In Reply to: "The Fundamental Role of Government"
Lets begin with the title, "The Fundamental Role of Government." Now one would expect reading that title that the essay would be focused on what government essentially does. I fear that our author may have couched a more important aspect of his theme in the role of government, and that is the nature of man. Notice that in his brief capsules on the political theories of Hobbes and Rousseau, respectively, priority is given to what their supposed views on the nature of man are and then the role of government in response. Likewise, I will focus on the "nature of man."
Beginning with Hobbes, the author asserts that Hobbes theorized "man is depraved." I must begin by taking exception with this reading of Hobbes. "Depravity," as defined in the OED refers to: "1) a. moral corruption; wickedness. b. an instance of this; a wicked act. 2) Theol. the innate corruptness of human nature." The common strand running through the various ways depravity is defined is a sense of morality as a point of reference, morally unjust, morally wrong, etc... This seems, on its face, to be at odds with Hobbes premise that man in the state of nature is amoral, that morality is constructed in society. Hobbes' pre-social arrangment is made up of balances and clashes of power, and self-interest whereby man "has a right to everything, even to one another's body." The only right or principle guiding actions is that of self-interest, its the precursor to the Realism that was so en vogue during the Cold War.
I think Hobbsian moral insight is better described as a foreshadowing of the position advocated by Nietzsche, most clearly to my recollection in the 2nd essay of The Geneology of Morals. Morality is a social construct, perhaps necessary to complex social states, and even relatively objective (objectivity can arise, it need not always have been I assume). I believe that this is Hobbes most important insight on the "nature of man" and worth a brief investigation.
In an article entitled "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense," Nietzsche posits the origin of truth and lie. He suggests that it is the development of language that brings about a sense of primitive "truth." Originally, language was needed as a tool to foster or meet the needs of more complex social arrangements. Language arose by people creating designations to refer to the mental images that accompany sensation. To put it more simply, and not how Nietzsche would, man created designators for things in nature. Man to Nietzsche is naturally a crafty and ingenuous species, and the origin of language was followed almost immediately by its manipulation to meet the needs of the speaker. The idea of truth and untruth arises when man begins to use these designators to make the unreal appear real, and initially this rubs his "society" wrong because the deceptions have materially detrimental consequences to those around the deceiver. So here we have a pretty clear theory of man as "naturally" amoral and self-interested, I think this would have met with approval from Hobbes.
The role of government in Hobbes system is not to protect depraved people from the depravity of others and themselves, but it is to order the allocation of resources and to provide harmony among the interests of men, which would otherwise clash and lead to a state of permanent war. The moral center of the universe that is required to have concepts like "depravity" or "goodness" arise later, after the submission to sovereignty. This is why Hobbes is most usually noted as the original theorist of sovereignty, and that idea that speaks to the role of pure power in Hobbes' deduction.
Moving to Rousseau, I again must take exception to the premise posited by our learned scholar of the arts. It is stated that Rousseau assumes "man is essentially good." I think that Rousseau believes that the "natural man" is essentially free and primitive. You can arrive at this kind of a reading through the theme that runs through most of Rousseau's writing of the "noble savage," or that oft-quoted phrase from The Social Contract, forgive me for the imprecision, "Man is born free, but everwhere he is living in chains." Rousseau's project differs from that of Hobbes in that Rousseau is not working on a theory of power, but is trying to explain how sovereignty can be maintained while reasserting the freedom of man. This is achieved by self-legislation, obeying a law one prescribes for himself (later echoed in Kant's placing autonomy in obedience to a moral imperative). There are certainly moral undertones in Rousseau that Hobbes may not agree with, for instance I think its fair to say that Rouseau believes people are capable of social cooperation, both before and after civilization. This does not require an explicit and favorable moral take on the goodness of humanity, in fact, John Nash arrived at this same consclusion starting with a premise of personal interest in his famous "Nash Equilibrium."
