Leilani Merrill
l.INTRODUCTION
After presenting multiple accounts of human psychology that will help explain the reasons for violence and thereafter, war would occur in the 17th century, philosopher Jean Hampton, at the conclusion of her essay “Hobbes’s State of War,” discounts all the reasons for war from which Hobbes’s political conclusion to institute a sovereign were founded upon. This essay will discuss Hampton’s analysis of Hobbes’s idea of nature. It will also explore the soundness of her claim refuting Hobbes’s idea that a government is necessary. The hypothetical imperative scenario in this paper is demonstrated in a two party scenario in which an individual wants peace and cooperation, however it will only be possible if the other agent is seeking that same end of peace. This exchange between two agents represents the raw state of nature with no government system in place and exists as the base reason that a government is necessary. In this situation, how does one know that the other party also seeks peace and will not exploit the other for their own gain? Since multiple exchanges similar to this will happen in nature, Hobbes concludes that the only remedy for order in society is to institute a sovereign to manage matters of the state. This analysis leaves us with the lesson that the state of nature is war, and this necessitates enough chaos that a legitimate government will be needed in order to establish peace and order.
ll. HAMPTON’S EXPLORATION
Hampton wants to discover why the state of nature would be war. She seeks to understand the psychology that will explain how nature would be a conflict, whether this can be reduced to some human weaknesses and whether it is their resulting actions that creates violence. Hampton wants to grasp why even with peace in mind, that these laws don’t form a solution to the problem of war in nature. Numerous accounts of human psychology contribute to the issue of inevitable conflict. To Hampton, Hobbes would need to utilize all these accounts to establish total war in nature. These accounts will support Hobbes in his inference that ultimately, there should and will be a collective agreement for authority.
lll. PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS FOR VIOLENCE IN NATURE
Jean Hampton offers multiple accounts that create the end result of violence, including the passions, rationality, and short sightedness approach. The passions account reveals that there are unavoidable appetites within one that will cause people to inflict violence. That is, even if there are many who will be willing to enter a commonwealth, there may be select individuals that are so passionate that they are not concerned for their future security, and they resort to violence to achieve what is needed. Hobbes has his own interpretation of the passions account, and rather, uses the notion that vain-glory is responsible for conflict and non cooperation with people. To Hampton, the impact of this account is moderate, and will barely affect the result to create a government. Another facet of Hampton’s psychological account to explain war is the rationality account. This idea suggests that people exhibit violence for their own self preservation. The scarcity of goods aggravates each individual and hence will become the first cause of conflict. And because the condition of man (as hath been declared in the precedent chapter)
Is a condition of war of every one against every one, in which case every one Is governed by their own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies. (Leviathan)
Sometimes based on self preservation, a person is justified in being uncooperative with their counterpart and renege on the agreement they have made. This refers to an exchanges between two parties. With the rationality account, Hampton argues that this account has failed to establish that authority will be wholly implemented at the communal will of the people. Some scholars have argued that the prisoner’s dilemma is a good representation of this exchange, or interaction within Hobbes’s state of nature. In game theory, most often represented by the prisoner’s dilemma, a condition is posited where there are two players, and their action is based on their own needs, which can set the course of all future events. This represents the organic state in nature where there are two parties, and you can only act based on your own instinct; you cannot predict the other person’s intent. The question is whether the other party will cooperate; Should I cooperate if this is the single time I will interact with the other, and most likely they will also renege? Another account of violence is named the short sightedness approach, and is an idea brought to the table by Jean Hampton herself. Hampton believes this account is viable and creates enough war in the state of nature that an authority is needed to control society. This principle is about people that can only seek the advantage of their short term gain and are not committed to cooperation. It is the separation from time in gain in what causes one to choose immediate gratification. She states that there is textual evidence in DeCive and Leviathan that support this approach. However one challenge for this is questioning if short sight people would have the reason to finally realize that a commonwealth is beneficial for them. Constantly new theories may emerge that can generate a new account of war, for example the new absurdity, or randomness account that I have recently created. In this case, violence or war has occurred from another agent, one that the unsuspecting victim had no control over. Even if we were to accept Hampton’s psychological explanations that could explain war, the acquisition of new theories would be an infinite process and would finally be inconclusive.
lV. HAMPTON’S DEDUCTION AFTER THE ANALYSIS
Hampton deduces that the pillars that build the foundation for Hobbes’s political conclusions are not all valid; they are not plausible and therefore do not explain nature well enough to inspire the result of a commonwealth. I mean that, Hampton has dismissed all the accounts that comprise the reasons for war and the need for a government to control that war. Based on this implausibility, Hampton states that modern individuals already reject Hobbes’s view of nature and still perceive it as not applicable to current society. At the conclusion of her essay, Hampton has entirely discounted many reasons for warfare that would support the Hobbesian authoritative state. The premise throughout Leviathan maintains that one will want peace contingent upon their neighbor wanting peace too. The philosophy denotes that in the end, you still cannot trust anybody; after all, they do have their own self preservation as well. This notion creates the war from the very start. I consider it as the chief model behind what Hobbes’s entire state of nature is based on. Hampton sought to go beyond this precedent and probe to see exactly why nature is a state of war.
