Thomas Hobbes argues in chapter 13 of the Leviathan that “the state of nature is a state of war of all against all” (Martens 69). Throughout history, various philosophers have studied and discussed this view. However, it is Hobbes’ account of persistent fear of danger and violent death which I seek to critique in this essay. According to Hobbes, the State of nature is a political philosophy that describes a circumstance before the establishment of enforcement by the state (70). Notably, such enforcement is the only way of ensuring orderliness and respect for cooperative agreements within societies. Consequently, many political philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau considered the state of nature as a starting point for their philosophical ideas.
There are several reasons why many people appear to treat Hobbes’ argument as the most accurate portrayal of a pre-civilised, anarchical society. Firstly, many believe it to be simple and objectively correct, to the extent that objection might be a fruitless disregard for factual reality (Williams 220). Secondly, there are proponents of Hobbes’ account of the state of nature who agree that it is egotistical and unforgiving, thus find it easy to comply with the assumption of a dark, gloomy and unbearable state of nature. This paper seeks to present for consideration, my arguments that such opinions are not logically justified. This is because Hobbes’s argument is solely founded on assumption. Moreover, this is an assumption that is significantly molded on the happenings surrounding the anarchy due to a brutal Civil War. Also, Hobbes’ argument lies because despite their rationality, human beings are intrinsically wicked and self-centered individuals, whose actions are meant for self-enrichment. Such an argument cannot be completely validated. Therefore, it cannot be taken as the ‘necessary truth.’
The work of Thomas Hobbes still shapes the political world today and continues to impact our comprehension of human nature and interactions. This impact is in spite of it having such a bleak view of the human condition and the simple invalidity of this argument. To justify my criticism of Hobbes’ work, I will begin by presenting his original argument and a brief preview of some modern interpretations. Then, I shall cross-examine the conclusions of these views against those of other social contract theorists such as Locke and Rousseau. Finally, is a presentation on the rational logic behind the belief in my argument that “the state of nature is most certainly not a state of war of all against all.”
Hobbes argues that people residing in a state of nature are devoid of the common power to enforce control. As a result, they are in a state of endless war, with each person struggling against the other. Furthermore, he defines war as not only a state of continual physical combat which may be unreasonable to assume. Instead, war is also described as a ‘readiness’ or willingness to fight at any moment even if an actual war never takes place. Notably, this readiness intensifies the possibility of war, and this alone is enough to evoke great tension that is comparable to war itself. Hence, there is no reason as to why these two should be differentiated.
To prove the state of nature exists, Hobbes builds his argument on five different assumptions that are based on his systematic understanding of human nature. These assumptions were adopted following his study of Galileo’s Principle of the Conservative motion. Using this principle of physics, Hobbes was able to develop a materialist, mechanical view of human beings. This view suggests that humans are on an endless journey, in which they are always searching for something and never reaching the end. Therefore, Williams concludes that “life itself is but motion, and can never be without desire, fear or sense.” (236). As a result of this conclusion, human beings in Hobbes’ view seek contentment or the persistent search to achieve the object for our desire. Additionally, the power that one needs to obtain their desires is what Hobbes claims to be the reason why the state of nature is synonymous with a state of war.
The first principle that we are presented with is that of ‘natural equality’. According to this principle, all people are roughly equal, given the basis that we possess the same level of mental skill and physical power. Notably, this means that each human being can kill any other human being. Nevertheless, the differences between individual’s natural powers never reach a level that is indicative of an obvious successor in the occasion of battle. From this, Hobbes adds his second ‘reasonable’ principle that there scarcity in the supply of natural goods within the confines of the state of nature. Thus, nature cannot satisfy the desires of all the occupants who crave its provisions. The consequence is a conflict of desires, which will naturally lead to dispute – “If any two men desire the same thing and they both cannot enjoy it, they will become enemies.”
Then, Hobbes continues to discuss the uncertainty of the state of nature. That is, he expounds how one can never be safe from the prospect of war with the other. He argues that if people were to act as the rational mind stipulates, then their predominant concern would be their long-term well-being: to secure both their present and future desires. Such actions lead to the ‘Advantage of anticipation and pre-emptive strikes.’
The final principle upon which the assumption of the state of nature is based is that of limited altruism. Hobbes argues that individuals are predominantly concerned about their own survival, and worry little about those around them. Therefore, people’s actions are purely based on selfishness, to the extent that they may damage the whole existence of the community.
All these principles appear quite reasonable when based on Hobbes’ assumptions of human nature. Thus, they present us with a transparent and credible argument about the state of nature being a state of war of all against all. This state of readiness for war stems from the suggestion that thoughts about their future security would consume those living in an environment with no overarching sovereign power to enforce laws and punishment. These thoughts about future safety are based on the personal acknowledgment of their vulnerability to potential unavoidable attack and pursuance of violence as a mechanism of protection.
Nevertheless, this situation is only plausible if like Hobbes; one possesses a negative opinion of the natural human condition. On the other hand, a state of nature might appear more attractive and peaceful if we adopted a different perspective on human nature and motivation. Take, for instance, if human’s natural desire were to protect and assist one another instead of competing, there would be ensuing cooperation in a collective rational manner. Such cooperation ensures that people always there is a comradeship, whereby people seek out and assist each other.
Fellow social contract theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke adopted a more pleasant position. John Locke, in his work, The Two Treaties of Government argued that “The state of nature and the state of war are as far apart as a state of peace and a state of enmity are from one another.” (Simmons 450). Despite the claim that Locke’s statement was not directed at the work of Hobbes, there is tangible proof that most of his points are the direct opposite of the state of nature as presented in the Leviathan.
In his argument, Locke is keen to emphasize the belief that the war-ready state of nature is invalid. Instead, he believes that humans can live a pleasantly secure life, even in the absence of authority. Just like Hobbes, Locke’s basis for this argument stems from personal opinion on human nature. Thus, in Locke’s state of nature, humans are internally good, compassionate beings that are highly social. Also, they possess a sense of morality, which governs their judgment of right from wrong. Therefore, for Locke, the state of nature is not set on impending doom in which man is lonesome, poor, bitter and inhumane. Instead, his perspective is that the state of nature is one of perfect freedom, within which all men are equal and in possession of inherent rights bound by the law of nature.
The starkest difference between Hobbes’ and Locke’s positions is made clearer by Locke’s presentation of his view on human motivation. While Hobbes believes that humans ambitions are purely self-centred, Locke thinks that human beings are motivated to act in accordance with the law of nature; “For the Law of Nature would as all other laws that concern men, be in vain, if there were nobody that in the state of nature had the power to execute it.” (Simmons 449). However, Locke concedes that acting according to the law of nature is not an automatic response for members of the society. Moreover, Locke does not believe that true natural liberty is the power held by mankind to punish offenders. In short, the possibility of enforcing the law of nature without government intervention strengthens the claim that the state of nature can be peaceful coexistence within a community that seeks to promote justice. “Each transgression may be punished to that degree and with so many severities as will suffice, to make it an ill bargain to the offender and give him cause to repent and terrify others from doing the like.” (Simmons 451)
Nonetheless, Locke’s argument regarding impartiality and interpretation of justice has problems. Firstly, it can be argued that there may arise disputes regarding the determination of whether there has been a breach of law and the application of the punishment. Putting these problematic areas aside, it is impossible that minor conflicts would lead to a state of war of all against all. This harmonious coexistence according to Locke is due to the lack of a need to disregard the natural law and harm the next person. Also, the Hobbesian state of nature involves man’s insatiable desire to garner possession amidst scarcity. The Lockean state differs in that it proposes an abundance of resources and rationality in man. Such abundance facilitates self-sufficiency and prevents the need to arouse conflicts through theft from each other. Simply put, the Lockeian state is one in which there is joy in living.
Furthermore, it is important to examine the state of nature theory as presented by Rousseau in The Social Contract Discourses. A similarity with Hobbes is his belief that humans are motivated by their desire to protect their wellbeing. Also, he agrees with Locke that humans have an inherent capability to care and pity for others, “We have an innate repugnance at seeing a fellow-creature suffer.” (Cervellati, Matteo, Piergiuseppe Fortunato, and Uwe 1360).
The argument follows that in a compassionate world, the war would be a manifestation of irrationality, given man’s natural instinct of avoiding pain. This instinct acts as a powerful restraint to confrontations. Like Hobbes, he believes that the notion of laws and morality have no rational place in the state of nature. He, however, dissents Hobbes’ thinking that man is naturally wicked and self-centered. Thus, the lack of war in his state of nature stems from an innate sense of sympathy, not the Lockeian fear of breaking a moral code. However, a Hobbesian may counter this proposition of sympathy, by claiming that humanly motivations of self-preservation may conflict with compassion to culminate in war. In short, Rousseau and David argue that according to Rousseau’s state of nature, “man is neither standing in need of his fellows nor having any desire to hurt them.” (530). Thus, the compassionate nature proposed by Locke and the sympathy proposed by Rousseau serve to defuse Hobbesian argument about the state of nature.
