → State of War:

(a)Equality (of natural endowments and mental powers)—given the central place in Hobbes’s political doctrine of the desire for self-preserva- tion and the desire for the means of a commodious life—leads to equality of hope in attaining our ends.

(b)Equality of hope—given the scarcity of natural and produced means of life—puts people in competition with one another and makes them potential enemies.

(c)Competition—given the great uncertainty concerning the aims of others and the possibility of their forming alliances and coalition against us—gives rise to diffidence, that is, to a general state of distrust.

(d)Diffidence—made greater by the possibility that others may be moved to gain dominion by pride and vainglory, together with the fact

[ 52 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Human Nature and the State of Nature

that no covenants can provide security—makes productive industry seem less worthwhile (predation may be more productive) and leads people to find their security by anticipatory attack.

(e)Anticipation, as the state of affairs in which the disposition to strike first when the circumstances seem propitious is generally and publicly known, is by definition a State of War.

3.Observe these points:

(i)In this argument no one is assumed to act irrationally. Nor does the argument assume that people have boundless desires for ever greater means of a commodious life.

(ii)At step (d) it is assumed that it is possible that other people are moved by pride and vainglory to seek dominion, and that this possibility must be taken into account; but no one may actually be so moved. (One should also consider the question whether the assumption of this possibility is necessary for Hobbes’s argument.)

(iii)The significance of Hobbes’s claim lies in part in the fact that it rests in quite plausible assumptions about the normal conditions of human life. For example, it does not assume that everyone actually is swayed by pride and vainglory to seek dominion over others. This questionable assumption would give the conclusion but make it much less interesting.

(iv) We should recall that Hobbes’s psychological and other assumptions need not be strictly true of all human conduct. We have seen that he is not, for example, a psychological egoist. His assumptions need only be accurate enough to model the major influences on human conduct in the kinds of political and social situations that Hobbes is concerned with. Don’t forget that, on the interpretation proposed, Hobbes’s secular moral system is meant as a political doctrine; and as such, it is appropriate that it stress certain aspects of human life.

[ 53 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College