Greg Hilleren

Professor Michael Fuerstein

Philosophy 254 B

11 October 2012

Looking at the State of War in Relation to State of Nature

Hobbes proposes that a state of nature equates to a state of war in his book Leviathan.

However, even given his definition, the wording leaves room for the idea that a state of war is

not an inherent truth of the state of nature but rather only strongly related. Thus I propose that

while a state of nature does directly lead to a state of war, substantial periods of peace break up

the periods of war meaning that a state of nature is not equivalent to a state of war.

To start, I carefully define a state of nature and a state of war. The state of nature is

based on basic principles of humanity and interactions within it. It describes humanity in a pre-

civil state separated from governance and laws. Inside this state of nature Hobbes proposes basic

tenets of human qualities as well as outlines 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 a known willingness to commit

violence against another group in addition to the physical act of violence against said group.

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, Hobbes claims 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).” We find many examples through history of this being true. From these concrete

examples we can extrapolate what may be true for the human psyche and then apply that

knowledge to a state of nature. From the group in the Theatre of Pompey assassinating Caesar to

the first American example of John Wilkes Booth shooting Abraham Lincoln in the Ford’s

Theatre, the lowest man may conspire to overcome the highest rank. Even more contemporary

examples demonstrate this quality. For instance, J. Christopher Steven’s 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. He describes this as, “I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength.

For prudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men in those things they

equally apply themselves unto. (Hobbes 73-74).” 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 through historical examples. 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. Once again, we can take the

examples and extrapolate to a greater human truth. From this we arrive at the conclusion that not

only these men had the ambition to fight for their resources but that all men have an inherent

ability and desire to fight for possible resources. 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. Hobbes specifically says that, “If any two men desire the

same thing…[they] endeavor to destroy or subdue one another. And from hence it comes to pass

that, where an invader hath no more to fear than another man’s single power, if one plant, sow,

build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with

forces united to dispossess and deprive him (Hobbes 75).” 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, such as Locke in Two Treatises of

Government, 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. Other thinkers that have

proposed such that the complacency of men hinders progression of society are George Orwell in

1984 and Aldous Huxley in Brave New World. 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 human history have shown what humans can accomplish when pushed to extremes.

However, many other examples provide evidence that humans may also accept their fate. This

can be seen in religious repression where people accept their social policies being threatened by

a dogmatic law. For instance, a gay teenager was tortured and murdered in Laramie, Wyoming.

This poses a life-threatening problem for homosexual culture nationwide. Not to say that the

issue has been silent but heterosexual allies of the gay movement have mostly stayed silent in

fear of being castigated by the religious majority. As true in a lot of cases and as we are starting

to see in this case, 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 from 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 consistent or if the conflict and suspicion often

but not always leads to a state of war. What I propose is that 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

harm’s way when retaliation would result in complete death. However, by no means could it not

possibly occur. Again we must extrapolate physical evidence in order to see a pattern with the

human psyche. Through a stalemate we have equality when it comes to powers of destruction.

Equality of ambition may happen if each party wishes the other’s 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. After we extrapolate this example to the model of the state of nature, we see

that all disputes must come to an end. The peace inevitably will still 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 even if there are times of physical peace, the

disposition to commit violence would endure. However, this cannot be true for if it is, even as

we step out of the state of nature, we would hold these dispositions at all times. Governments

prevent acts of physical violence by punishing perpetrators. Thus giving us peace of mind so we

do not need to feel constantly threatened, but what stops people from committing crimes with

which they know they can get away? For instance, anybody can steal my cup of coffee at a

coffee shop but I am not in constant fear that it will happen. Therefore when conflict is not

present or even foreseen, we remain in a state of peace. Extrapolating this principle to the state

of nature, when conflict is over, a brief cessation of violent disposition occurs.

Humans resolve conflict, often by physical means, but a cessation of willing intent to

commit injury post conflict however brief is enough to say that the state of war within the

individual is subsided. Thus, 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.

We now reach a similar conclusion to Hobbes. In order to avoid the inevitable return to a state

of war, we must enter social contracts and sacrifice liberties for the betterment of our own

personal being.