The role of government for Rousseau is to reassert the autonomy of man by creating an arrangement where man can self-legislate. This is made theoretically possible by the theory of the general will, sort of an ideal collective will. Society does not necessarily "corrupt" man, if we are keeping with the moral theme, and certainly opposed to the assertion that "man is essentially good." Society does, however, make people institutionally subject to the will of others, makes people heteronomous. Hobbes believed that man in the state of nature had the right to do whatever he needs to do to preserve himself, but upon submitting to the sovereign man must confer the right to self-remedy to the sovereign. Hobbes would agree that man has lost his "natural freedom" when entering into society, of course Hobbes is not concerned with this, he is concerned with order...man has contracted away freedom in return for order and when self-preservation is all you want that is not too bad of a deal. For Rousseau, coerced order is not enough, it limits the development of the individual and consequently the social output of the body-politic, so Rousseau wants to know how to square the circle, have order and chaos, sovereignty and freedom.
Its fair to say that there are merits to both theories. As I stated earlier, I look favorably on Hobbes theory of morality as constructed socially, but I also agree with Rousseau that pure coercion is unduly limiting on the development of the individual and society (this bears out empirically I believe when one looks to the output and development of liberal societies versus absolutist societies). This is speaking more to the role of governments, but not to the thesis of the author's article, the nature of man. I think that one make a grievous and violent error of logic to extrapolate either authors' views on "natural man."
Both theories are abstract theories of the state, and the "states of nature" are premises that begin the deduction. Neither author is theorizing on the natural state of man, or as it is commonly called today, "human nature." All deductions begin with assumptions, or premises, and these states of nature are fictional thought experiments that undergird the later deductions. It is an error of logic to assume that these assumptions are themselves derived or tautological truths. There was clearly never a state of nature as concieved of by any of the social contract theorists, and I belived it is absurd to talk about a "state" of nature or its permutation, a natural "state."
Man, and his development, is not a set of discrete points along a progressive, regressive, or indeterminate line...man's development is a continuum or a process. There is no clearly delineated natural state, and any attempt to posit one runs into a problem of drawing the line. To agree or disagree with the theory of natural man established by either Hobbes or Rousseau is to choose among fictions unless one is prepared to provide and independent derivation for such a position. I challenge anyone to pose a coherent and static view of man's natural state, and I think one would find this a most daunting task. All one can really say logically about human nature is that it is "natural," and that is true via tautology, rather unsatisfying as it is I believe many theories of man reject the idea that man is natural.
I will have to comment further on the role of the market as protector against man's depravity, but I will first have to restate it as "the market as the modern incantation of the Hobbsian sovereign." From this one may infer where I am going, but don't get ahead of yourself!...because the market may also be a manifestation of Rousseau's project to reassert the autonomy of man, make man the designer and participant in his own destiny.
Beginning with Hobbes, the author asserts that Hobbes theorized "man is depraved." I must begin by taking exception with this reading of Hobbes. "Depravity," as defined in the OED refers to: "1) a. moral corruption; wickedness. b. an instance of this; a wicked act. 2) Theol. the innate corruptness of human nature." The common strand running through the various ways depravity is defined is a sense of morality as a point of reference, morally unjust, morally wrong, etc... This seems, on its face, to be at odds with Hobbes premise that man in the state of nature is amoral, that morality is constructed in society. Hobbes' pre-social arrangment is made up of balances and clashes of power, and self-interest whereby man "has a right to everything, even to one another's body." The only right or principle guiding actions is that of self-interest, its the precursor to the Realism that was so en vogue during the Cold War.
I think Hobbsian moral insight is better described as a foreshadowing of the position advocated by Nietzsche, most clearly to my recollection in the 2nd essay of The Geneology of Morals. Morality is a social construct, perhaps necessary to complex social states, and even relatively objective (objectivity can arise, it need not always have been I assume). I believe that this is Hobbes most important insight on the "nature of man" and worth a brief investigation.
In an article entitled "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense," Nietzsche posits the origin of truth and lie. He suggests that it is the development of language that brings about a sense of primitive "truth." Originally, language was needed as a tool to foster or meet the needs of more complex social arrangements. Language arose by people creating designations to refer to the mental images that accompany sensation. To put it more simply, and not how Nietzsche would, man created designators for things in nature. Man to Nietzsche is naturally a crafty and ingenuous species, and the origin of language was followed almost immediately by its manipulation to meet the needs of the speaker. The idea of truth and untruth arises when man begins to use these designators to make the unreal appear real, and initially this rubs his "society" wrong because the deceptions have materially detrimental consequences to those around the deceiver. So here we have a pretty clear theory of man as "naturally" amoral and self-interested, I think this would have met with approval from Hobbes.
