Topic: Thomas Hobbes the State of Nature
In this essay, I will discuss Political Philosopher Thomas Hobbes’ ‘state of nature’. More specifically I will consider the causes of conflict within the state of nature and how those conflicts could result in a ‘war of all against all’. Moreover, I will consider if the war of all against all in the state of nature is plausible. I will conclude that the war of all against all is not plausible because Hobbes’ assumptions about preemptive action are too radical. In addition, Hobbes does not consider the natural tendency of humans to join limited altruism-based groups.
In order to discuss Hobbes’ ideas about the state of nature, it is necessary to turn to his 1651 book Leviathan. In Leviathan, Hobbes proposed and defended his social contract. In order to demonstrate the benefits of the contract, Hobbes introduced a worst-case scenario which he called the state of nature. He claimed the state of nature would lead to a war of all against all, which I will touch on later in this essay. Hobbes believed in order to avoid the war of all against all that people needed to exit the state of nature by relinquishing their individual rights to follow an absolute sovereign. By showing that the state of nature leads to a war of all against all, Hobbes hoped to make it clear that an absolute sovereign would best allow people to achieve their ends and attain secure peace. However, it is important to note that my essay will not delve into the details of leaving the state of nature to follow an absolute sovereign. I will instead focus on the state of nature itself. Specifically, I will focus on Hobbes’ catalysts for conflict within the state of nature that according to him would lead to a war of all against all.
In order to understand the causes of conflict in the state of nature, as well as the plausibility of a war of all against all, the state of nature itself, must first be understood. Hobbes’ state of nature is partially based on the fact that he assumes all humans to be ‘rational egoists’. What Hobbes means by rational egoism is that people will prioritize their individual desires over other-regarding interests. Philosophy Professor Gregory S. Kavka would define this category of egoism as ‘limited altruism’. “Individuals value their own survival and well-being much more highly than the survival and well-being of others, and act accordingly. Hence, if a person believes a certain course of action best promotes his own security, he is very likely to undertake it, even if it jeopardizes the survival or well-being of others. (Kavka 293) To an egoist, pursuing their own ‘good’ entails prioritizing and pursuing their wants in life. However, it must be noted that Hobbes is not implying that the actions of these described egoists are inherently selfish. In other words, he is not advocating for psychological egoism. Hobbes still acknowledges that people have the capacity to be somewhat sympathetic toward others and in turn have other-regarding motivations. However, self-interest is the driving force for a rational egoist in the state of nature.
Now that I have discussed rational egoism, I will move on to my brief discussion of self-preservation, natural equality, and the right of nature. The explanation of these terms is meant to provide more background on the characteristics of rational beings in the state of nature. Moreover, these characteristics contribute to the main causes of conflict in the state of nature. While people have other desires, their strongest desire is to preserve their own life: this phenomenon is conveniently termed ‘self-preservation’. Hobbes also assumes natural equality which is the idea that the differences between men are not considerable. This would mean that the weakest man, assuming he makes use of his resources, could kill the strongest man. Moreover, Hobbes believes in the right of nature. The right of nature assumes that so long as individuals are aiming to preserve their own nature, they can use their capabilities to fulfill their desires. This would allow individuals to kill one another, so long as they were doing so in order to reach their goals.
Using Hobbes’ assumptions about rational beings, as discussed above, it is easier to understand the causes of conflict within the state of nature. There are three major causes of conflict in the state of nature. “First, competition, Secondly, diffidence; thirdly, Glory,” (Hobbes 88).
Hobbes notes that the combination of egotistical behavior and the scarcity of resources inherently leads to competition. This is backed by the claim that humans have an insatiable hankering for power. “So that in the first place, I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of Power after power, that ceaseth onely in Death,” (Hobbes and Smith 75). It’s imperative to note the danger of this primitive human desire. The state of nature allows people to reach their ends by using whatever rational means necessary, even if it means taking the life of another individual. This means everyone is potentially dangerous.
The second cause of conflict, diffidence, has to do with the lack of confidence among rational beings. This sense of insecurity stems from the fact that individuals must constantly compete with one another to achieve their goals in the state of nature. This paranoia leads people to proactively conquer others in an effort to protect themselves. “…there is no way for any man to secure himself, so reasonable, as Anticipation; that is by force or wiles to master the person of all men he can, so long, till he sees no other power great enough to endanger him…” (Hobbes and Smith 95) In other words, the insecurities of rational beings lead them to strike first in hopes of eliminating potential threats. In the state of nature, it is common knowledge among rational individuals that striking first is beneficial. If an individual wants to achieve their goals in a society where everyone is trying to do the same they must engage in preemptive action. Preemptive action is essentially when an individual anticipates a negative outcome, so they are proactive about preventing the negative outcome.
Glory, the third cause of conflict in the state of nature, has to do with the egotistical nature of men. According to Hobbes, individuals believe they are exceptionally valuable and they, in turn, crave validation of this belief from others. Hobbes assumes that the desire for personal praise and recognition is intrinsic to human beings. Glory-seeking leads to conflict because even if there are abundant resources, men will still take away from others in hopes of having more than their peers. For example, if one man has enough crops to feed himself, he will still try to attain more farmland in order to have more crops than his neighbors. If an individual feels their reputation is being threatened, they will go to extreme measures to preserve their glory.
At this point, I have elucidated several characteristics of rational human beings in the state of nature and how those characteristics can cause conflict in the state of nature. Hobbes believed that without an absolute sovereign, individuals in the state of nature would face a wholly unproductive and damaging war of all against all. Put simply, the war of all against all is when the interests of individual rational human beings in the state of nature clash so much that people fear for their lives. These fears result in a lack of productivity. “…And which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short,” (Hobbes 89). There is no trust or sense of community in the state of nature because people are so focused on preserving their own lives and interests. That being said, it remains for us to determine if Hobbes’ argument for the state of nature is actually plausible.
