Lecture 8 - History of Political Thought
1. Spinoza against Hobbes: free speech
Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677):
Dutch philosopher and lens-grinder
Kicked out of Jewish community
Biblical criticism
Radical metaphysics: God is nature
Author of Theological-Political Treatise (1677)
Theological-Political Treatise (1677):
Remarkable defence of freedom of thought and speech
o Not grounded in value of free speech:
This is not to say that Spinoza doesn’t believe in the value of free speech – for him, unlike Hobbes,
free speech has instrumental value for the development of arts & sciences, and arguably also
intrinsic value (allowing us to freely speak our minds as we are naturally inclined to do – thus
allowing us to ‘live according to nature’).
o Rather: practically impossible and hence counter-productive to try to restrict free speech
He based his defense on a theory of inalienable rights.
Liberal conclusion built on Hobbesian principles!
o Divergence caused by disagreement about human nature
Spinoza’s ultimate intention is reveal the truth about Scripture and religion, and thereby to undercut the political
power exercised in modern states by religious authorities. He also defends, at least as a political ideal, the tolerant,
secular, and democratic polity.
Spinoza and Hobbes:
Their social contract theories agree on many points:
o Humans have a natural right to everything
o The state of nature is full of hostility
o A legally unbounded sovereign must be empowered to secure trust and settle conflict
o In their actions, citizens must obey the civil law in all things
o Government power extends over religious affairs as well
o Peace and self-preservation are main reasons for entering a state
For Spinoza, security involves ‘freedom from fear’ (TTP 20.6)
A first look at its main principles could bring the uninformed reader to believe that it is the same as Hobbes's. Yet
both theories differ in their conclusions.
o Spinoza's political philosophy is also a philosophy of the conatus, the individual tendency to exist, which
cannot be brought to extinction even in the most powerful Leviathan, even in the worst of authoritarian
regimes.
How can civil society exist if people are only dominated by their own impulse to live?
o Through many ways:
First, through the action of affections, the same ones that are described in the Ethics. Those
affections, my feelings, will bring me to cluster, to gather with people similar to myself.
, In a similar fashion, human needs will also play a role: society, through distribution and
specialization of each task, can provide more goods than I can generate myself and with less effort.
This is why the sciences and the arts can only develop in societies
This fear, the need to constantly look after danger and threats and to live in constant tension, is the
third cause or root phenomenon of society. Society brings me protection and security.
o We see hence that Spinoza, while incorporating in his work Hobbesian arguments (the argument of fear),
develops a distinct analysis that will bring him to different conclusions: the need of a free society.
Spinoza on right:
Hobbes’s right to everything
o In a condition of war, the right of self-defence permits individuals to do everything
Spinoza’s right to everything
o God is nature
o Everything in nature “has a sovereign right to everything that it can do, i.e. the right of nature extends as far
as its power extends. For the power of nature is the very power of God who has the supreme right to do all
things” TTP 16.2
o Every individual, in Spinoza's opinion, has a natural right. This right includes everything that he desires, and
he is able to obtain. As a result, my own natural right is the equivalent of my individual strength or power.
Hence, in Spinoza's political philosophy subjective rights (e.g. human rights) do not exist by nature, they are
an institution of society, they only exist in the civil state. Moreover, according to Spinoza the notions of right
and wrong have no meaning before society, since in the natural state there are no common norms, only
individual desires (desires which can bring some people to dominate other weaker people).
Might equals right!
No free speech in Hobbes:
Rulers have a duty to secure peace and stability
o This requires rooting “evil doctrines” which incite people to sedition “out of the citizens’ minds and gently
instil others” De Cive 13.9
Spinoza: controlling freedom of thought and speech is impossible
o Humans will always have the power, and hence the right, to think freely
A pragmatic argument for free speech:
“It is a fact that human nature is like this”
o Citizens cannot renounce the ability to make up their own mind
o And they will inevitably communicate their thoughts to others (TTP 20.4(
o Repressing free speech is counter-productive since it undermines trust and inspires spirited resistance (TTP
20.11)
o Rulers lack the power, and hence the right, to control civil opinion
Toleration is the best policy given human nature!
o Spinoza grounded freedom of religion in the broader principle of freedom of speech. Every person, whether
religious or no, has the inalienable right to express his beliefs (with some exceptions)
o It is far from possible to impose uniformity of speech, for the more rulers strive to curtail freedom of speech,
the more obstinately are they resisted. Men, as generally constituted, are most prone to resent the branding
as criminal of opinions which they believe to be true, and the proscription as wicked of that which inspires
, them with piety towards God and man; hence they are ready to forswear the laws and conspire against the
authorities. Moreover, such laws are almost always useless.
The power of the state exists in Spinoza's opinion only through the gathering of individual powers, powers which the
society incorporates and can even develop if its political institutions are well designed. "Well designed" means that
they must induce political leaders to act according to the rules, by their own will.
“No man’s mind can possibly lie wholly at the disposition of another, for no one can willingly transfer his natural
right of free reason and judgment, or be compelled so to do. For this reason, government which attempts to control
minds is accounted tyrannical, and it is considered an abuse of sovereignty and a usurpation of the rights of subjects.
While exempt from direct external control it may be so dependent on another man’s words, that it may fitly be said
to be ruled by him”
The power of a sovereign never prevents men from forming judgments according to their intellect, or being
influenced by any given emotion. For the rights of the sovereign are limited by his power.
The ultimate aim of government is to free every man from fear, that he may live in all possible security; in other
words, to strengthen his natural right to exist and work without injury to himself or others. In fact, the true aim of
government is liberty.
Compare rights-based arguments:
Locke’s arguments for religious toleration:
o Political rulers have not been authorized by the people to take care of our spiritual welfare
o People cannot be compelled to believe things by force; religious compulsion is in vain
o Hobbes:
Political control over religion for reasons of social stability
Spinoza:
o Any regulation of (religious) beliefs is counter-productive!
o The outward practices of religion impinge upon the comportment and relations of citizens, they fall under
“state business” and, thus, within the sphere of the sovereign’s power. The sovereign should have complete
dominion in all public matters secular and spiritual. There should be no church separate from the religion
instituted and regulated by the state. This will prevent sectarianism and the multiplication of religious
disputes. All questions concerning external religious rites and ceremonies are in the hands of the sovereign.
This is in the best interest of everyone, since the sovereign will, ideally and in conformity with its
“contractual” duty, insure that such practices are in accord with public peace and safety and social well-
being.
o Dominion over the “inward worship of God” and the beliefs accompanying it—in other words, inner piety—
belongs exclusively to the individual. This is a matter of inalienable, private right, and it cannot be legislated,
not even by the sovereign. No one can limit or control another person’s thoughts anyway, and it would be
foolhardy and destructive to the polity for a sovereign to attempt to do so. Nor can speech ever truly and
effectively be controlled, since people will always say want they want, at least in private
o In a broader perspective, a state that relies on fearsome and inhuman ways to preserve its power cannot
survive for long, since those ways impede the development of its own strength, and reinforce the tendency
of the multitudo, the masses, to unrest or to disobedience: obedience is necessary to preserve social order
and peace.
Upshot:
Hobbes beaten at his own game
o Spinoza formulates an internal critique of Hobbes
, o Given Hobbes’s own principles and goals, he ought to allow free speech
Human nature + peace desiderata ≠ complete state control
o Locke voices external criticisms against Hobbes
o Arguments based on principles not shared by opponent
E.g. possibility of private property outside the state
Liberal conclusions ↔ liberal principles
o Hobbes: illiberal conclusions drawn from principles widely shared by liberals.
o Spinoza: a liberal conclusion drawn from Hobbesian principles about the need to empower an absolute
sovereign whom we must obey in all things
2. Locke against Hobbes: private property
John Locke (1632-1704):
English philosopher and scientist
Another life-long bachelor
Personal secretary of Shaftesbury
Revolutionary, plotting regicide
Exiled in Holland (1683-88)
Author of Two Treatises of Government (1690)
o John Locke (1632–1704) is among the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In
the Two Treatises of Government, he defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against
claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such
as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular
society.
o Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding
legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature
conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable,
comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property:
Claim that political arrangements are artifices constructed by human beings for human purposes,
and that the rights and duties they bring with them must be justified by those purposes.
o Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and
promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new
governments. Locke is thus also important for his defense of the right of revolution. Locke also defends the
principle of majority rule and the separation of legislative and executive powers.
Locke’s state of nature:
Natural Law and Natural Rights:
o Natural law is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed
by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally
through human reason.
Law was law because it as command of a superioedl to believe that natural law was strictly law
required a belief in God as lawgiver.
Natural law theories hold that human beings are subject to a moral law. Morality is
fundamentally about duty, the duty each individual has to abide by the natural law.
