Thomas Hobbes: What Is The Difference Between Obligations In Foro Interno And In
Foro Externo, And When Do We Have Such Obligations? Essay, Research Paper

Thomas Hobbes: What Is The Difference Between Obligations In foro interno and In

foro externo, and When Do We Have Such Obligations?

According to Thomas Hobbes, there are certain laws of nature which exist

in the absence of an organized government. These laws are extremely cut throat,

and place people in extremely dangerous situations where their lives are in

danger. Government is the answer to this dangerous situation, but it is here

that the question of obligation comes into question. Does one have an obligation

to take a chance and follow the laws set forth for them, or should they only

think of themselves, and follow the laws of nature? This is a vital question

which I will explore.

According to Hobbes, the overriding law of nature is kill or be killed.

Hobbes believed that, “every man has a right to everything, even to another

man’s body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to

everything endureth, there can be no security to any man(how strong or wise

soever he be) of living out the time which nature ordinarily allowith men to

live.”

However he also believed, “that a man be willing, when others are so too

as far-forth as for peace and defense of himself that he shall think it

necessary to lay down this right to all things, and be contented with so much

liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself.” The

question now is, when do we have an obligation to strive towards peace when it

means giving up our natural rights?

According to Hobbes, we always have an obligation to work towards peace,

and have an obligation in foro interno, but not always in foro externo. The

difference between there two are that in foro interno means inside you, or you

believing in something. In this case, it would mean that inside you, you would

want to strive for peace because it would mean an end to worrying about your

life. No longer would you have to walk around in a state of nature where any one

can come and take your life. Hobbes believed that a person always has an

obligation to strive towards peace in foro interno because every man wants one

thing more than any other, and that is to live.

However, Hobbes did not believe that you always had an obligation to

work towards peace in foro externo. The reason for this, simply put, you can not

trust other men to do the same unless you can be sure that they will not turn on

you and take your life. Hobbes felt that, “For he that should be modest and

tractable, and preform all he promises, in such time and place where no man else

should do, should be make himself prey to others, and procure his own certain

ruin, contrary to the ground of all laws of nature, which tend to nature’s

preservation.”3

Hobbes felt that one’s obligation in foro externo ended when fulfilling

the obligation would endanger the life of the person. Every law of nature is

geared for the preservation of the life of the self, and therefore, every man

has the right to not do something should it mean that he would have to give up

his or her life. In the case of in foro externo obligation towards peace, you do

not always have to do it.

If you decide you are going to give up you right to everything, and do

so, but another person does not, they will most likely kill you. Therefore,

before one can oblige in foro externo, there must be some sort of safeguard or

higher power which will ensure that everyone will give up their right to

everything. That is where governments come in. Their job is to make sure that

when all men agree to a covenant, in which they give up their rights to

everything, that they do not decide to break that covenant and take what they

want when they want it.

To make sure this breaking of the covenant does not happen, governments

set up institutions such as the police to make sure everyone follows the rules

of the government. It is only then, when a person can be sure that they will be

protected from others, are they obliged in foro externo to strive towards peace

and give up their right to everything.

Personally, I agree with what Hobbes is saying in this matter, it makes

a lot of sense even though it was written so long ago. It still has much

relevance today. Take for example the U.S., where most people have obliged in

foro externo to strive for peace and give up their natural rights. This is only

possible because people are not afraid (for the most part) that others will take

advantage of the situation and take what they want. However in other countries

where this safety is not felt, there is many instances where people take what

they want, when they want it, and often at the expense of the people who have

given up their right to everything. So as you can see, what Hobbes said so long

ago, still has much merit today.