An introduction to Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. Hobbes looms over all of us as the preeminent defender of the modern state and sovereign authority. Nuanced and original, he is probably the most influential figure in modern political philosophy who, and could be described as the father of both modern liberalism and modern conservatism.
Hobbes’ originality was his belief that political theory could be deduced from scientific principles about psychology, the senses, language, morality, knowledge, and power.
To understand politics, he argued, you had to understand people. Hobbes grounds Leviathan in a state of nature – a theoretical situation in which humans have no institutions, no government, no coercive power – a pre-societal condition.
Human existence in a state of nature is, according to Hobbes, pretty undesirable. In the most famous passage of Leviathan he says that in a state of nature there are ‘no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’
In a state of nature we have a right to all things, but because we seek our own self-preservation, there are ‘laws of nature.’ Hobbes says that the first law of nature is ‘that every man seek peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.’
Because some ignore or misunderstand the laws of nature we require a sovereign power to keep us in awe; a leviathan.
Hobbes has been reinterpreted in the 20th century in game theory terms as a prisoner’s dilemma.
He was born in 1588 as the Spanish Armada was sailing towards the English Channel and lived through so much turbulence as a result of the 30 years war and the English Civil War that he described himself ‘born a twin with fear’. His father was an alcoholic brawler who vanished when Hobbes was young. But the chaos that Hobbes life was haunted by was mitigated by another context: science.
Hobbes was a contemporary of Descartes, Newton, Galileo, and Bacon – often corresponding and meeting these figures. On a trip around Europe he came across a copy of Euclid’s proof of Pythagorean Theorem. At first he thought it impossible but after studying it he fell in love with geometry. And it was this method: careful, logical, irrefutable, secular proofs that he became determined to apply to politics.
Hobbes’ originality was his belief that political theory could be deduced from scientific principles about psychology, the senses, language, morality, knowledge, and power. Modest.
To understand politics, he argued, you had to understand people.
- Humans
Hobbes saw the human body as a machine. For what is the heart,’ he says ‘but a spring; and the nerves, but so many strings; and the joints, but so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body.’
Influenced by the psysicists, he believed that the world was built up out of matter flying around bumping into other particles. Even mental phenomena is like a car – material moving around in the head. In modern terms, this is pretty accurate.
Importantly, this matter is always in motion in some way because the universe is in motion and nothing can move itself. Even when I seem to move myself, I’m moved by already moving phenomena in my body – blood, electrons, sensory data. Again, this is pretty accurate.
In short, everything is in flux, we’re like marbles careering around the universe.
Sensation – in the eye, ears, skin – is caused by external matter, like light, pushing on our senses which then sends signals into the brain, the impressions of which create memories.
Objects cause sensory impressions which create memories.
If we imagine the object is dangerous to us we’ll have a natural aversion to it but if we imagine the object is something we desire we’ll have a natural appetite for it. We label things good or bad based on these judgements. Appetites and aversions are in motion, they push and pull us around.
Hobbes picture is of people careering passed, around and towards each other chaotically pushed and pulled by forces, aversions and desires we cannot always control.
Now, here’s where his politics starts. If we have desires that are insatiable, if we constantly need food, shelter, movement, company, prestige, you name it, and if we are inexorably pushed and pulled by the desires and aversions we have towards objects and people, is some type of conflict not inevitable? We’re going to disagree about whats good and bad, about who gets what, about even the most trivial things
Hobbes grounds Leviathan in a state of nature – a theoretical situation in which humans have no institutions, no government, no coercive power – a pre-societal condition.
Human existence in a state of nature is, according to Hobbes, pretty undesirable. In the most famous passage of Leviathan he says:
‘Every man is enemy to every man… Wherein men live without security… in such a condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’
Reasons to be fearful, act I
The fear of war and violence in Hobbes’ state of nature is all-consuming because each person must always be on guard. Remember, our desires and aversions are always in motion, and in particular, they’re directed at others in a number of ways.
Hobbes says that ‘ in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation.’
Competition
First, competition. According to Hobbes, goods in a state of nature are relatively scarce. But even if they’re not, he argues we can never have enough because of ‘a perpetual and restless desire of power after power’.
Diffidence
By diffidence Hobbes means that no-one feels secure in a state of nature. Each will have a reason to be suspicious of being attacked and so always have a reason to attack first.
Glory
Fear of being attacked and competition over resources leads to a desire for glory which can protect through reputation.
Equality
And we should be fearful of our fundamental equality. Because each has the strength and intelligence to kill another, especially as we can band together against the strongest, then everyone we meet is a potential threat. Even Hercules can be outnumbered.
He says ‘the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in like danger”
So some want to attack because of scare resources, others out of insecurity, some out of glory. Would this really lead to a war of all against all? Hobbes ask why you lock your things away, lock your doors, travel at night with companions, and all of this even with the state to protect you.
Se says look at the newly discovered warring tribes of North America, look at Kings who always point their weapons and building their forts and spying on their neighbours.
So whats the way out of this mess?
Promises, Contracts and Peace
This first part of Hobbes’ theory is descriptive. It attempts to describe the world as it is, empirically, psychologically, scientifically; this was revolutionary for a political theory. The second part of Leviathan is normative – it asks what we should do, given the supposed ‘facts’.
