Was Thomas Hobbes right? Will human beings destroy each other without a powerful state?

Question

Thomas Hobbes, the 17th cen english philosopher, believed that people living without a state machinery to control them will create a ''state of nature'' where their natural instincts towards self-preservation will make all of their lives ''nasty,brutish and short''. In his monumental work ''Leviathan'' Hobbes described this over-arching instinct as 'felicity', this involved a continous achievement of successes. Hobbes further claimed that as this world is one of limited resources, the unsatiable appetite for success of the individual will inevitably lead to a state of poverty. Coupled with his belief that all people are imbued with relatively equal abilities and strengths, the state of nature will be one of continous struggle of man vs. man. For this reason Hobbes concluded that people need to be governed by a strong authoritarian state to control their urges. Is this true is man in possesion of this Feilicity?

Answer 1

I'm still reading up on Thomas Hobbes on Wikipedia (see link below), but from what you described of his philosophy, I'd agree that humans need a controlling factor (be it some hypothetical "state" or stabilizing environmental pressure). Humans, like any organism, will use available resources to expand its population. Intraspecific competition is unavoidable, although intrinsic human social hierarchies and a proclivity towards both trade and xenophobia only intensify this competition within the species.

Humans, however, are different from many other species in that they manipulate the environment and their immediate surroundings to make it more favorable for themselves. Furthermore, they can even strip resources from distant locations for use elsewhere. They are truly a global species, capable of negatively impacting every ecosystem in the biosphere. At our present rate of resource consumption (renewable and non-renewable), waste production, and human growth, humans will soon cause the collapse of much of the biosphere. In the recent past, when habitat destruction and resource depletion have been a problem, we just pack up and go somewhere else. That will not be the case in the future. Without some controlling factor, we will destroy ourselves ... mostly by pulling the rug out from underneath our own feet. (I don't feel that anything else -- such as war -- truly threaten the human species. Governments change, power shifts, etc... The ecological crisis that we're creating, however, will not go away, unless we change our ways... or unless we go away.)

*HOWEVER*, that "powerful state" you mentioned cannot be a human form of government. The "felicity" that you described would ultimately corrupt it, much as communism was a corrupted form of idealistic socialism. Furthermore, it's highly likely that its economy would continue the trend of human expansion and careless resource consumption -- after all, it is human nature and fits with your description of "felicity." Humans need to learn to live sustainably, not to be controlled by some autocratic form of government with its own implicit felicity. Even if small, sustainable cooperatives were to form and help restore balance with the biosphere, these could easily be corrupted and revert humanity back to its present course.

Interestingly enough, Frank Herbert wrote about a similar "authoritarian state" that controlled the human race and prevented it from destroying itself in the science fiction novels known as the Dune Chronicles (particularly the book "God Emperor of Dune"). In it, Leto Atreides II ruled over the human race for roughly 3,500 years in order to set it upon what he called the "Golden Path," a strategy designed to prevent humanity's destruction. Throughout the latter books, this concept is explored in depth (philosophically). This series is definitely a good read if this topic interests you.

As for the possession of this instinct "felicity" (as you described it), you only have to look at the state of the world today to see that, yes, we do. If you don't believe it, travel to the "third world" nations yourself and learn the true source of their poverty, hunger, and overall suffering.

Answer 2

In a state powerful of what or in what or for what. It is individualism of which the state is formed, positions in state occupied of victors of competition. Thomas Hobbes is correct in this way, that warring parties or individuals wronging each other in turn, need a third disinterested person or persons to judge and resolve for production for new laws and the reaction for established law (Hegel). How are such disinterested persons disinterested and not indifferent to the fates of others. There, the uncertainty in state authority. Democracy, the power of collected individuals over the elected state, the counter balance to indifferent authority, but not the guarantee.

Answer 3

It seems to me that the "powerful states" are the ones involved in the troubles of the world. The world would not be perfect with minimal government, but I think it wouldn't be as scary.