V. HOBBES’S TECHNIQUE
Again, the term, “hypothetical imperative” refers to an exchange where two individuals are involved in a scenario and cooperation is contingent upon the other person’s action. Multiple textual evidence show Hobbes’s devotion to this precedence. This is the chief model in my defense, that Hobbes has done an adequate portrayal that there is sufficient violence in nature that a government is necessary.
. . . he that performeth first, has no assurance the other will
performath after; because the bonds of words are too weak to
brindlemens ambition, avarice, anger and other Passions, without
the feare of some coercive power (Leviathan)
The connotation propounded in this text supposes that peace in nature is desired, yet obviously dependent on this same commitment of the desire from others. The imperative is explained in many ways; however there must be an emphasis of the contingency in this exchange. This statement infers that one should always be suspect to see if the person before them will attack. This hypothetical imperative with its contingency, already establishes the risk of non-cooperation. It creates the war from the very start. Hobbes’s repetition of the hypothetical imperative demonstrated his commitment with this precedence, and this exists as a central idea behind my objection to Hampton.
From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commandeto endeavor peace, is derived this second law: that a man must be willing, when others are so too… (Leviathan)
The numerous appearances of this hypothetical imperative show that, for Hobbes, it was an essential premise to explain the war of every man versus every man. In this respect, although Hampton presented some viable accounts that explain conflict in the state of nature, one could say that the war has already been established by Hobbes. This first and original, precedent was that in the end, peace is contingent on cooperation. This assumes risk, so you still cannot trust anybody. Therefore, the idea of an inescapable war set forth in the very beginning will supersede subsequent psychological accounts trying to explain reasons for the state of war. You see, the very fact that there is a question, a contingency attached, that in and of itself establishes the preemptive measure for a commonwealth. And it is up to the people with right reason to unite and take the necessary steps to make that happen. The importance of the hypothetical imperative is critical in understanding Hobbes’s view of nature.
. . . he that performeth first, has no assurance the other will performath after; because the bonds of words are too weak to brindlemens ambition, avarice, anger and other Passions, without the fear of some coercive power (Leviathan)
From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commande to endeavor peace, is derived this second law: that a man must be willing, whenothers are so too… (Leviathan)
Hampton presented some feasible accounts that may explain why war in the state of nature will be reached. However, there still remains the problem of war. It lays on its very first basis, there is a desire for peace, however all parties must want peace too. Nevertheless, all incidents of conflict originate with the very first crisis, the distrust of the other person. Without mutual cooperation in every situation, there will be war. The requirement to establish a commonwealth is demonstrated through many of Hobbes’s texts which express the obvious risk of war by the distrust of the neighbor. To Hobbes, people do want peace, however this is contingent upon the other party also seeking that peace. There needs to be a mutual agreement seeking peace, otherwise there will be war. As follows, analyzing psychological accounts as to why there is war can be considered as secondary explorations from this first premise. By this I mean, the inescapable war set forth by Hobbes was already established from the beginning. The conflict of the distrust of one’s neighbor in and of itself right at the inception, already creates enough violence from those with right reason to take control of the society and elect a leader.
V11. OBJECTIONS
i. One could object to my defense of Hobbes, stating that Hobbes was committed to two opposite ideals. How could it be plausible for him to integrate both peace and war in his political philosophy? Some could say that seeking two end results with such different commitments is not logical. If Hobbes accepts that people have a desire for peace, wouldn’t that undermine his outlook on violence and damage the necessary action to create a government from that inescapable war? It is only appropriate for a person with right reason to seek peace and order. There are numerous examples demonstrated throughout Leviathan expressing Hobbes’s dedication to this idea. Many of Hobbes’s hypothetical imperatives presuppose a desire for peace, however these statements are usually ravaged by stories of war.
