Leviathan Chapters 16-19 PDF

Preview

Summary

Chap16-19...

Description

Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes ● For Hobbes, the way to think seriously about him is to look at the nature of human nature. ○ Way in which Hobbes, he perceives things in a very deliberate way ■ Chain of objects ● Why does Hobbes use this terminology of contract and covenant? ○ Treat political obligation as voluntary ○ Answers: ■ Hobbes denies that there are any meaningful differences between human beings ● Given this equality, there cannot be a hierarchy based on knowledge because we are all equal. ● In this way, he is more familiar to us-○ “All men are created equal” - Declaration of Independence ■ Humans are self-interested ● Political obligation is a self-interested act ● We engage in contracts because we get something back ○ So too with political contracts ○ Taking self-interest & combining it with social interaction ■ Why do we give up any of our rights, even temporarily? ○ This self-interest helps us get to the natural laws-■ All of us want to live, all of us want peace ■ It is reasonable and self-interested to agree to obey the natural laws ● Seemingly alien qualities-- absolutism, authoritarianism, compounded by a difficult way of writing… ○ Aims at: clarity, precision, clear organization ○ Most students like Plato’s style > Hobbes ● Act of consent is so powerful and central to his theory Songs: ● We Are Going To Be Friends ○ Why do they become friends? ■ Shared circumstances, spend time together ■ It’s human nature to make friends-- kids are friendly ● Sociability ■ Lack of options; interests outside of social norms, feel themselves marginalized ■ Self-interested friendship-- both have something to gain from it ● Social contract theory ○ Can everyone? ■ No because trust is involved-- sacrificing autonomy to trust a friend ■ If everyone was friends, is everyone really friends? ● Dilutes the relationship ● If you can have it with so many people how special is it? ■ Clashes over self-interest ● Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off ○ Why Do They Fight? ■ Conflicting interests-- don’t agree on anything

○

Why Do They Stay Together? ■ If they were to break up, they’d break the covenant they made to each other which is against Hobbes ideals ● Create a state of enmity between them ■ Trust is built on fear rather than love, they may not love each other but they fear what happens if they end their relationship ● Mutual vulnerability ■ Mutual self-interest ● Next to each law is a virtue-- the law gives us an objective definition of a virtue ○ Ex. Justice-- gratitude, prohibition against pride ○ Source of quarrel-- terms like courageous or wise have no firm definition and thus make us fight ○ Solution: Ultimate shared interest is peace. ■ We all want peace… ● Doing this for people who are not close to one another, who do not trust one another ○ It’s not what someone believes that matters, it’s what they do. ○ How many of us are comfortable with disagreement? Like to be proven wrong? ■ Socrates has no problem with proven wrong ■ This is where Hobbes may be right ● Defriend someone who doesn’t agree with your political views ● We don’t always like to be exposed to the other view ● Hobbes understands this well-- ethics, religious, and politics ○ Ex. Cannot talk about politics and religion at someone’s house for fear of starting a fight. ■ But why should this start a fight? ● Hobbes: This is how we are. ○ This is familiar to us… this shows Hobbes point ● The beauty of the natural law-- everybody can agree on it no matter what else they want. ○ All you have to do is fear death. Chapter 16: Representation, Authors, and Actors ● What happens after human beings engage in the act of covenant/contract ○ Contract: Immediate deal ○ Covenant: Over the force of time, trust ■ Covenanting with each other-- forward going agreement ■ When we do this, we authorize a 3rd party to keep agreement for us. ● What it is to be a person: For a person to be a person, their words and deeds must be their own. ○ 2 different kinds: ■ Natural ■ Artificial: Those whose words or deeds represent something else ● Ex. Governors representing us at the capitol ○ The actor: person we authorize-- is our representative. ■ Anything can be represented.

■ ■

A multitude can be represented We become a unity, a person, only when we agree to do so. (covenant) ● We become a unity only when we are united under our representor ● Makes the person 1 ■ It is the fear of punishment that gets us to keep our covenants ○ Humans agree to keep natural laws without a third party to control them. He thinks it’s possible is never going to happen. ■ Thinks we need subjection-- we can imagine it but can’t go all the way there. ○ Why is this the case? pg. 108-109 ■ If he can imagine this, why can’t ge go all the way? ● Idea that some animals can agree without a hierarchy ● What can substitute for coercion is love ○ Hobbes doesn’t agree ■ Nature of language and honor and their relationship ● Honor: Glory-- striving to be #1, get recognition, is a key problem for Hobbes. ○ Our happiness consists in us comparing what we have to others-- and thinking we have more. ○ Positional Theory of Value, Positional Good: The way we value things has to do with our perception of things compared to others. ■ The value of a toy comes to kids from having it and their friend not having it ■ Powerful dimension of human appetite-- causes quarrel ● Language: Rhetoric-- how rhetoric works. What one person describes as wise, another describes as foolish. ○ Combine our love of position + power + way language is = humans are uniquely suited among animals to not get along. ■ Distinctly human ■ Because we have language as part of the battle, the conflict itself is more ■ Animals may fight over glory, but do not have language ■ Language argument seems to hold up ■ With this in place-- explains why he thinks about sovereignty as he does. Chapter 17: Humans and Other Animals, Commonwealth

