THE MORAL DIMENSION OF THOMASS HOBBES POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY BY MUKTAR AHMED A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY (GRADUATE PROGRAMME) IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN PHILOSOPHY ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY JULY 2014 ADDIS ABABA 1 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY THE MORAL DIMENSION OF THOMASS HOBBES POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY BY MUKTAR AHMED Approved by Board of Examiners __________________ ________________ _____________ Advisor Signature Date __________________ ________________ _____________ Examiner Signature Date __________________ ________________ _____________ Examiner Signature Date 2 Table of Contents Contents Pages CHAPTER ONE Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 What is Philosophy? ........................................................................................................... 7 1.2 The General Over View ...................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Branches of Philosophy ...................................................................................................... 8 1.4 How Ethics Became Independent From Other Branches of Philosophy?........................... 9 1.5 What is Ethics? ................................................................................................................... 9 1.6 Objectivism and Subjectivism in Ethics ........................................................................... 10 1.7 Religious and Cultural World Views toward Ethical Rules ............................................. 12 1.8 The Influence of Pagan Philosophy for Religious Ethical Principles ............................... 13 1.9 Moral Philosophy from Historical Point of View ............................................................. 14 CHAPTER TWO The influences of Thomas Hobbes .............................................................................................. 28 2.1 The Lessons Hobbes Learned from Thucydides ............................................................... 29 2.2 Machiavellian Influence On Hobbes Philosophy............................................................ 31 2.3 Hobbes and Antiquity ....................................................................................................... 33 2.4 Hobbes‟ Contemporaries .................................................................................................. 36 2.4.1 John Locke ................................................................................................................. 36 2.4.2 Baruch Spinoza .......................................................................................................... 37 CHAPTER THREE 3.1 Scientific Ideas and Hobbes Moral Philosophy ................................................................ 41 3.2 What is the Moral Dimension of Scientific Thoughts? ..................................................... 42 3.3 Hobbes Psychological Egoism .......................................................................................... 45 CHAPTER FOUR 4.1 Hobbes‟ Moral Rules and Contemporary World .............................................................. 47 4.2 Hobbes‟ Moral Philosophy and Reason of State .............................................................. 54 3 CHAPTER FIVE Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 59 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 64 4 Abstract Thomas Hobbes is one of the prominent thinkers who insist that there is no morality in the absence of social contract. He is one whose work is sometimes considered as controversial by some thinkers. There are thinkers who argue that Hobbes moral and political conclusions are too extremes. In this thesis I will attempt to show that there is no extreme point in Hobbes moral philosophy. Even though the focus of my thesis is Hobbes moral philosophy, I will also raise some relevant issues from political philosophy. In general political arena is characterized by conflicts, contentions, claims and disagreements. It is from this arena that I want filter moral philosophy of Hobbes. Moral philosophy is the question of „how we ought to live‟ as Socrates insisted. In order to live better we also need politics. That is why I argue that in some circumstances, moral philosophy and political philosophy may overlap in my thesis. Moreover, I will show that Hobbes moral and political arguments are not extreme and controversial. Rather from my point of view the world itself is controversial, and in order to live better we need controversial moral and political measures to address it. Even though I support most of Hobbes moral and political philosophy, there are also some concepts that I want to correct from Hobbes. 5 CHAPTER ONE Introduction Hobbes is one of the prominent defenders of social contract. He argued that morality is unthinkable without it. He contends that morality should be understood as a result of an agreement that rational as well as self-interested people create. In his analysis of moral philosophy Hobbes breaks away from medieval and classical thinkers. Accordingly he indicated that man by nature is not social and political animal by nature. This understanding of human nature influenced his moral philosophy. For him men are selfish by nature and they should be cooperated in order to practice what we call morality. For him morality is not mysterious dictates from a super natural force that is believed to have been revealed to human being. It should be understood as human creation. Hobbes understanding of morality is similar with, that of Nietzsche‟stransvalution of values. Unlike classical and medieval thinkers Hobbes argued that there is no inherent good.Whatever we desire is good, and whatever we avert is evil for him. Thus, I can say that Hobbes brought down morality from heaven to earth as Socrates did philosophy. This made him the first prominent modern thinker that provided a secular and naturalistic basis for moral philosophy. In this paper I am going to explore Hobbes understanding of moral philosophy deeply. Although Hobbes breaks away from classical and medieval philosophy, it does not mean that he totally rejected them. In this regard Thucydides‟ “work of the Peloponnesian war” and sophists‟ philosophy fascinated him and echoed in his moral philosophy. For example, one of sophist philosopher Protagoras insisted that “man is the measure of all things”. This idea influenced the work of Hobbes when he argued that morality is entirely human terms. 6 When I explore his works on moral philosophy I will try to consider his influences and also include my personal suggestions on his work as much as possible. Before I directly go to his moral philosophy let me say some things about the roots of moral philosophy. Section One: The Roots of Moral Rules I have tried to explore different literary works of different world views, and scholars. It is difficult to find the primary substance /arche/ of moral philosophy in secular understanding. The reason is that as human beings and general universe evolved, the meaning and origins of moral philosophy was also evolved in this world. Thus, what I say regarding moral philosophy basically follows this evolution. For convenience it is possible to analyze these world views from three perspectives namely; secular, cultural and religious perspectives. Secular perspectives toward moral philosophy can be understood from two angles in my view. The first is a pagan philosophy which developed by the Pre Socratics ofIonia and continued by sophists, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. The second perspective is that of the modern philosophers that originated from renaissance and has developed through the contemporary time. 1.1 What is Philosophy? 