"Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak." - Hammurabi, The Code of Hammurabi
Hobbes' Leviathan describes a commonwealth - a government where men give up certain freedoms in exchange for security - as the savior from the state of nature. It is difficult for us in the 21st century to imagine a world in the state of nature; barring a handful of remote islands, nearly every square acre of land is claimed by some government, no matter how unstable it may be. The commonwealth exists to avoid the Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest brutality that accompanies the state of nature. Hammurabi's Code of Laws is a prime example of an ancient civilization forming a commonwealth to avoid the state of nature.
The transfer of rights that comes along with leaving the state of nature is a value judgment. In this judgment, the person evaluates preserving their own unabridged liberty versus giving up a degree of liberty for security. This established contract can take place with an oath of fealty, being born into a country, or as a result of conquest. The extension from this theory is that if a government does not protect its citizens security, it has failed its end of the bargain. As such, a government like Pol Pot's Cambodia would be illegitimate.
Hobbes' outlook on the state of mankind is entrenched in strong misanthropy. In other words, Hobbes assumes that mankind is necessarily depraved and needs an overseer to control and restrict personal freedoms. Hobbes' reasoning can be extended to cover more than a mere commonwealth. Most authoritarian regimes would agree with Hobbes when restricting their constituents liberties, including the right to privacy, the right to travel, and the right to bear arms. The stark contrast between Hobbes and other more philanthropic philosophers ought to be answered as a question of degree: "to what extent should society give up freedom for security?"
One of the things that we need to try to get a handle on throughout this course is how to understand liberty. In one sense, identified by Hobbes, his state of nature is a state of complete liberty, but in another sense, the Lockean sense, those in the state of nature have no liberty at all -- they are completely at the mercy of others, never free from interference in their pursuit of their plans and projects. Locke is clear that in his sense of liberty "liberty is not license." But isn't Hobbes' liberty in the state of nature just license?
ReplyDeleteThere is another sense in which liberty seems to be lacking in Hobbes' state of nature: No one is free to own property in Hobbes' state of nature. They can possess things, but no one has an entitlement -- a property -- to the things they possess. Does the state involve a trade-off of liberty for security, more generally, or does it secure the conditions for more extensive liberty? Thought provoking post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Hobbes and your blog, I am wondering the definition of a true government. According to Hobbes, a good government, or commonwealth, should be able to enable peace to its citizens or "subjects" and defend enemies from them. Yet, current situation seems pretty far from that. It is the international recognition that legitimizes a government. A government that properly represents its people may not be the one that is recognized. According to Locke, a state of war should exist between nations. However, seeking shelter from more powerful nations has become the strategy of most of the country now.
ReplyDelete