Hobbes's Interpretation Of The State Of Nature example essay topic

"Whensoever a man his right, or renounce th it; it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself; or for some other good he hope th for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself". (192) Proposed with the question of whether Thomas Hobbes's manifesto was written of "ought's" constructed upon; prudential, moral or ethical foundations it is the former that prevails through his writing. Hobbes spoke of man universally when describing a human's primitive state, being one in a "state of nature". Without the presences of a common power, a sovereign, preventing man from entering their imminent condition of war, man would ultimately live a life that was. ".. nasty, brutish, and short". (186) For in the state of nature it is "every man, against every man".

(185) This being true, in absence of common power to create and enforce laws there would be no injustice. (188) Therefore the accepted rules of conduct to follow, principles of ethics and our interpretation of morality would not exist. The principals of Good & Evil would be subjective, left to the interpretation of each person. According to Hobbes the catalyst for the process of an absolute power would not be because it is right & just to keep war at bay, but because man has an intrinsic desire to live. Man fueled by his own self interests and capable of reason will see an absolute power, (as every man is naturally equal), as the only way to preserve himself. For it is the "general rule of reason, that every man ought to endeavour peace" (190) It is in man's self-interest to follow the laws of nature and to willingly give up all of his rights in order to secure his or her safety & preserve his or hers way of life, as long as all other's do the same.

It is in all reasonable men's self interest to agree upon these laws but, if other men will not do the same it would be "to expose himself to prey... rather than to dispose himself to peace". (190) This would directly contradict man's general rule of reason. This is the primary prudential "ought" for which his writing is justified. Hobbes's concept of what is ethical & moral are solely dependant upon the laws set forth by the sovereign. They are of social construction. By this I mean, the Laws of nature were written and defended solely on the basis that all men will voluntarily relinquish all rights to an absolute power out of their own self interests. .".. the voluntary actions of men tend to the benefit of themselves...

". (204) For man is naturally devoid of morality, and what is right can only be determined by law. While Hobbes's interpretation of the state of nature is universal, applied to all humans, his laws of nature are quite specific. If his laws were solely of ethical or moral philosophy why would what is right for one not be right for all? He states "to make a covenant with bruit beasts is impossible; because not understanding our speech, they understand not, nor accept of any translation of right... ".

(197) Therefore what is right is solely determined by law, in this case created by the sovereign. Hence the need to translate the right. For the right is not inherent in man. Hobbes was writing to persuade those already in a civilized state, to imagine what it would be like without what they already have.

Making the point that without full submission to the sovereign they risk losing everything in a civil war and relapsing towards a state of nature. Solidifying the prudential "ought". Samuel Clarke argued in Discourse Upon Natural Religion that there are universal values that all men abide by naturally, such as intentionally destroying those who have neither directly nor indirectly given any reason at anytime to do so would be considered "evil" or wrong. Recapping Hobbes philosophy upon the state of man the and laws of nature, what is moral and ethical can only exist once a society agrees to relinquish all of their natural rights to an authoritative power and laws are set in place. If man as a collective body, is unwilling to do so they will surely stay in a state of war without reassurance that they will be able to preserve their right to life, therefore it is solely in their self-interest that they conform and abide by the laws set forth before them.

"Lastly the motive, and end for which this renouncing, and transferring of right is introduced, is nothing else but the security of a mans person, in his life, and in the means of preserving life... ". (192).