Hobbes

2. Hobbes claims that without a government to enforce law and order, we would find ourselves in a “war...of every man against every man.” What reasons does he give for believing this? Do you think he is right?
Hobbes argues that when there is no government or civil authority in place, humans are living in a state of nature. This state is what Hobbes calls a war, “of every man against every other man” (Leviathan pg.106). Since there is no order in place, everybody can then claim anything they want for themselves. To Hobbes, this war is a result of three different causes. Hobbes claims that humans are, for the most part, physically equal. He acknowledges that some people are stronger than others are but we are all individuals who have basically the same mental reasoning, and are vulnerable. This means that a competition results among any person or group of people any time that they want something. For example, if I wish I had something that somebody else is in possession of already; and this person is bigger and stronger than me, I can get a few friends together and physically take whatever it is that I wanted. War also arises out of panic, or attacking somebody for fear that they are about to attack you; a pre-emptive strike. So, if I think that somebody wants to take something of mine, I may take something of theirs before they have a chance, and harm them for the purpose of protecting myself. The third cause of war is glory, or the desire to be feared and have a good reputation, to put fear into people to stop attacking you in the future.
Hobbs doesn’t just think that humans are absolute brutes constantly battling just because they love to fight; he does however, think that a society without the protection of some sort of sovereign can decline into this because of the need people have to look out for their own self-interests and to preserve their own lives. I believe like Hobbes that living in this state of nature has a number of consequences. Nothing in the world can be considered as essentially good or evil. In a state of nature right and wrong is simply what is right or wrong to each individual person, since is no government or laws that distinguish for us right from wrong. The only way people can make promises with each other is by way of contract, which is a mutual exchanging of rights. There is special circumstance of this contract called a covenant. A covenant is a contract in which one person will give up one of his rights to somebody under the condition that the other person will be given to him at a later time. Covenants are the basic of all laws, rights to property, and most aspects in a civil society. However, according to Hobbes, all covenants between people that live in a state of nature are objectionable, because “He that performs the first has no assurance the other will perform after.” (Leviathan p. 121). This basically means that because people aren’t bound by any laws, the second person doesn’t have any incentive to keep his end of the covenant, as he won’t be punished for going back against his word. Hobbes’ prospects for humanity appear to be pretty depressing; however he does propose a way to overcome this state of nature.
I agree with Hobbes that the state of nature would be a bad thing to live under and a sovereign appears to be a good solution; however I think that the supposed unlimited power of the sovereign would need to be addressed. They need to be accountable for their own actions and not put above the laws they make.
The reason I agree is because sovereign makes laws for the people to follow. The important part is that these laws must be enforced. In the state of nature, all covenants are void because there is no punishment for breaking them. In a commonwealth, however, it would be against the law to break a covenant, so the person would be punished. Therefore a person would not break the covenant to begin with out of fear of the punishment. Hobbes argues that if there isn’t a punishment that is worse than what would happen if the person went through with his end of the covenant, then in fact there really isn’t a law because there is nothing to fear. The law must be both punishable and enforceable in order to be a law. I agree with him here because the argument seems rational, given the fact the way humans act.
I agree with Hobbes that the state of nature would be a bad thing to live under and a sovereign appears to be a good solution; however I think that the supposed unlimited power of the sovereign would need to be addressed. They need to be accountable for their own actions and not put above the laws they make.