Role of Government, Part 3
Allow me to clarify a bit the distinction I was trying to make. While I admit to having “what the nature of man?” on my mind, this was not in fact the question I was attempting to address. Instead, perhaps obtusely, I was asking, “what do different theories of government say about the nature of man?” Being as there are roughly two views of the nature of man, I guessed that there were two forms this took in theories of government.
In this sense, I take Hobbes to stand for an idea that government (or society or whatever, I think we both understand that I am using this term loosely) keeps us from being at each others necks, preventing a “war of all against all” as Hobbies stated. It does this, I presume, by organizing the self-interests of all citizens to benefit everyone as much as possible.
Lenin (but not that Lenin) writes, 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.
I’m not sure I see a distinction here! Depravity was a poor word. Self-interest, as you put it, is much better. I would further argue that the innate form that self-interest takes is always detrimental to the interest of someone else—but it’s probably not something I could prove. Hobbes’ state perhaps (and you can help me with this and tell me if I’m wrong) directs this destructive self-interest into a form that benefits everyone. The originating factor, though, is a problem. How to convince everyone to play along, even the strong? A plausible guess would be that the innate form that self-interest takes is not only destructive towards others, but even mutually destructive. I think this would qualify as depraved, but it is not something I can attribute to Hobbes.
Lenin writes, 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.
Yes, but doesn’t Rousseau imply that man being in chains is essentially immoral? I mean to say that I think there is an implied moral judgment that anything that restrains the freedom of man (and in a Hobbsian sense, anything that restrains the free pursuit of his self interest) is immoral. What is the end of freedom in his view? I suppose for many of the French Enlightenment philosophers freedom was its own end—a very problematic position I think. I think it follows from this that in the absence of restrictions Rousseau believes that there will certainly NOT be a “war of all against all.”
I am conflating Rousseau with the general Enlightenment view so please disabuse of me of any simplistic views I am attributing to Rousseau that really belong to the zeitgeist. But also please remember I am using him as a label, one that perhaps no actual philosopher fits under.
I’ll avoid the question of human nature for now, for the sake of organization. I will only say that, of course, questions of man’s nature independent of society are pretty dubious.
I think my simplistic original thesis, that Rousseau = man is good, and Hobbes = man is bad, has been rightfully refuted. On the other hand, I still think these views of human nature permeate pretty deeply into different political philosophies, and maybe in ways that neither thinker explicitly acknowledges.
Overall I think Hobbes comes out a bit better--not least for the fact that his theory fits pretty comfortably into modern evolutionary theory (see The Selfish Gene for a good example).
In this sense, I take Hobbes to stand for an idea that government (or society or whatever, I think we both understand that I am using this term loosely) keeps us from being at each others necks, preventing a “war of all against all” as Hobbies stated. It does this, I presume, by organizing the self-interests of all citizens to benefit everyone as much as possible.
Lenin (but not that Lenin) writes, 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.
I’m not sure I see a distinction here! Depravity was a poor word. Self-interest, as you put it, is much better. I would further argue that the innate form that self-interest takes is always detrimental to the interest of someone else—but it’s probably not something I could prove. Hobbes’ state perhaps (and you can help me with this and tell me if I’m wrong) directs this destructive self-interest into a form that benefits everyone. The originating factor, though, is a problem. How to convince everyone to play along, even the strong? A plausible guess would be that the innate form that self-interest takes is not only destructive towards others, but even mutually destructive. I think this would qualify as depraved, but it is not something I can attribute to Hobbes.
Lenin writes, 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.
Yes, but doesn’t Rousseau imply that man being in chains is essentially immoral? I mean to say that I think there is an implied moral judgment that anything that restrains the freedom of man (and in a Hobbsian sense, anything that restrains the free pursuit of his self interest) is immoral. What is the end of freedom in his view? I suppose for many of the French Enlightenment philosophers freedom was its own end—a very problematic position I think. I think it follows from this that in the absence of restrictions Rousseau believes that there will certainly NOT be a “war of all against all.”
I am conflating Rousseau with the general Enlightenment view so please disabuse of me of any simplistic views I am attributing to Rousseau that really belong to the zeitgeist. But also please remember I am using him as a label, one that perhaps no actual philosopher fits under.
I’ll avoid the question of human nature for now, for the sake of organization. I will only say that, of course, questions of man’s nature independent of society are pretty dubious.
I think my simplistic original thesis, that Rousseau = man is good, and Hobbes = man is bad, has been rightfully refuted. On the other hand, I still think these views of human nature permeate pretty deeply into different political philosophies, and maybe in ways that neither thinker explicitly acknowledges.
Overall I think Hobbes comes out a bit better--not least for the fact that his theory fits pretty comfortably into modern evolutionary theory (see The Selfish Gene for a good example).
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home