Nevertheless, one should not be fooled that the lack of state of nature is one of war of all against all portends a Utopian state of freedom and enjoyment. Instead, as previously elucidated, Locke spoke of the perils of his state of nature, only differently from Hobbes. According to Locke, the inconvenience is caused by the creation of a currency, which causes scarcity of resources since individuals are driven by greed to amass wealth. Consequently, there is increased pressure on land. However, he disputes that this inconvenience in his state of nature necessarily culminates in war. Instead, it creates a discomfort that requires administrative rule to bring back the initial balance
The major logical flaw I have discovered with Hobbes’s argument is the lack of justification for his view that anticipation is the best protective approach in a state of war. To me, such a belief is too irrational and illogical to be followed. This is because, despite his efforts to elucidate the advantages of the anticipatory approach to war, Hobbes fails to address the obvious dangers of adopting pre-emptive attacks mentality in his state of nature. According to (Cervellati et al. 1358), to engage in such acts requires one to contend with the defensive violence of their victim. Contention with others’ defensive violence portrays one as a potential threat to the security of fellow anticipators. Additionally, triumph following anticipatory aggression makes one a target for glory seekers aiming to eliminate the threat. In consideration of these perils, it would be safer to pursue a strategy of lying low while still maintaining alertness. Therefore, fighting is reduced only to only when one is attacked, as this would be more likely to promote one’s interests compared to anticipation.
However, such a policy is perhaps not the most logically attractive alternative. The formation of coalition groups is more beneficial to personal security. Also, cooperation and agreement between community members to provide mutual aid in the event of an attack are more attractive. Although these arrangements may carry some dangers, the potential advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Such results promote their adoption as more effective defensive strategies when compared to anticipation.
Despite this belief that collective approach to defense is a more logical approach, a Hobbesian would naturally question this collaborative approach. This doubt stems from the lack of assurance that other members of the coalition will play their part in the event of an attack. Moreover, this argument is discredited by its ignorance of the consequences of failure to fulfill the terms of the coalition. In various instances, such failures portend greater danger for the failed party. Nevertheless, the formation of defensive coalitions is highly rational, as it minimizes the chances of the state of nature lapsing into a state of war of all against all.
It is important to recall despite the huge significance of the works of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on the state of world politics; they are merely theories that cannot be realistically validated. It is also important to acknowledge that the state of nature experiment is nothing more than a hypothetical scenario that cannot be proven since we cannot simply abolish the state for this sake. All the three accounts of the state of nature that have been discussed are solely based on assumptions of the human condition. One’s contextual surrounding can heavily influence these assumptions. This environmental influence is strongly manifest by Hobbes case, which he proposed during the time of a destructive civil war in England. His view on the nature of humanity may have been heavily distorted by the cruelty he was witnessing. Such cruelty is highly likely a result of molding into one’s personality due to involvement in society. Locke and Rousseau have convincingly argued that it is not one’s natural state, since humans can create and maintain some civilized order without established intervention. Additionally, from logical deductions, it is apparent that Hobbes’s argument possesses a larger number of flaws compared to the theories presented by Locke and Rousseau.
In conclusion, one’s opinion on whether the state of nature is a state of war of all against all will be heavily influenced by one’s interpretations of human nature. However, I firmly believe that anyone who accepts that human beings are rational creatures has to disagree with Hobbes ideology that man is a continually in a state of fear, which promotes readiness for war. My belief is based on the discovery of flaws in the Hobbesian theory and the claim by other social contract theorists Locke and Rousseau that man’s rationality supersedes his desire to go to war at all time.
Works Cited
Cervellati, Matteo, Piergiuseppe Fortunato, and Uwe Sunde. "Hobbes to Rousseau: Inequality, institutions, and development." The Economic Journal 118.531 (2008): 1354-1384.
Martens, Stephanie B. "The Invention of the Natural Man in Political Theory: Hobbes’s Leviathan." The Americas in Early Modern Political Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2016. 69-93.
Rousseau and David L. "Assessing the dyadic nature of the democratic peace, 1918–88." American Political Science Review 90.3 (1996): 512-533.
Simmons, A. John. "Locke's State of Nature." Political Theory17.3 (1989): 449-470.
Williams, Michael C. "Hobbes and international relations: a reconsideration." International Organization 50.2 (1996): 213-236.
