In his foundational masterpiece, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that self-interest essentially constitutes the ultimate incentive for all voluntary human activity, to which all other incentives are subordinate. Though the metaphysics Hobbes uses to support this claim seem contradictory, as in Chapter 13 where he states, “Where there is no common power; there is no law, no injustice.” ; however, just one paragraph later he dictates that there are principles that deserve to be called “laws of nature” (XIII/14, XIV/3) and that they are “immutable and eternal” (XV/38). Hobbes, upon listing the laws of nature, offers a deduction of them contracted into one easy sum -- “Do not that to another, which thou wouldest not have done to thyself.”(XV/35)
…show more content…
If our actions are predetermined by desires outside of our control, then do we really have free will? In his book The Questions concerning Liberty, Necessity and Chance, published in 1656, Hobbes argues that if voluntary actions proceed from the will of the actor, then he is considered to have Liberty : for Hobbes defines Liberty as “the absence of external impediments”. The actor can be considered free so long as the word is defined with consideration to the fact that he is only free to act according to his will, though not the act of determining his will. If all voluntary actions have the will as a necessary cause, and so must be necessitated ; it follows that the determination of the will must also depend on a necessary cause for “.... nothing taketh beginning from itself, but from the action of some other immediate agent without itself”. Hobbes deliberates that the will or act of willing is dependent on appetites, which simply arise or do not arise and cannot be chosen or determined because they, too, depend on antecedent factors external of themselves. Hobbes concludes that man has liberty, but is not legitimately free in the sense of being capable of autonomous self-determination. In this sense, his conception of reality is one of volitional determinism; a doctrine …show more content…
“That during the time men live without a common power… they are all in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man…. the nature of war consisteth not in actually fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.” I understand this as a time before man was equipped to logically distinguish distinct concepts from others. This is partly due to the fact that Hobbes defined the specific conditions of war, but assigned to peace ‘all other times’-- essentially specifying it with a non-specification. The implication I drew from Hobbes treatment of the two terms is that living in states of peace is default and instinctual while living in states of war ‘go against the grain’. Hobbes also does point out in the same chapter that the consequent condition of war is that nothing is unjust because every man has a right to everything, including each other. Therefore, the conception of justice has to be determinate on some restriction of these
If our actions are predetermined by desires outside of our control, then do we really have free will? In his book The Questions concerning Liberty, Necessity and Chance, published in 1656, Hobbes argues that if voluntary actions proceed from the will of the actor, then he is considered to have Liberty : for Hobbes defines Liberty as “the absence of external impediments”. The actor can be considered free so long as the word is defined with consideration to the fact that he is only free to act according to his will, though not the act of determining his will. If all voluntary actions have the will as a necessary cause, and so must be necessitated ; it follows that the determination of the will must also depend on a necessary cause for “.... nothing taketh beginning from itself, but from the action of some other immediate agent without itself”. Hobbes deliberates that the will or act of willing is dependent on appetites, which simply arise or do not arise and cannot be chosen or determined because they, too, depend on antecedent factors external of themselves. Hobbes concludes that man has liberty, but is not legitimately free in the sense of being capable of autonomous self-determination. In this sense, his conception of reality is one of volitional determinism; a doctrine …show more content…
“That during the time men live without a common power… they are all in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man…. the nature of war consisteth not in actually fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.” I understand this as a time before man was equipped to logically distinguish distinct concepts from others. This is partly due to the fact that Hobbes defined the specific conditions of war, but assigned to peace ‘all other times’-- essentially specifying it with a non-specification. The implication I drew from Hobbes treatment of the two terms is that living in states of peace is default and instinctual while living in states of war ‘go against the grain’. Hobbes also does point out in the same chapter that the consequent condition of war is that nothing is unjust because every man has a right to everything, including each other. Therefore, the conception of justice has to be determinate on some restriction of these