Arguing with Hobbes, what a Task!

The Theory of Human Nature by Thomas Hobbes is said to be an innovative and inspirational work of his time, a modern philosophical model distantly inspired by the perhaps less accessible world of Aristotle and Plato. Explaining and arguing his theory is not an easy task, especially when there is certainly a number of elements in Hobbes’s theories that seem to be hardly refutable.
We will analyse Hobbes’s model of human nature to identify his various concepts relating to his definition of humanity and to see if they are truly valid in modern context.

To start with, a theory of human nature is directly related to the concept of man. The dualistic perspective of man being body and soul for Hobbes’s is non-existent; human beings are entirely material and reminiscent of engines. Hobbes adds more elements to his materialism, inferring that man is a self-moving, self-guided matter in motion. Hobbes interprets human bodies as a mechanism that pushes and pulls by our passions, in other words as mentioned by Crawford Brough Macpherson: “The machine seeks to continue its own motion. It does this by moving towards things… away form things not conducive. Motion towards is called appetite or desire, motion away from is called aversion ”.

This theory turns more complicated and controversial as he starts elaborating the qualities of human beings. Hobbes digs into the fundamental nature of man in stipulating that our behavior varies depending on the motivations or motions caused by appetites or desires. Furthermore, Hobbes presents an individualistic perspective that leaves man in the position of a competent animal that is constantly in the struggle for survival and consequently self-preservation.

This position, the core of Hobbes’s model of human nature; presents a highly irreverent perspective, primarily the idea of a purely selfish human being, driven at it’s core by the constant search of power and power over others , even pity being a tool of this eventual elevation. But pity can be a product of fear, specifically fear of punishment; a feeling that can be associated with aversion. We understand that in this case the engine is moving away, as Hobbes indicates that every man’s actions can be determined by his appetites or aversions. Hobbes in Leviathan (thousand-headed monster) describes that man is aggressive and violent by nature. His actions are dominated by the passions and desire of power, as previously stated, that go beyond the dignity and freedom of his peers, in order to achieve his supremacy.

This last point could be justified somewhat in that since we must preserve ourselves and in order to achieve safety, man is characterized by a natural tendency towards competition and elevation from it’s peers to achieve this safety. However, a response to this argument could be problematic too; ultimately we will found ourselves in a state of war under this model, and this would not appear in great parallel to some of Hobbes more political ideals on humanity and civilized society. A consequence of this natural behavior led by passion will place us in a “solitary, poor, nasty and short” state (loosely Hobbes’s ‘state of nature’) that leaves us in an anti-social position with no progress, no society nor civilization. For Hobbes this may seem less than ideal for his society-model which explores the social infrastructures of humanity, regardless this definition of human nature still forms it’s backbone in which this primal competency is somewhat mirrored but in a social context. This political theory is summarized in the sentence: "Man is a wolf to man". Furthermore, there is only friendship and unity among men when there is common individual interests, therefore the need of a nonaggression pact regulated by the State for protection against other men, emerges in the society-model as a result of the social mirroring of Hobbes' state of nature.

After watching a series of documentaries called Banged up abroad , I concluded that Hobbes’s theory could be validated. The point emerged whilst reflecting on the extreme conditions of life in certain prisons in Venezuela as portrayed by the show. The prisoners rule their territory and live in a permanent, literal state of war. These people deal in grenades, machine-guns and all sorts of weapons; as such the duties of the guards are reduced to merely the protection of the penal complex’s boundaries. One of the central characters of this event was relating his experience as a day-to-day permanent struggle for life and self-preservation. He reflected that in order to overcome and survive one must become an unlawful, spirited being that has to kill if is necessary or otherwise the situation will turn unbearable and one would not be able to survive.

Previous statements demonstrate that for Hobbes, this state of war is not ideal and ultimate. He provides breathing space from the seeming contradiction with his society-model in that ‘he believed that a state of nature never did generally prevail over all the world (although he thought a close approximation to it existed among “the savage people in many places of America”) ’. Hobbes in his society model proposes a fully civilised society. Moreover, he favours a society in which man can live well and comfortably, governed by an authoritative ruler, a perspective that seems to be in favour of monarchism.

We can argue that Hobbes exaggerated the aggressiveness of man but the truth is that human beings are characterized by a high capacity for self-determination that makes us prone to anti-social attitudes and behaviors in which we can become cruel with others and hostile inhabitants of the environment. Nevertheless, the ‘freedom’ that characterizes man makes him capable of being a spirited and empowered whole, it does not mean that this personal liberty is a curse that would have to be eradicated, nor would it be possible to eliminate cruelty in human life without at the same time eliminating individual liberty.

Clearly human beings are in some ways determined to live in a continual ethical struggle, and through the provision of laws and authorities control their own behaviour. Hence a peaceful coexistence is possible, increasingly less cruel; but ultimately never perfectly peaceful or devoiced of cruelty, as such Hobbes’ depiction of human nature holds strong.

Through Hobbes’s theory it is possible to assume that he is not a rationalist, which, in my opinion, is a strongpoint of the philosophy of his times also, as opposed to Descartes account. In this case, reason can be considered as a servant of our passions and it is rather a tool that reaches general prepositions. Hobbes complements his philosophy by making evident that there are motivations activated by fear; which is a key element that interferes with desires of gaining power, glory and self-love.

Hobbes reasoning for human actions can be considered pessimistic in light of the depiction of man as an egotistical being that manipulates things around in his favour, even relationships, as we use mankind abilities purely for self-preservation. Even more negative an outlook is the idea related to pity and charity - he establishes a connection between fear and pity but also postulates that we help or support others as we are in search of glory, hence, solidarity is able to provide us a sense of power and glory through averting future calamity. However this tendency emerges as an obligation that it is not innate in us. Furthermore, what makes man a more selfish and also a social animal is the need of mutual benefit. Fear is a powerful force that drives us into co-operation with each other. As Hobbes points out, we are dependant on joint activities. To this extent, a position of disagreement comes to light. We certainly need mutual cooperation to coexist peacefully and harmoniously, but we help others as we feel sympathy and compassion – thus Hobbes pessimism leads him to overlook positive realities that we experience personally.

There are certain events when I obviously feel pity and sympathy but there seems to be something that goes beyond self-preservation. We are human beings but as the word denotes our condition is human. This term infers ethics and morals. An example that might be quite common is the children starving in Africa. The willing to be part of a humanitarian cause to stop the suffering of others may be understood, from Hobbes’s theory perspective, as a way to feed the ego driven by the desire of glory. On the other hand, there is and evident desire that motives us to charity.

As I have previously experienced, supporting a child trough an organization such as child vision actually represents a mutual beneficial act, in the way that a child has the opportunity to live a dignified life with access to education, food and medical access. I feel satisfaction as there is a way that the life of a child has improved and in my opinion, this act of charity of is not caused by need of glory and power rather that being part of the change and being able to make a difference.

To sum up, Hobbes account of human nature depicts man as competitive and manipulative being in constant struggle for surviving. His theory can be easily applied and proved to multiple circumstances in day-to-day life, which makes it a hardly refutable account, accurately portraying some unfortunate fundamentals of human nature. Although some of his statements are unenthusiastic in terms of how we act, in my opinion, there are too other explanations that can come from a place of love, which is an innate element to humanity.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Crawford Brough Macpherson. The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford University Press, 1964

Roger Trigg. Ideas of human nature: an historical introduction. Malden Massachusetts. Blackwell Publishers. 1999

Thomas Hobbes, Edwin M. Curley. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Hackett Publishing, 1994

Internet Resources:
Duncan Stewart. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes/