PP notes
WEEK 1 – Authority
Social contract thinking arose in Europe in the 17 th century, with the goal of state formation and
centralization. State formations is paired with the formation of a bourgeoisie and the rise of
individualism, needing rules. Very different from feudal or democratic times.
How to explain or justify a sovereign coercive figure and state authority. Now: social contract with
individual consent, binding normative implications
Hobbes: state of nature unbearable, war of everyone against everyone, social contract in our rational
interest, establishes sovereign power.
Humans: self-interested
Social theory: competition, war
Rights: doing everything necessary for survival
Law: no justice
Hobbes (account state of nature – account of contract – account of then established state)
All men are equal since all men are capable of killing one another and all men are capable of speech
and prudence. Multiple people wanting the same thing will lead to a nature state of war between
all. Some men want to invade and conquer, making him unequal but ensuring safety. A ruler is
allowed since it is necessary to stay alive. No ruler is impossible because you’ll expect the other
to value you equally as you value yourself. The causes of quarrel in our nature are competition,
diffidence and glory. Gains, safety and reputation. All time in which there is the known
disposition for fighting, there is war, in other times there is peace.
- From equality proceeds diffidence
- From diffidence war
- Out of civil states, there is always war of everyone against everyone
- The incommodities of such a war
A time of war is a time wherein man have no other protection than their strength and their own
interventions. Nature dissociates, leading to destruction. Actions and passions cannot be wrong
until you are made aware of a law which forbids them, which can only be done when there is
agreement on who makes the law.
- In such a war, nothing is unjust
Where there is no common power, there is no law, so no injustice (p.78). the possibility to leave the
state of nature comes from both passions and reason. Passions: fear of death, desire of
necessary commodities, hope of obtaining them. Reason will then lead to agreements.
The right of nature is the liberty each man has to use his power freely, to preserve himself and do
what he needs to do. Liberty is the absence of external impediments. The law of nature is a
general rule forbidding man to do things destructive to his life or take away his means of
perseverance, an obligation. However, rights give liberties to do or leave, while law binds, which
juxtaposes itself. The rights allow men to get everything they need to survive, including others
bodies, which is what causes the war of everyone against everyone. The right to everything
prevents security. Every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it, and
when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek using war. Seeking peace, as long as there is hope
and willingness to sacrifice rights when others are willing as well are laws of nature.
- Naturally every man has right to everything
- The fundamental law of nature is to seek peace
, - The second law of nature is that a contract is needed in way of peace. No hope/willingness
When others are willing as well, men will sacrifice their rights of nature and be content with so much
liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself. To sacrifice or lay down
a right, men divest themselves of the liberty of hindering another of the benefit of his own right
to the same.
The rights should not be renounced, but transferred, leading to an obligation or bound. He ought not
to hinder others, making it his duty. A declaration is made, signifying the bonds, which breaking
will have evil consequences. Rights are not transferred for nothing and not all rights are
transferrable. You cannot will bad things to happen to you. Right transferring was created for
more safety. Mutual transferring of rights is making a contract. If the contract is not
simultaneous, there may be a pact or covenant which should not be violated. Not mutual
contracts are gifts or graces.
Contracts are expressed, often a promise, or inferred. Words alone are not enough, sings of contract
are words both of the past, present and future. He who goes first has a due by the other party.
Merits can have a right to or not. When a gift is given indefinitely, he that wins merits, and may
claim the prize as due. A covenant of mutual trust is held when due trust is given. Coercive power
is needed for men to make covenants or they will be suspicious and not enforced. Only in a civil
state covenants work.
- Right to the end contains right to the means
They that give to a man the right of government in sovereignty are understood to give him the right
of levying money. 13
- A mans covenant not to defend himself is void
- No man obliged to accuse himself
- The end of an oath (words are too weak) (generosity but in the best case fear)
- The third law of nature is justice (other two have caused transferring of rights)
The creation of the covenant means breaking it would be unjust, for which there has to be a mutual
trust of not breaking it. A sovereign is needed for covenants to be made and upheld. If there is no
property, there is no justice and if there is no sovereign there is no property.
Humans rationally want to preserve themselves, which is a right, however a one without hope of
obtaining peace and others sacrificing their rights as well, which is why a social contract is
needed to adhere to the laws of nature (putting down the rights).
Laying down the rights through the contract leads to the establishment of the
Commonwealth/Leviathan, authorizing a sovereign to rule on behalf of them. Now there will be
physical security. Sovereign cannot act wrongly because he acts on behalf of the citizens, and
they cannot be willing to wrong themselves. In Leviathan the only right which remains is the right
to live and the sovereign cannot be held accountable. Not absolutist cause authority from
citizens rather than god. Institutional solution for peace.
The laws of nature are contrary to our passions. Small numbers do not provide the needed security.
The entity providing security should be as big as the enemy, thus consist of all of the people. This
multitude of people then should not be left to their own devices, but a common power should unite
the people. The security should last the people making the contract their entire life, meaning you
cannot oppose or overthrow the state. Men are in constant competition over honour and dignity and
are self-interested, have reason, meaning they need a leader where beasts do not. Living well and
peacefully is giving all power to one. A union of all men, a covenant between them.
All men agreeing leads to a commonwealth by institution. Because there is already a covenant in
place, making a new covenant would break this, thus the citizens cannot interfere in the design of
,government. Sovereign power cannot be forfeited. No man can justifiably protest against the
sovereign the mass chose. The sovereign cannot be accused of injustice, he is unpunishable and the
only judge on legal matters, education etc.
- The right of making rules, whereby the subjects may every man know what is so his own, as
no other subject can without injustice take it from him
- To him also belongs the right of all judicature and decision of controversies
- And of making war and peace as he thinks best and choosing all officials
- And of rewarding, punishing, honour and order
- These rights are indivisible, cannot be given away
- War hurts more than sovereign power, but people do not want to submit.
- The form of commonwealth depends on how many people are governing. Monarchy,
democracy or aristocracy.
- Involving multiple representatives can form a danger since sovereignty is indivisible.
Democracy, monarchy and aristocracy differ in terms of convenience in providing peace. People
remain selfish, meaning in a democracy quarrels would break out. In monarchy private and
public interest align and often have good advisors. Numbers cause inconsistency, the monarch
has no exterior motives, is evenly corruptible as a democracy. Choose monarchy.
1. What was your first impression when reading the text? What did you find striking about it?
What especially struck me, is how negative Hobbes image of humanity is. Generally, in our modern
society, which is obviously ruled by a state with a sovereign government, we do have less reason
to suspect each other than those living in the state of nature would have. And, generally, when
we meet a new person or run into someone on the street, we assume the best, that they are
friendly and won’t harm us. So, what I would say was most striking to me, is how much Hobbes
ideas are influenced by the things happening around him. He lived during a civil war in, a time
where the legitimacy of the sovereign ruler was being questioned. He saw violence and war
around him. In my opinion, if someone would write a legitimization of the state in the current
day, it would be based on an idea very different from that of the state of nature as a state of war
of every man against every man. It is very interesting that this is the human image Hobbes had.
(In the Netherlands the situation right now may be peaceful, but what about other countries?)
2. Why, according to Hobbes, is the state of nature a state of war? Choose a quote, which
expresses this point, and explain Hobbes’ reasoning in your own words.
“Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man the
same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security than what their own
strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal.” (p. 76)
So, the state of nature is a state of war because it is a state in which men live without security other
than that which they can provide for themselves. In the state of nature, there is no sovereign
leader, so there is no ability for contracts or covenants and no monopoly on violence, which will
lead to a war of everyone against everyone, since people are distrustful. Men need security in
order to trust each other, since a sovereign leader will be able to enforce laws and contracts,
meaning people do not have to rely on using violence.
3. Formulate at least one question on the text (on something you did not understand or on
something you find unpersuasive). Try to focus on the main argumentative parts.
, Are humans really naturally that bad that there will be a war of everyone against everyone in the
state of nature?
Is signing over of the monopoly on violence towards the state really necessary for it to persevere,
why does the state have to be all powerful without a right to rise up?
It has not been shown that without a commonwealth there will always be a state of war of everyone
against everyone.
Why is the state or a sovereign the sole solution?
Fear of punishment only credible motivation?
No clear argument for either democracy or monarchy?
Beitz
Hobbes in an international relations perspective. “Here the claim is that some (perhaps only a few)
people in the state of nature will be seekers after glory, but that prudent persons aware of this
fact would become "diffident," distrustful, and competitive, always ready to protect themselves
by all means available.” Page 29
States and statesmen are self-interested. There is a state of nature between states, with little
cooperation. Hobbes: the state of nature is defined by absence of political authority powerful
enough to ensure security. To put moral rules above your own self-interest, you need to be
convinced others will adhere as well. A government rewarding compliance and punishing
noncompliance with certain rules is needed in order to establish rules. So the state of nature is
without justice.
- Covenants may be made in the state of nature, leading to obligations. If one of the parties
has already performed, it also makes a covenant binding (thus there is justice). Inconsistent
In the state of nature there are laws of nature which need to be followed. It is in the interest of each
person to abide to these principles. But for enforcement, again, a common power is needed. If
there is no state of nature between humans anymore, there is between states. The collective
action dilemma presented here is based on the plausible intuition that conformity to moral rules
must be reasonable from the point of view of the agent in order to represent a binding
requirement. However, rationality is more than just self-interest. This is rare in the case of a
nation. So there is no inherent morality in international affairs.
What is the content of the principles it would be desirable for every state to accept? Which
conditions are needed so each state, acting out of self-interest, would comply? If this is currently
implementable, it would mean there is currently no international state of nature.
The international state of nature: provides an analytical model that explains war as the result of
structural properties of international relations without a sovereign and a model of the concept of
moral justification that explains how normative principles for international relations should be
justified. (according to the common self-interest of states) These models can either lead to
predictions or prescriptions.
- Predictive: a state of war will obtain among international actors in the absence of a superior
power capable of enforcing regulative rules against any possible violator. For this, the actors
must be states, states must have relatively equal power, states must be independent and
there is no expected compliance to certain rules. Only then international relations can be a
state of nature. There are more actors than just states, there are coalitions and agreements,