●

Commonwealth: Today known as a state. Authorization, peoplehood-- why we form states. One person of whose acts with mutual covenants make everyone an authority and use it for peace and commonwealth. ○ Instituted sovereignty (rights of the sovereign by institution) ■ Nature of sovereignty: Authorize everything the sovereign does from that moment onwards because we all want the same thing-- to live peacefully-- when we want this, we’re willing the means to attain it. ● Necessary powers/rights of sovereignty: ○ Once you have created a commonwealth, you cannot change it. ■ Hobbes could never get behind 2nd pt. of declaration of independence. ● You authorized it, you’re taking back what you’ve given-- ingratitude. ○ Can never say the sovereign has disobeyed their agreement. We made the agreement with each other to lay down all our power in the strength of the sovereign. ○ No contract with the sovereign-- no covenant ■ If we do think the covenant has disobeyed our rights, it’s nonsense. ● Nature of sovereignty-- all states. ○ Strict regime of censorship: any doctrine repugnant to peace cannot be true. The sovereign can punish us for breaking the peace, and can decide for us what is going to get us to peace. ■

This means there will never be anything like the 1st amendment for Hobbes Chapter 18: Nature of Sovereignty, Perspective (^above) ● Why must the sovereign be so strong? ○ Human beings are short-sighted. We cannot look to the future as we immediately look to the present. ○ The sovereign needs so many powers is because of us. ● Rights of the sovereign by institution: ○ Party is not subject to agreement to the agreement we are subject to ○ Because we have authorized this sovereign, we cannot complain that he has injured us because we have already authorized all the acts the sovereign takes ○ Censorship: Strict censorship-- stronger than Plato ■ Pg. 113: ● Censorship of: ○ Public and printed speech ● Why? ○ “Doctrine repugnant to peace…” ○ The truth of the laws of nature is a function of them being conducive to peace and thus, self-preservation. ○ So important to censor: All voluntary action proceeds from

thought-- this thought is either good or bad for us. If it’s good, we will do it, if it’s bad, we won’t; actions come from opinions ■ That’s why we must censor because it’s subjective ■ We are reluctant to go along with this sovereign power-- very powerful ● Plenty of people in the US who think that the US constitution allows for this type of gov’t-- unitary executive ○ Necessary to the US safeguard of the constitution is the right to suspend law-- not unheard of. ○ Anticipates this objection to sovereignty-- it’s always better to have power and sovereignty than not have it… from his point of view, you have to choose. ○ Broadly: Human beings are bad at calculating what’s in our best interest, especially long term: ■ Individual who decides to go out the night before an exam-- negative long term impacts ● Hobbes thinks this is a common phenomenon: ○ pg. 118 ○ “Passions and self-love” ○ Way humans are constituted by our passions for wins and glory, is we make mountains out of mole hills. ■ Studied optics, magnification ● Differs from Plato: ○ Plato thinks justice is the action; reshape/reform human soul on either individual level or through the importation of justice in the guardian class ○ For Hobbes it is much simpler: understand civil and moral science. Have in place a sovereign who will put these ideas in place and support them through judicious place Chapter 19: For Monarchy ● Hobbes makes his case for monarchy ● Absolutism: Idea that power cannot/should not have a check ○ Whoever checks power is the sovereign ○ Illusion to ever truly check power ○ Power should be unchecked ● Before this, he argues definition → conclusion. ○

●

Engages in a cost-benefit analysis: ■ pg. 118: We have to figure out whether sovereignty should be 1 man or an assembly-- monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy ● Snarky, sarcastic -- are no other names of government ○ Tyranny is just monarchy mismarked ○ Plato is wrong So how do we choose what government to have? ○ Think about aptitude to secure peace of the people-- absent during a state of war ■ Good we want to produce ○ His answer: monarchy

■ ■ ■

Senators: artificial because we authorize them to vote on behalf of us… but at the same time, they are natural; they have their own beliefs If you have someone whose natural thoughts cross with their artificial, they will choose themselves. Why are we well off with monarchy? ● “Best off where the public and private interests are most united” pg. 120 ○ Retrospective accountability: gives officials incentive to do what we approve of. This is why Hobbes thinks we should go with monarchy. ● In monarchy, the private interest is the same as with the public (identical to public interest) ○ Consent and authorization ○ Monarch is only as powerful as his subjects ■ Only be a powerful wealthy monarch, which every monarch wants, if your people are powerful and wealthy as well. ● But is this always the case? Ex. Feudal regime ○ Some people are advantaged and others are disadvantaged. ○ Monarchs are usually rapacious ● Think about public goods-- do monarchs always act in favor of the public good? ● Doesn’t say you can’t have a democracy. NOT an illegitimate form of government ○ But you are better off with a monarchy...