The role of government in Hobbes system is not to protect depraved people from the depravity of others and themselves, but it is to order the allocation of resources and to provide harmony among the interests of men, which would otherwise clash and lead to a state of permanent war. The moral center of the universe that is required to have concepts like "depravity" or "goodness" arise later, after the submission to sovereignty. This is why Hobbes is most usually noted as the original theorist of sovereignty, and that idea that speaks to the role of pure power in Hobbes' deduction.
Moving to Rousseau, I again must take exception to the premise posited by our learned scholar of the arts. It is stated that Rousseau assumes "man is essentially good." I think that Rousseau believes that the "natural man" is essentially free and primitive. You can arrive at this kind of a reading through the theme that runs through most of Rousseau's writing of the "noble savage," or that oft-quoted phrase from The Social Contract, forgive me for the imprecision, "Man is born free, but everwhere he is living in chains." Rousseau's project differs from that of Hobbes in that Rousseau is not working on a theory of power, but is trying to explain how sovereignty can be maintained while reasserting the freedom of man. This is achieved by self-legislation, obeying a law one prescribes for himself (later echoed in Kant's placing autonomy in obedience to a moral imperative). There are certainly moral undertones in Rousseau that Hobbes may not agree with, for instance I think its fair to say that Rouseau believes people are capable of social cooperation, both before and after civilization. This does not require an explicit and favorable moral take on the goodness of humanity, in fact, John Nash arrived at this same consclusion starting with a premise of personal interest in his famous "Nash Equilibrium."
The role of government for Rousseau is to reassert the autonomy of man by creating an arrangement where man can self-legislate. This is made theoretically possible by the theory of the general will, sort of an ideal collective will. Society does not necessarily "corrupt" man, if we are keeping with the moral theme, and certainly opposed to the assertion that "man is essentially good." Society does, however, make people institutionally subject to the will of others, makes people heteronomous. Hobbes believed that man in the state of nature had the right to do whatever he needs to do to preserve himself, but upon submitting to the sovereign man must confer the right to self-remedy to the sovereign. Hobbes would agree that man has lost his "natural freedom" when entering into society, of course Hobbes is not concerned with this, he is concerned with order...man has contracted away freedom in return for order and when self-preservation is all you want that is not too bad of a deal. For Rousseau, coerced order is not enough, it limits the development of the individual and consequently the social output of the body-politic, so Rousseau wants to know how to square the circle, have order and chaos, sovereignty and freedom.
Its fair to say that there are merits to both theories. As I stated earlier, I look favorably on Hobbes theory of morality as constructed socially, but I also agree with Rousseau that pure coercion is unduly limiting on the development of the individual and society (this bears out empirically I believe when one looks to the output and development of liberal societies versus absolutist societies). This is speaking more to the role of governments, but not to the thesis of the author's article, the nature of man. I think that one make a grievous and violent error of logic to extrapolate either authors' views on "natural man."
Both theories are abstract theories of the state, and the "states of nature" are premises that begin the deduction. Neither author is theorizing on the natural state of man, or as it is commonly called today, "human nature." All deductions begin with assumptions, or premises, and these states of nature are fictional thought experiments that undergird the later deductions. It is an error of logic to assume that these assumptions are themselves derived or tautological truths. There was clearly never a state of nature as concieved of by any of the social contract theorists, and I belived it is absurd to talk about a "state" of nature or its permutation, a natural "state."
Man, and his development, is not a set of discrete points along a progressive, regressive, or indeterminate line...man's development is a continuum or a process. There is no clearly delineated natural state, and any attempt to posit one runs into a problem of drawing the line. To agree or disagree with the theory of natural man established by either Hobbes or Rousseau is to choose among fictions unless one is prepared to provide and independent derivation for such a position. I challenge anyone to pose a coherent and static view of man's natural state, and I think one would find this a most daunting task. All one can really say logically about human nature is that it is "natural," and that is true via tautology, rather unsatisfying as it is I believe many theories of man reject the idea that man is natural.
I will have to comment further on the role of the market as protector against man's depravity, but I will first have to restate it as "the market as the modern incantation of the Hobbsian sovereign." From this one may infer where I am going, but don't get ahead of yourself!...because the market may also be a manifestation of Rousseau's project to reassert the autonomy of man, make man the designer and participant in his own destiny.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home