However, Hobbes was known for his strategy of redefining key concepts.1 Take, for example, the discussion of passions in Leviathan chapter 6, which defines “religion” as “the fear of invisible power, simulated by the mind or imagined from publicly authorized stories.” 2 Since this approach is prevalent in Hobbes` work, it is questionable whether Hobbes simply redefined “natural law” in this way. that he could use the term to describe something he believed in, when he didn`t actually believe in anything that someone else would have called a law of nature. When Hobbes begins to talk about freedom, he says that man should use freedom for self-progress in the world. We are given freedom so that we can thrive in the world and give meaning to the life we live. Freedom, Hobbes defines it, is “the absence of external obstacles that can often deprive a man of some of the power to do what he would do” (Hobbes 79). Freedom is the absence of resistance to the will of another human being. In the twenty-first chapter, opposition is “the external obstacle of the movement” (136). Hobbes describes freedom as a kind of freedom. This freedom must be of a physical consistency.
Whether human or animal, freedom or freedom must come from the external movement of a living being. In answer to the natural question of whether humanity has ever been in such a state of nature, Hobbes gives three examples of supposed states of nature. First of all, he notes that all the rulers in this state are in relationship with each other. This statement made Hobbes a representative example of a “realist” in international relations. Second, he meant that many now civilized peoples were once in this state, and some peoples—”the savage people in many places in America” (Leviathan, XIII, for example)—were in a state of nature until his time. Third, and most importantly, Hobbes argues that the state of nature can be easily recognized by those whose once peaceful states have plunged into civil war. While the state of the natural state of perfectly private judgment is an abstraction, something too close to it to console itself remains an ever-present possibility that must be feared and avoided. The worst outcome is to be a “prey” – if I follow rules and most others don`t: “He who should be humble and manageable and do whatever he promises, in such a moment and in a place where no other person should, should only fall prey to others and cause his own certain ruin, contrary to the basis of all natural laws which serve the preservation of nature” (Chapter 15, § 36, p. 99). In this quote, Hobbes says that it is foolish to follow the laws of nature when there is no certainty that others will do the same.
Some key elements of Cooper`s thesis are known in Hobbes` literature. Bernard Gert argued that reason has a purpose which is physical self-preservation and health. Cooper welcomes Gert`s conclusion (while criticizing Gert for not having the theological foundations he believes is necessary to respond to this claim) because he sees that the laws of nature will claim everyone only if they have a universal motive, and that there is no universal desire that could provide such a motive. Hence the need to postulate rational dictation in order to achieve an end regardless of desire. He supports the view of A.P. Martinich, who has advanced the most convincing argument in the literature, that Hobbes` laws of nature are literally laws because they were commanded by God to the subjects of his natural kingdom. Michael Byron and Rosamond Rhodes have each argued that humans become subjects in God`s natural kingdom simply by believing in the existence of a God who gives law and punishes disobedience, a position Cooper also relies on to give natural laws a “juridical character” as commandments of a ruler. Each of these views has been rejected by the majority of Hobbes` scholars, despite the ingenuity of their defenders. Hobbes` “Science of Politics” was intended to provide a solution to the ideological conflicts that led to civil war by providing a method for reaching consensus on political issues.
If the parties to the conflict could finally agree on political ideas, peace and prosperity could be achieved in the Commonwealth. Hobbes` goal was to put politics on a scientific basis and thus establish a lasting state of peace. To understand Hobbes` idea of science, one must turn to De Corpore (or On the Body), which is his most developed text on scientific ideas. In this manuscript of natural philosophy, Hobbes presents his views on philosophical methods, mathematics, geometry, physics, and human nature. In his opinion, the views contained in De Corpore represented the basic principles of his entire philosophical system and thus his “science of politics”. The next way for Zagorin to make his point is to admit that for Hobbes, “people always act to satisfy their own desires,” but maintain that they nevertheless do not act “solely out of self-interest” or have “exclusively egocentric” desires (101). Zagorin then makes a host of other points of support: he notes that people make sacrifices for others, and argues that Hobbes certainly never denied this; He argues that the self-serving motivation is not “inherently” antimoral (102); he again refers to the idea that Hobbes seeks a basis for natural law (103); he notes how Hobbes combines various laws of nature with virtues; etc. In order to create security in man`s life, he builds a community or ruler.
By establishing a ruler, people cede all their power to an artificial person, allowing him to govern and make decisions as if they were making the rules or decisions. According to the first law of nature, which preserves the freedom and success of the individual in the world, “men are commanded to fight for peace” (80). When men are willing to be at peace with one another, they no longer have to fear losing their place in the world. By working together, people find that it becomes necessary to lose certain rights in order to obtain a greater good. Hobbes asserts that “the right is set aside either by simple renunciation or by transfer to another” (81). Man creates a sovereign when other people are willing to give up their rights, other people are ready to create a ruler so that peace can reign, and when you give up an equal number of rights that other people give up. Taken together, these plausible descriptive and normative assumptions result in a state of nature potentially fraught with conflictual struggles. Everyone`s right to all things invites serious conflicts, especially when there is competition for resources, as there will certainly be at least scarce goods such as the most coveted land, spouses, etc.