Thomas Hobbes's Theory of the Human State of Nature

Theoretically speaking, what are the implications of Hobbes’ theory of a sovereign authority so far as his theory of human nature is concerned?Thomas Hobbes's theory of the human state of nature and a need for a Hobbesian Commonwealth initially seem to completely contradict each other. It would appear incredibly unlikely that the human, as Hobbes describes him could exist both in the state of nature and civil society given Hobbes dramatic theory of human nature. Hobbes’ take on the state of nature and his dependence on the Hobbesian Commonwealth ruled by a sovereign power to produce a civil society seems like an implausible evolution to the naked ear, but for purposes of this argument we will give him the benefit of the doubt. The success of a sovereign authority rests on the assumption that human nature undergoes a transformation between the state of nature and civil society, and this implies that Hobbes may have trampled on his desire to preserve the conditions for the pursuit of felicity and insisted on an unwarranted form of government.

To understand the potential implausibility of the state of nature in conjunction with a shift to a civil commonwealth, we must first understand Hobbes take on the state of nature. He claims that without a socially contracted civil society, humans in the state of nature are self-interested, barbarian, power-hungry, and constantly striving for the accumulation of more. It is every man for himself, with no regard for the well-being of others, and a constant plague of fear and misery. It is a way of life that is certain to be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes ). “Under these circumstances full-scale conflict between people is inevitable, a war of all against all” (Klosko 59). Hobbes believes that the only way out of the miserable conditions of living in the state of nature, is by entering into a social contract with others to lay down a majority of individual rights to a supreme ruler in order to gain protection and security. Once society has transitioned to a commonwealth, they live under social organization and cooperative mechanisms to live in peace and harmony with each other under the rule of a sovereign authority. The transition to a civil society is described as “that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far-forth as for Peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things, and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself” (????92). Society lives under a structured environment that provides the protection for peace and safety, at the cost of individual liberty.It is undeniable that Hobbes shifts from a pessimistic outlook on human nature while living in the state of war to the reliance on a cooperative subordinate civil society, which is surely only made possible by a shift in human nature.

Given the possible implausibility of such a dramatic shift, Hobbes claim that society would benefit from socially contracting into a commonwealth rests on the assumption of the capability of humans to live in civil society, which is only made possible by a shift in their nature. Humans that were purely selfish, vindictive, and power-hungry would not be able to successfully function in the commonwealth that Hobbes describes. Perhaps the best example of this contradiction is Hobbes claim that  “So that in the first place I put a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of Power after power, that ceaseth only in Death ( Hobbes Chap. 11, p. 70). If the strive for power only stops upon death, then the commonwealth would thus also be plagued by the clashing interests of individual power seekers, which is explicitly contradictory to the established rules and conditions for living in social order, and leaves open the possibility for a cruel, oppressive and unjust authority. The desire for power would likely create a standoff between individual citizens and the sovereign, which would likely manifest in some sort of organized rebellion which could potentially end in civil war and a return back to anarchy. There is a persistent shortcoming in the ability of human capacity to function in a commonwealth if their nature is as Hobbes initially indicates. This shortcoming is bridged by Hobbes’ unstated assumption that human nature shifts, as this would be the only way that a productive and civil commonwealth would be possible. The creation of the state marks the initial shift in human nature, as humans leave the hellish life of anarchy and transition into a cooperative interdependence on each other under direction of a supreme ruler. Hobbes zealously argues that humans make the conscious choice to form a commonwealth which indicates their ability to be cooperative. Such cooperation is not possible from humans living in the state of war, which must mean that there is a shift in human nature from egocentricity to cooperation.

Furthermore, the ability to live as subordinate subjects in civil society marks another dramatic shift of nature. Humans, as Hobbes describes them in the state of nature are narcissistic, yet he argues for their ability to become subordinates through the transfer of power to a sovereign, which would only be made possible by an evolution of nature. Thus, certainly, Hobbes theory lies on an assumption that human nature shifts, or evolves, once humans have exited the state of nature. According to Hobbes, the ultimate goal or aim of life is human felicity, which he claims is “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desireth, that is to say, continual prospering ( Hobbes Chap. 6, p.597). By Hobbes definition, the obtainment of felicity must work in conjunction with power. Because, according to Hobbes, the human life is simply one of matter and motion. Felicity must be obtained by the continual fulfillment of desires. In order to consistently fulfill desires, humans must have some form of power to do so. That is to say that there is no specific final “good” that Hobbes believes to be the pillar of happiness, but rather the achievement of felicity through the persistent fulfillment of desires. The sovereign state that Hobbes argues for poses a serious threat to the human capacity to achieve felicity. According to Hobbes, the sovereign state for which he argues must be one in which individual citizens collectively lay down their right to power, and transfer it over to a supreme ruler. Humans then become subordinate citizens, and are subject to whatever laws the ruler deems necessary. Thus, to successfully live in a commonwealth, humans must give up virtually all rights to individual power, which implies they must give up means to pursue felicity.

Furthermore, we can likely assume that individual felicity will vary from human to human, as human desires differ.  But Hobbes argues for a society that lives under unitary conditions, which seems like an environment that would reject the possibility of individual obtainment of felicity. Klosko claims that Hobbes “awards the sovereign the power to use whatever means the sovereign believes necessary to accomplish his ends” ( Klosko 87) which offer citizens very little protection from government, undercutting their potential for the means necessary to obtain felicity. The submission to a sovereign does serious damage to the possibility of happiness, as Hobbes argues for a civil state under an all powerful ruler which seems to fly in the face of Hobbes cherished desire for felicity.  He essentially argues for a society that is willing to lay down their right to individual power, thus abandoning the possibility for the obtainment of what Hobbes believed to be the building block of human life. If Hobbes overall goal is to maintain that human felicity is the most cherished and desirable obtainment in human life, then it appears that he may have overestimated the need for a sovereign ruler. His argument for a human community and all powerful leader “that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (Klosko) seems to conveniently skip over the acknowledgement of the possibility for extreme abuse and corruption by the ruler. Such conditions are hardly conducive to the obtainment of felicity, and in fact inherently counterproductive. Hobbes could have argued for a way less radical version of government, such as a limited government where the majority of the power is distributed equally between a ruler and the people. However, he took the most radical option that seems the least conducive to his goal of the pursuit of felicity.

Furthermore, if it holds true that Hobbes assumes the ability of human nature to transform, then again his option for a supreme ruler that holds all power seems unwarranted, as cooperative citizens would likely be much better off under a system that doesn’t extract all of their power and means. There is an obvious shortcoming in Hobbes's transition from humans in the state of nature to his extreme solution of a sovereign power. I see it as a gap that needs a bridge. For Hobbes argument to work, there certainly has to be some fundamental transformation of human nature, further suggesting that he may have trampled on providing conditions conducive for the pursuit of felicity. Given these shortcomings, it seems likely that Hobbes extreme solution for a civil society under an absolute sovereign may have been unwarranted. Perhaps an argument for a more limited government would have better served his argument.