And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavor 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. (Leviathan)
In order to best understand how these two opposite models are to be interpreted, one needs to separate the entities: peace and war. Some criticisms of Hobbes’s presentation of the state of nature are his various texts that discuss human nature based on peace and then based on war. This may have a tendency to confuse the reader. For example, in the third paragraph, section XIV of Leviathan, Hobbes argues that, based on reason, man is forbidden to do what is destructive to his life or to take away that which is needed to assist one with their self-preservation. Let’s proceed with the following assumptions in mind: It is possible for a person to seek peace, and it is also possible for that same person to pursue violence when necessary. When presented with hypothetical situations such as these, it is necessary to note the contingency for cooperation within Hobbes’s hypothetical imperative. Therefore, based on the multiple representations of the hypothetical imperatives affirming the different principles of both peace and war, one can infer that Hobbes in fact, then, believed in both of these principles as part of human nature. Moreover, it is also appropriate to conclude that first, men do seek peace, however if faced with a certain situation, they may be compelled to force violence based on self defense. In reviewing this work, one may challenge my argument that the hypothetical imperative will supersede all other psychological accounts of nature that will explain war. One could say that Hampton’s psychological accounts have merits and may be considered as appropriate justifications for people’s reason to inflict violence. Hampton created some viable accounts to explain reasons for violence in the state of nature. There are also other miscellaneous accounts that help to explain the abrupt violence in the state of nature and therefore, the requirement to implement a government for collective security. In other words, how am I confident that my idea that Hobbes’s hypothetical imperative is the founding principle to create the idea of war, and why am I certain that this idea will prevail over other accounts that will help to explain violence? Let us discuss the founding idea of the Hobbesian hypothetical imperative when it comes to nature. Throughout the text of Leviathan, you will find writings with this similar connotation:
People seek peace; however all their surrounding neighbors must also want peace too for this to work successfully. This idea should be considered as a basis, or the roots of the suspicion of a lack of cooperation from your neighbor. It is that insecurity, that question which is the founding premise of all violence at its inception. For example, in all of the accounts presented by Jean Hampton, thereis always another participant, one who will cooperate or not. However, it is the residue of that original question, can I trust my opponent that reverberates soundly enough throughout the community to result in action. Further reflecting on the idea that it is the capture of that moment of insecurity which is the root of violence, let us envision an actual root that is underground with a tree resting on the land above. This tree has multiple branches, each differing in their size and capacity. These branches represent people and their experiences; no matter one’s own story, they all may have very different accounts of violence. It is that snapshot of insecurity at its rawest state that means that this is a universal precedent that establishes a justification for a commonwealth. Incidents of violence often are made with the effort toward one’s own preservation, they thereby are acting in some sort of a way in a defense; many of them will have a common element of a distrust of one’s opponent. There is an exception to this case in the incidence of a self –inflicted or a martyr situation. With the exception of provoked assaults when based on “vain-glory” for conquest, because inflictions of violence are based on preservation and question of one’s opponent, it is reasonable to say that the mistrust of the other lays at the foundation for violence of the resulting war in nature. An optimist may say that, maybe the sentence can merely stop at “People want peace.” This kind of idea would represent the contingency of the neighbor willing to cooperate as being not attached, not an integral part of this policy. It is true that there are some that are so generous and noble, that they would like to share kindness to the community. If the eternal optimist wouldlike to separate this idea, the different pursuits of peace and violence can be separated if that is necessary for the interpreter. However, violence still does exists as a problem and may occur at any given moment. If violence upon another one is considered to be unacceptable that precedent is set, and the necessary actions need to be implemented in order for another person to not be attacked. In other words, if there is one seldom act of violence and it is considered to be as immoral, it established the precedent that actions need to happen to prevent a reoccurrence and such as structure can be achieved with government system.
Vllll. NEW BEGINNINGS
Although Jean Hampton’s psychological explanations could account for some secondary reasons for violence, it is still in the second position to the principle theory of the hypothetical imperative. The accounts, among which include the passions, self-preservation, and short-sightedness approach, all appear as somewhat plausible. However the psychological accounts to explain war are merely a portion of the more substantive argument to give an explanation on war, it is in that single moment of distrust for one’s neighbor. Considering some of the elements of truth within Hampton’s psychological accounts, I would consider incorporating her psychological accounts into my new presentation of Hobbes’s nature. I would be willing to integrate her psychological accounts as outside experience from the root of the hypothetical imperative. There should be a provision that there can be many reasons and a colorful array of experiences, yet they are all based on the chief premise of that first distrust that creates the risk for violence. By embracing the very root of the first conflict and also accepting the various manifestations that can occur, the most comprehensive theory is realized. Hobbes himself already recognized that people seek peace yet also that they seek violence when necessary too. The embracing of both of these ideals, each existing as pivotal elements is consistent with his texts in Leviathan and leads along the lines of what Hobbes would have wanted us to believe. One needs to recognize both elements of Hobbes’s portrayal of human nature in order to capture what Hobbes was truly attempting to share. This means that the panoramic exploration of nature, acknowledging peace and war, is the most appropriate and successful way to interpret the work of Hobbes.
VV. LOOKING FORWARD
Hobbes’s dark state of nature still remains relevant to our modern society. Recall that it was shown previously in this essay that that even if a single incident of violence is considered to be unacceptable, this sets the precedent that there needs to be a government system to secure control. With our new system, we have incorporated fresh ideas that help explain the war in nature. Some may say that the purpose of Hobbes’s writing was to enlighten the masses to create a better society for their future. The intention of his writing was perhaps to give people the information that they need, and themselves as their own free agents will need to take action for their political future. It is here where I need to present that it is necessary to amend Hobbes’s final objective, an authoritative state. The most desirable political structure is not an authoritative state as Hobbes would have liked, but rather an electoral democracy. This system will provide to the people the security that they need and also the political participation that they deserve. Once modern citizens embrace their right to participate politically and their right to justice, the violence in the state of nature can be positively improved by a newly reinvented will of the people.
Philosophy Forever 