First, it is important to remember that Hobbes never claimed the state of nature ever existed, at least not permanently. “But though there had never been any time, wherein
particular men were in a condition of warre one against another…” (Hobbes and Smith 98) Instead Hobbes used the state of nature as a form of counterfactual contractarianism. In a general sense, counterfactual contractarianism is when a possible scenario is used to defend a political theory, usually a form of government. In the case of Hobbes, the state of nature is merely a hypothetical, which he believes to be possible, meant to justify both the moral and political commitments of rational human beings. While the war of all against all is possible under certain conditions, it is not a plausible outcome in the most likely scenarios.
One of the bolder assumptions Hobbes makes is that rational beings engage in intense and usually violent preemptive action. Not only that, but Hobbes believed it was common knowledge among rational individuals to strike first. These assumptions are some of the main causes of conflict Hobbes uses to defend his ideas about the war of all against all. However, it may not always be beneficial to strike first. According to Kavka, striking first may be too risky because if a rational being is aggressive toward their peers, they are exposing themselves to a variety of potentially dangerous defensive acts in return. If an individual is known to strike first they will be known as a dangerous threat. Other rational beings in the state of nature will then want to eliminate this threat. Additionally, even if a person who is engaging in preemptive action does achieve power, other rational beings will be even more tempted to target them. Kavka discusses the dangers of anticipatory violence. Anticipatory violence is essentially Hobbes’ idea about rational individuals preemptively being violent toward others:
“Anticipatory violence plays a special role in the argument because such violence is escalatory in a way that competitive and glory-seeking violence need not be. Violence from the latter two sources alone might stay within tolerable limits, but once substantial anticipatory violence starts, it makes further anticipation more reasonable as a means of gaining the advantage on others who may reason similarly and anticipate. Thus, belief among the parties that anticipation is, or may be, the rational course of action, feeds an escalatory spiral of violence, and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Kavka 309)
In other words, preemptive action leads to a perpetual cycle of violence that is not beneficial to the individual. If it is not beneficial, then it is not something a rational egoist would want to engage in. According to Hobbes, the main goal of individuals in the state of nature is self-preservation. If a rational egoist’s goal of self-preservation becomes more challenging if they engage in preemptive action, then they will naturally gravitate toward another option. Perhaps individuals would be better off by joining smaller communities within the larger state.
However, Hobbes would likely argue that smaller groups within the state would still lead to a war of all against all because the individuals within that group are still made up of competitive, paranoid, glory-seeking individuals. However, it is natural for humans to form groups. It is also natural for individuals to form groups based on common goals and desires. That being said, it would not be rational for individuals to competitively outdo other members within the group as this would disrupt productivity. Multiple people working toward a common goal is more productive than an individual doing so. Paranoia would decrease with the formation of groups as individuals could trust other group members since they all share desires and goals. The need for individual glory may be diminished as individuals reap the benefits of working with others. The formation of groups is only natural. It is in fact, more natural than the state of nature Hobbes suggests in which it is every man only looking out for themselves.
This is because Hobbes does not take into account the intrinsic human value of kinship, especially within families. For example, if a mother and child were both in danger, the mother may prioritize the life of her child over her own. This could be for a variety of reasons, one of them being that the mother wants to continue on her bloodline. This argument would still work using Hobbes’ assumption that humans are naturally egotistical. While the mother may lose her own life in order to preserve that of her child, she would be doing so based on a personal desire. Maternal and paternal instincts play a major role in all human societies and they should be taken into consideration. These sorts of instincts could be the basis for smaller communities within the state. Smaller trusting communities would eliminate the possibility of a war of all against all. These groups could be made up of one family, or multiple trusting families. This supports the case for limited altruism. Limited altruism is essentially the idea that individuals will defend and prioritize their group so long as their group is satisfying the desires of the individuals within it.
However, the formation of groups within a state does not eliminate the potential for group on group violence. Groups may fight with one another in hopes of being the more powerful group. That being said, while there would be threats to the group as a whole, at the very least it would not be every individual against one another. Moreover, if an individual did not join a group, they would be an even bigger target. Thus individuals would gravitate toward joining a group because of the dangers of living alone. If it was not every individual pitted against each other, the war of all against all would not take place. Limited altruism seems to be the natural course humans would take. While Hobbes’ version of the state of nature was not meant to be historically accurate, it is not as plausible as the alternative I have presented in this essay. It appears unlikely that humans would gravitate toward a society without groups in which it was every individual only looking out for themselves.
All things considered, Hobbes’ argument for the war of all against all is invalid and unsound due to the overwhelming risks that come with individual violent preemptive action. A rational being with their main goal being self-preservation would be more inclined to join a group made of individuals who share common goals and desires. In addition, Hobbes does not properly consider the natural tendency for group formation based on kinship. Thus, Hobbes’ analysis of the state of nature that predicts a war of all against all is not plausible.
Works Cited
Kavka, Gregory S. “Hobbes’s War of All Against All.” Ethics, vol. 93, no. 2, University of Chicago Press, 1983, pp. 291–310, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2380421.
Hobbes, Thomas (1651), Leviathan, Richard Tuck (ed.), revised edition, 1996, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Part I, Chapters 13-15 and Part II, Chapters 17-18.
Hobbes, Thomas, and W.G. Pogson Smith Hobbes’s Leviathan: Reprinted from the Edition of 1651, with an Essay by the Late W.G.Pogson Smith. Clarendon, 1909. http://files.libertyfund.org/files/869/0161_Bk.pdf