1.2 The General Over View Philosophy comes from two Greek words “Philo” and “Sophia” which means "love of wisdom". It was first used by the ancient Greeks thinker Pythagoras (about 600 B.C). But for me this is the nominal (literal) definition of philosophy because wisdom is not loved only by philosophers since scientists, biologists, historian, psychologists and others also love Knowledge or wisdom. This definition cannot satisfy the modern way of thinking unless it is modified. In this case Ayn Rand‟s definition of philosophy which insists that “Philosophy is an integrated view of existence”(Rand,1991,206) is logically convincing since it indicates that human beings cannot escape from doing philosophy in their life. This idea of J. Ducaise strengthens Rand‟s andmy idea: 7 Philosophical reflection is not an activity indulged in only by specialists called philosophers who allegedly live in architectural monstrosities known as ivory towers. Just as each of us at times engaged casually in horticulture or medicine or carpentry without special training, so practically all of us on certain occasions spontaneously occupy ourselves with philosophical questions (J .Ducase quoted in Miller ,1997:1). Although Pythagoras started to use the word philosophy, philosophizing was started long before Pythagoras. Accordingly philosophy was started in the Milletus on the western coast of Ionia (now Turkey). Pre Socratic philosophers such as Ionians, Italians and pluralists raised metaphysical questions such as "what is ultimate reality?",”how other realities related to this ultimate reality”, and so forth. My aim is not to discuss Pre Socratic philosophy in detail, but to show that “philosophy started and will always start with wonder” as Aristotle insisted. Pre Socratic Philosophers wonderedabout natural phenomena that they found around themselves and began Philosophy by asking Philosophical questions specially that of metaphysics. Metaphysics and other issues of philosophy such as ethics, epistemology, aesthetics and others started to be studied deeply. 1.3 Branches of Philosophy There are different classifications in philosophy. Let me consider the branches of philosophy that weredescribed by Vincent Barry and Ayn Rand. According toBarry‟s view: Traditional concerns to philosophy suggest that the three categories under which all other philosophical fall: knowledge, reality and value. The fields of philosophy that explore these themes are generally termed epistemology, metaphysics and axiology respectively. Epistemology literally means the study of knowledge. A variety of problems are usually discussed as part of epistemology: the structure, reliability, extent, and kinds of knowledge; truth (including definition of truth,and validity); logic and variety of strictly linguistic concerns and the foundations of all knowledge. Metaphysics is the study of the most general or ultimate characteristics of reality or existence. Axiology refers to the study of values. Specifically 8 axiological problems of then involve values in human conduct; the nature and justification of social structures and political systems; the nature of art, and the meaning of art in human experience (Barry, 1980: 12-13). 1.4 How Ethics Became Independent From Other Branches of Philosophy? From the quotation of Vincent Barry we can understand that Ethics embedded in the axiology. Accordingly Axiology includes various values while Ethics is concerned with moral values. Thus, ethics is a branch of axiology, which in turn is a branch of philosophywith other branches such as politics,and aesthetics. Axiology is defined by Vincent Barry as: The word axiology, which comes from the Greek 'axios' meaning "worthy", refers to the study of values in general. It deals with values that are thought to be good inthemselves, and with values leading to what is good one branch of axiology is ethics, or moral philosophy. Traditionally ethics has investigated the problems of values in human conducts. Ethics investigates questions involving right conduct, good character and life fulfillment. (Barry, 1980:89). Now we reach concretely on ethics by isolating it from three broad branches of philosophy. While axiology is the general study of values, moral philosophy studies moral values. Ethics and political philosophy are very interrelated concepts. Hobbes moral rules also bend to political philosophy which concerns questions about social structures and political systems. 1.5 What is Ethics? Any Rand defined ethics by comparing it with other branches of philosophy: Metaphysics and epistemology, like the natural sciences, are factual subjects. Their concern is to describe the universe and man‟s means of knowledge. Ethics is an evaluative subject. Its concern is not only to describe, but also to prescribe for man. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that provides a code of values to guide man's choices and actions- the choices and 9 actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life (Rand, 1991: 206) 1.6 Objectivism and Subjectivism in Ethics Ethicists divided ethics in to objectivism and subjectivism. Ethical subjectivism argues that moral rules are not objective or absolute but rather relative according to individual person, society, culture nation or community. In contrary to the subjectivists the objectivist ethics insists that moral rules are objective. Ayn Rand defines ethics from objectivist point of view. She defines it this way: According to objectivism, ethical code must deal with three basic, interrelated questions. For what end should a man live? By what fundamental principle should he act in order to achieve this end? Who should profit from his actions. The answers to these questions define the ultimate value, the primary virtue, and the particular beneficiary upheld by an ethical code and reveal there by its essence. The objectivist position can be indicated in three words. The ultimate value is life. The primary virtue is rationality. The proper beneficiary is oneself. (Rand, 1991:206) In addition to the attempt of showing the controversy between objectivist and subjectivist ethics, Rand gives her personal judgment as follows: Because of its evaluative nature, ethics has always posed a unique problem to philosophers even to those who had no doubts about man's power to reason or of them, lead logically to estimates, such as "good" or "evil" "right' or "wrong" "desirable" or "undesirable". How can a knowledge of what is validate a conclusion stating what ought to be? to know the facts of reality. How thinkers have wondered from the Greeks to the present? Can value judgments ever be proved? How can facts, any or all What "ought to be" can be validated objectively. Ethics is a human necessity and a science, not a playground for mystics or skeptics. The principles of morality are a product not of feeling, but of cognition. (Rand,1991: 206-207). 10