An Exploration of Human Nature and the State of Nature
Introduction
Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher and political theorist, is best known for his contributions to social contract theory, particularly in his work Leviathan (1651). Hobbes’ views on human nature, the state of nature, and the foundation of political order have shaped the modern understanding of political theory and ethics. One of the key aspects of Hobbes’ philosophy is his conception of natural law, specifically what we may call descriptive natural law. In contrast to prescriptive theories of natural law, which focus on how people ought to act, Hobbes’ approach is descriptive in nature, focusing on how people actually behave in the absence of societal constraints.
This article delves into the core tenets of Hobbes’ descriptive natural law, examining its foundational principles, implications for political theory, and the broader consequences it holds for human society. By exploring Hobbes’ view of natural law, we can better understand his views on human nature, morality, and the need for government.
Hobbes’ Philosophy of Human Nature
At the heart of Hobbes’ philosophy is his conception of human nature. Hobbes argues that humans are driven by self-preservation and the desire to avoid pain and seek pleasure. According to Hobbes, in their natural state, humans are essentially equal in their abilities and desires, but they are also selfish and driven by the instinct of self-interest. This condition leads to a situation in which individuals are constantly in competition with each other for limited resources, which Hobbes famously describes as a state of “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes).
Hobbes describes the natural state of humans as a condition where there are no laws, no higher authority, and no government. In this state, individuals act according to their basic instincts, trying to satisfy their own needs and desires. Without the constraints of social norms or an organized system of law, individuals would pursue their interests without regard for others. This would lead to a constant struggle for survival, where trust is absent, and every person is in fear of violent conflict.
In this state of nature, Hobbes believes that people are governed not by reason or morality, but by the “passions” or instincts inherent in human nature. These passions include the fear of death, the desire for self-preservation, and the pursuit of power. Hobbes argues that these instincts, combined with the scarcity of resources, make life in the state of nature brutish and dangerous. It is in response to these conditions that Hobbes introduces the concept of natural law.
The Concept of Natural Law
For Hobbes, natural law is not an idealistic or prescriptive doctrine about how people ought to behave, but rather a description of how people behave in their natural state. Hobbes defines natural law as a set of moral rules or principles that arise out of the human desire for self-preservation and the avoidance of harm. These laws are derived from reason, and they are dictated by the fundamental instinct to protect oneself from danger.
Hobbes’ natural law begins with the basic principle that individuals are driven by the need to preserve their lives. The first and most important law of nature is the “right to self-preservation.” This right is understood as the instinctual drive to protect one’s life and well-being. For Hobbes, every person has the natural right to use any means necessary to secure their survival. This includes the use of force, if necessary, to defend oneself.
The second law of nature, according to Hobbes, is that individuals must seek peace and avoid conflict, insofar as it is possible to do so. Hobbes argues that humans, in their natural state, are rational enough to recognize that cooperation and peaceful relations will increase their chances of survival. Therefore, individuals are inclined to establish agreements or covenants with others in order to create a stable environment in which mutual preservation can be achieved. However, Hobbes emphasizes that these covenants are only binding insofar as individuals are able to enforce them, which leads to the creation of a sovereign authority to uphold them.
The third and final law of nature is that individuals must keep the agreements they make. Hobbes argues that in order for society to function and for individuals to live in peace, there must be a mutual understanding that promises and contracts will be honored. Without this trust in the enforcement of agreements, the social order would break down, and the chaos of the state of nature would resume. The concept of keeping agreements and honoring covenants becomes critical for the establishment of a civil society and the eventual creation of government.
Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Natural Law
Hobbes’ natural law is fundamentally different from the prescriptive natural law tradition, which is often associated with philosophers like Aristotle, Aquinas, and Locke. While prescriptive natural law argues that there are objective moral principles that govern human conduct, Hobbes’ approach is purely descriptive. He does not claim that there is an ideal moral order that individuals should strive for; instead, he asserts that individuals, in their natural state, are governed by their instincts and passions.
