Greg HillerenProfessor Michael Fuerstein

Philosophy 254 B

8 October 2012

Title

In our discussions with Hobbes and Locke, we took a look at the different definitions of state of war and how they differ. Moreover, we explored how they may or may not equate with a state of nature. Hobbes argues that a state of nature necessarily leads to a state of war. However, even given his definition, the wording leaves room that a state of war is not a direct consequence of a state of nature but rather only strongly related.

Firstly, I closely define a state of nature and a state of war. The state of nature is a grouping of features dependent on basic principles of humanity and interactions within it. It is as if humanity were kept in a pre-civil state separated from governance and laws. Inside this state of nature Hobbes proposes basic tenants of human qualities as well as outlining a procedure which inevitably leads to his state of war. He expands on a traditional definition of way by saying, For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known. (Hobbes 76). Thus a state of war is not the act of violence against an individual or group but a known willingness to commit violence against said entity. When relating this to human psychology, the known willingness to commit violence can be reworded as the known disposition to fight. It is an inherent human quality to seek war with others in order to ensure self-preservation. However, is this a fair conclusion to reach by Hobbes procedure? Let us look at the steps Hobbes follows and relate it to the human psychology that both he proposes and other known psychological dispositions proposed and argued by others.

First, we have that, by right of birth, all men are created equal. Even the lowest rank of man can rise and kill a member of the highest physical abilities which Hobbes states as For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself (Hobbes 74). Throughout all eras of history, we have found this to be true. From the group in the Theatre of Pompey assassinating Caesar to the first American example of John Wilkes Booth shooting Abraham Lincoln in the Fords Theatre. By no means is it necessary to extrapolate the principle of equality of men regarding physical abilities to dominate when history has shown it time and time again to be true. Even more contemporary examples demonstrate this quality. For instance, J. Christopher Stevens death in Libya shows how a disgruntled mob can still inflict violence upon a diplomat of a much stronger nation. In relation to human psychology, it is far within the reaches of the human mind to desire and attempt such a coup when pushed and furthermore humans are aware that no other human is immune from attack. Hobbes next step is then a natural conclusion when adding this psychology to his first step.

Second, Hobbes says that through the equality of man comes a natural equal ambition for resources. This assumes that all men are aware of their equality. To add even further evidence for this step, it is not even necessary that all men are aware of their equality. Simply a plurality of men need know it. Once again, we have tangible evidence of this knowledge throughout all of history. In light of the examples I have listed above, it is irrational to think assassination was achieved without some ambition for power whether that be a direct transfer of power to the assassin or a transfer of power to a third party that the assassin views as a better option than the deceased. This step of Hobbes is directly reliant on human psychology. He then argues what must naturally come after ambition.

Third, Hobbes says that as humans are aware of their physical equality and the equality of their ambition, conflict for limited resources inevitably arises and a reasonable human will preemptively strike another human. Here is where a crack starts to appear in Hobbes reasoning. He assumes that humans are active beings willing to do anything to protect their self-preservation. However, other philosophers have argued that humans are in actuality prone to complacency and that if satisfied will not do much beyond their power to achieve more than they must. Hobbes would counter to this by saying that the need for self-preservation would overpower any type of dormant inertia and in fact examples throughout hum history have shown what humans can accomplish when pushed to extremes. On the contrary, many other examples show how humans find the comforts with what they have even if it is life threatening. If we look at slavery throughout all civilizations, we see that entire societies can lay dormant until stirred up to revolution. In nearly all cases, time has shown that humans will overcome these obstacles but it is important to note the time that occurs between the instigation of them and the liberation of them. Now the root of Hobbes troubles is showing.

The main debate then lies in whether the innate conflict and suspicion between humans causes an everlasting state of war and are truly synonymous or if the conflict and suspicion often but not always leads to a state of war. What I propose is that, in terms of mathematical real analysis, if the state of war is a continuous function meaning it is always occurring, then the state of war need not be continuous. For the sake of the argument, we assume that state of war is continuous. For simplicity sake and without loss of generality, humans do not occasionally enter into society and then devolve into barbarism and repeat this pattern ad infinitum but rather are always in a pre-civil state. From here we follow Hobbes argument until the brink of conflict between two humans. As all conflict arises, it is not a continual battle, but there is a flow to it. One attack followed by another until there is a resting point where both parties gather strength. The onslaught rages until a victor is decided. Nearly every example of war between humans has ended in one victor dominating over the loser. The best contemporary example of stalemate is assured mutual destruction through both parties having access to nuclear weapons. We have yet to see a party willingly throw themselves into harms way when retaliation would result in complete death. However, by no means could it not possibly occur. Through a stalemate we have equality when it comes to powers of destruction. Equality of ambition may happen if each party wishes the others demise. Thus by Hobbes own logic and argument, conflict will continue to arise and the destruction of one and in this case both parties is inevitable. We extrapolate this example to the model of the state of nature and see that all disputes must come to an end. The peace inevitably will end and is thus only temporary. Another party will rise and lay claim to property claimed by another and an unending chain ensues. How then does this differ from a Hobbesian model?Hobbes claims that the state of nature equates to a state of war and the two are inevitably intertwined. However, with the proposition that different levels of peace exists between the conflicts, the continuity of the state of war is challenged. When defined as a willing intent to commit violence in addition to the physical act of violence, the willing intent ends when the conflict has formally ended. Even if the cessation is only briefly, it still exists. Ergo, the state of war is broken up into different eras of war. If this was presented on a timeline, we would have infinite amounts of chunks of finite length. Even if the break is a single point before the next conflict, the line is not entirely continuous. Therefore, the state of nature directly leads to the state of war for a vast majority of the time but does not equate with the state of war.

A Hobbesian counterpoint would be that as we go from step to step, a rational self-preserving man would inevitably move right along with the procedure until war is approaching. While this is true and each step is inevitable, the duration of each step needs to be kept in mind. Humans having physical equality is an infinite concept. For all durations of time this is true. The same can be said for equal ambition. It is an infinite concept. It can be taken as an abstract truth. However, conflict is a finite concept. Conflict comes and it goes. It ceases to peace for small durations of time. Hence, in our procedure we stopped having if-then statements and arrived and an if-mostly then statement.Here we have arrived at a conclusion where a state of nature inevitably leads to a state of war, but unlike the Hobbesian model, a state of nature is not a state of war.