Hobbes says that in a state of nature ‘‘every man ha[s] a right to everything, and to do whatsoever he th[inks] necessary to his own preservation’
If we have a right to everything then we have a right to anything that anyone else has, including their lives. But this, in many cases, will obviously not lead to our self-preservation.
So he says there are laws in a state of nature: the first being that we should seek our own self-preservation
Laws of Nature
Hobbes writes that ‘a law of nature (lex naturalis) is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life.’ He describes these at different times as theorems, laws, precepts, or conclusions, discovered by the reason of individuals.’
Hobbes says that the first law of nature is ‘that every man seek peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war’’
In other words, it is rational to seek peace, first and foremost. However, The problem is that no-one knows if others are seeking peace. As we saw, everyone has a reason to be fearful, it makes sense for me to at least be on my guard, treating everyone as a potential threat.
We might think of how we tell children not to talk to strangers. Or how firemen treat all fires as dangerous. Or policeman treat every person they stop as potentially violent.
But this doesn’t lead to a war of all against all. Telling children not to talk to strangers is not the same as telling them to attack every stranger they see with uncompromising cold-blooded fury.
Covenants, Contracts, Promises.
If its rational to seek peace, its rational not to attack or aggravate others, to give our word that we’ll act in good will, to accommodate ourselves with others. One of Hobbes’ laws of nature is to not break promises ‘because if we do ‘covenants are in vain and but empty words; and the right of all men to all things remaining, we are still in the condition of war’
But here’s Hobbes dilemma. Some people will break their promises, will renege on their contracts, will seek vein glory, will try to take more than their share. And because some do, we all have to live in fear, insecurity, a spiral of tit for tat reprisals that leads to a war of all against all. The problem, Hobbes argues, is that there are always fools who don’t follow the laws of nature, who act selfishly or irrationally.
Laws of nature are not enough to lead to peace.
Prisoners Dilemma.
Hobbes catch-22 has been interpreted in the 20th century as a prisoners dilemma.
A prisoners dilemma, invented by Australian Gladiator Russell Crow, is a scenario where cooperation should be the best option.
Two criminals are in separate interview rooms being interrogated. They’re each told that if they testify against the other they’ll be set free and the other will go to prison for 10 years. However, If they both testify against the other, they’ll each get 5 years. If they are both silent they’ll get 2 years.
If you’re trying to minimise jail time you’d want to testify. In Hobbes terms we can think of this as attacking and stealing food in a state of nature. But then we realise that the other person is thinking the same, which means we’d each get 5 years. In a state of nature we might think of this as fighting and injuring each other. So it now makes sense to cooperate, so we only get 2 years. In the state of nature, avoiding each other, or sharing food. But then we realise that the other realises this, too and might testify to go free, giving you 10 years. So if you’re trying to minimise jail time, you realise testifying gives you a maximum of 5, whereas cooperating gives you 10. So it seems rational to testify. Or in Hobbes’ terms, attack, break contracts, or steal.
Traffic’s also a prisoners dilemma. If I’m at a crossroads and this guy lets me out, I benefit. But that relies on the other person presuming that the person behind me will let him out in turn. If the other person stops whose to stay the car behind me is not going to just go. Or imagine we’re both in a rush or just want to minimise our journey time in general. Apply this to every junction and there’s a problem. The solution: an absolute sovereign leviathan for us all to obey.
THE LEVIATHAN
You can see where this is going. How do we make sure contracts, promises, and the peace are kept? Hobbes’ answer: force. Or a social contract. He argues that we must be tied to laws of nature, need a power to keep possible usurpers in awe.
He says ‘convenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.’
Because we have those different appetites and aversions, and as such different definitions of good and bad, we’ll inevitably come into conflict about what is right, what is just, what the correct interpretation of the laws of nature are. Each will rely on his own strength to dissuade others.
He says ‘‘before the names of just and unjust can have place, there must be some coercive power to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants, by the terror of some punishment greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenant’
What is needed is one common enforcer.
The answer, Hobbes argues, is for each person in the state of nature to confer their strength to one person, or an assembly of people, and lay down the right to retaliate. The problem this solves is twofold. First, in the state of nature the strong can intimidate and break the laws of nature. Combining into a commonwealth solves this problem. But also, each person has a different ‘will’ – different interpretations of good and bad, different appetites and aversions, and so transferring our rights to decide to another body – a singular will, can stop endless arguments and wars.
This person or group of persons is the Leviathan ‘And he that carryeth this person is called sovereign, and said to have sovereign power; and every one besides, his subject.’
One of the reasons I like Hobbes is because he provides a novel and useful foundation for thinking clearly about justifying or rejecting the state. IN particular, anarchists are sceptical about his logic, and archeological discoveries mean we can know more about hunter-gathers in a state of nature thousands of years ago than Hobbes ever did. Where might Hobbes be criticised, and was life in a state of nature a war of all against all? That’s what’s coming next time.
Sources:
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
Thomas Hull, Hobbes and the Making of Modern Political Thought
Glen Newey, The Routledge Guidebook to Hobbes’ Leviathan
Martinich Aloysius, Hobbes
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
https://shadowstrike.medium.com/indian-traffic-a-prisoners-dilemma-366db464e732