Prescriptive natural law theorists tend to believe that humans have an inherent sense of right and wrong, grounded in reason or divine law. In contrast, Hobbes argues that humans have no inherent moral compass; instead, they are motivated by self-interest and the desire for self-preservation. Hobbes’ natural law is not about what people ought to do, but about what they naturally do in a world without authority or social structure. Hobbes’ descriptive natural law is thus rooted in his empirical understanding of human behavior rather than in metaphysical or theological assumptions.
Hobbes’ distinction between descriptive and prescriptive natural law is crucial in understanding his theory of the state. Unlike moral philosophers who envision a moral order that exists independent of human society, Hobbes presents a more pragmatic view in which human beings create moral and legal structures to protect themselves from the inherent dangers of the state of nature. This pragmatic, descriptive approach to natural law forms the foundation for his later discussions of the social contract and the necessity of the sovereign.
The State of Nature and the Social Contract
Hobbes’ views on natural law are intricately linked to his understanding of the state of nature. In his work Leviathan, Hobbes famously describes the state of nature as a time of chaos and violence, where there is no higher power to enforce rules or protect individuals from one another. In this state, people are constantly in conflict with each other, driven by their desires for power, resources, and security.
The state of nature, according to Hobbes, is a situation in which natural law exists but is unenforced. The laws of nature, which dictate that individuals seek peace and self-preservation, are not followed because there is no authority to compel compliance. Without a higher power to enforce these laws, people are left to their own devices, and this leads to a situation where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
To escape this chaotic and dangerous condition, Hobbes argues that individuals enter into a social contract. The social contract is an agreement among individuals to create a common authority, which Hobbes refers to as the “sovereign.” The sovereign is tasked with enforcing natural laws and ensuring that individuals abide by their agreements. The sovereign, in turn, has absolute authority over the people, as it is the only way to maintain peace and prevent the return to the state of nature.
For Hobbes, the social contract is not based on a moral ideal or an abstract notion of justice. Rather, it is a pragmatic solution to the problems of the state of nature. By agreeing to submit to the authority of the sovereign, individuals gain the protection and security necessary for their survival. This is a classic example of Hobbes’ descriptive approach to natural law: the creation of government and law is not a moral endeavor but a necessary step to avoid the horrors of the state of nature.
Implications for Modern Political Theory
Hobbes’ descriptive natural law has had lasting implications for political theory. One of the most important aspects of Hobbes’ philosophy is the idea that government is necessary to maintain peace and order. Without government, Hobbes argues, society would fall into chaos, and individuals would be left to fend for themselves in a hostile and dangerous environment. In this sense, Hobbes’ view of natural law is deeply connected to his vision of the role of the state in human life.
Hobbes’ emphasis on the necessity of a strong sovereign to maintain order has influenced later thinkers, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, and Karl Marx, who developed their own theories of government and social contract theory. While these thinkers disagreed with Hobbes on the nature of human beings and the role of government, they all engaged with his ideas about the state of nature and the importance of political authority.
Hobbes’ ideas have also shaped modern discussions about individual rights and the nature of sovereignty. His conception of the social contract raises important questions about the relationship between individuals and the state. While Hobbes advocates for an absolute sovereign, later thinkers like Locke and Rousseau pushed for more limited forms of government, emphasizing the protection of individual freedoms and the rule of law. The tension between Hobbes’ desire for security and the protection of individual rights remains a central theme in contemporary political philosophy.
Conclusion
Thomas Hobbes’ descriptive natural law provides a stark and often unsettling view of human nature. By focusing on what people naturally do rather than what they ought to do, Hobbes offers a pragmatic account of the human condition, one in which individuals are driven by self-interest, fear, and the instinct for self-preservation. This view of human nature leads Hobbes to argue that without a strong sovereign to enforce laws and protect individuals, society would descend into chaos and violence.
Through his descriptive natural law, Hobbes provides the foundation for his theory of the social contract, in which individuals agree to submit to the authority of the sovereign in exchange for protection and security. Although Hobbes’ ideas have been critiqued for their emphasis on absolute authority, his work remains a cornerstone of political philosophy and continues to influence discussions of government, authority, and human nature. By understanding Hobbes’ descriptive natural law, we gain insight into the dark and often dangerous conditions of the state of nature and the necessity of political order in human society.
