Hobbes Essay, Research Paper

Is Life without Government “Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish and Short”? Thomas Hobbes’ Philosophy Daniel HeplerTOK 11Block: FOctober 20, 1998 Is Life without Governement “Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish and Short”? Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century philosopher, is known for describing life without government as being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” . This melancholy statement about the natural state of humans is part of a larger theory of how humans interact with one another. He believed that humans act only for their own self-interest, constantly measuring gain over punishment, seeking the upper hand in their lives. This, however, is debatable. I believe that humans are naturally kind, generous, and loving people. I do not ignore the fact that people fight amongst themselves, but rather I believe that people fight because of what society has taught them. Hobbes, though, saw this differently, as he lived in a different era, with a different society. The 16th and 17th centuries were an era full of wars and changes, where injustice and inequality were facts of life. Hobbes deduced the need for government from his interpretation of human nature. Hobbes thought that everyone acts on their own self-interest, to further themselves at the expense of others. People try gaining possession of others, both physically and mentally to show their power, and to advance themselves in society. At the same time he thought people are defending themselves, preventing others from gaining an advantage over them. Reputation and prestige are measurements of how powerful a person is, according to Hobbes. Their power is determined by the number and status of people they dominate (as slaves, underlings, peasants, vassals, etc). If they dominate many people they are respected, which grants safety, for people are intimidated by a powerful reputation. Therefore prestige and reputation are to be upheld. This seems to be Hobbes’ representation of society in his time. The traditional monarchies were being challenged, as they became democracies. This, however, was not an easy change. There were many wars and conflicts as the populace gained more control over their lives. During these conflicts, Hobbes saw many nobles and peasants fighting. There seemed to be three reasons for this fighting. First was competition, involving people fighting for gain (territories, liberties). Second was diffidence, involving people fighting for safety and protection. Third was glory, involving reputation and prestige. During these wars, Hobbes came up with another definition of war. War is not just the actual battling. It is the whole time when people are fighting. Everyone fights for themselves, which destroys commerce, arts, culture, and society as a whole. This is also when there is no government to keep people in check, it is the state of nature, which leads people’s lives to be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. A powerful government, capable of altering human behavior, is needed, according to Hobbes, to keep this from happening.A powerful government makes people think before acting. For example, if attacking me results in a punishment outweighing any possible gain, you would not attack me, for it would not serve your self-interest. This works in the reverse as well. Knowing that you will not attack me, will also protect you, as I will not attack you out of fear. For this to work, though, the government, that deals the punishment, needs to be more powerful than any single person or any group of people. According to Hobbes, if the government needs to be powerful, the simplest way is to take power (such as rights and liberties) from the people. The people must not resist, dispose of, or complain about any government, though. The idea of empowering the government was one that philosophers at the time believed, and which I believe. It is the idea that in the past, a group of people ceded some power to a person to gain protection and security. The agreement is called a covenant. The covenant’s rules are followed unless what the government wants from the people is life-threatening, in which case, they are not followed.

I view humans as naturally kind, generous, and helpful, and find that Hobbes’ views do not coincide with mine. Where he finds that people are naturally fighting for their self-interest, for possession of others, for safety and for prestige, I find that that is not necessarily the case. For example, a prime example of humans unchanged by societies (which teach learned behavior), are babies. Babies start their lives acting purely on a self-interest basis, because they need to live, which is Hobbes’ view. Later, though, when they discover other people, they do not continue to operate on a self-interest basis. They begin sharing. They’ll share their food, such as when they are eating nice lukewarm pablum, they will gladly offer a spoonful to you. It is difficult to see self-interest in this. Later, as they become toddlers, they will start quarrelling and competing with other toddlers. This does not usually result in lethal fights and deaths, however, just as siblings and spouses fights do not result in deaths usually. Hobbes sees quarrelling as leading to lethal battles for gain, safety or reputation. Accidental deaths are far more common than deaths from quarrels. Hobbes sees a powerful government as being the only way to keep people away from his explanation of human nature. There is also another way: just let the social pressures of the society rule and punish. In some primitive societies, such as the Jivaro, the Canelos, and the Achuara natives, lending can be a form of safety and security. If I owed you a pot of salt, you would want to be paid back, and so you would not kill me. An important point that Hobbes made, which deserves to be discussed after the others, was the theory that a government has to be absolute to have the full effect. I do not agree with this. Hobbes’ view was that the populace should be kept ignorant, and without very much power, so that the government could be strong in contrast, and keep stability and security. My argument is that the government should not be absolute, and that the people should be educated, and not left ignorant. I have two reasons.First, modern examples of absolute governments, such as the Nazis and communist China have been extremely brutal and violent. To add insult to injury, since their power is absolute, they can stifle opposition and censor the news, which is unjust. Second, the people will enjoy liberties, if given them. Since they’re happy, they’ll be less likely to fight. They will stay helpful, generous and kind, and their life will be joyous, rich and long, not “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” . My view does not agree entirely with what Hobbes thought. I have been raised in the 20th century, with a different society and government, though, so it is expected that we think differently. Where Hobbes believes that human’s nature is to quarrel for gain, safety and prestige, I believe that people have those characteristics, but they are not as striking as what Hobbes describes. People are naturally kind, generous and helpful. They may veer off their natural state to be competitive, but they will always return to their natural state for a while before veering off again. Where Hobbes believes that one’s own self-interest is the basis for everything, I believe that caring for others is actually a stronger basis. Finally, where Hobbes thinks that an absolute government is necessary to keep people in line, I believe that a government that educates the people and lets them keep some liberties is better at keeping people in line. BibliographyFunk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia. “Hobbes, Thomas”. Pp. 4606-4607. USA, 1964.Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia. “Political Science”. Pp. 7161-7163. USA, 1964.Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia. “Social Contract”. Pp. 8056-8057. USA, 1964.Harner, Michael J. The Jivaro. Pp. 125-133. California: University of California, 1972.Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Pp. 98-102. Cellier, 1967.