Morgan
Silva
Professor
Shirk
International
Politics
17
September 2017
Hobbes and Realism
In class thus far, we have been
discussing various political philosophies and philosophers; John Locke and
Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes believes that human nature is inherently brutal
and therefore the “only” form of reasonable government is a sovereign who will
control everything and everyone [in order to prevent lawlessness]. The realist
perspective has adopted the Hobbesian perspective of human nature and produced
their quintessential form of government hat focuses primarily on military
strength and an economy that can support a strong military. While I personally
share Hobbes’ view of human nature, I think that realist’s miss a key component
of Hobbes’ argument that could potentially change their entire view.
In my power, order and justice class
we are talking in great deal about Thomas Hobbes; a man who was born in an era
of war, conflict and lawlessness. We have discussed that the reason he may
believe that mankind is brutal is because that was all he has ever been exposed
to. Realists acknowledge this idea and use events like the Holocaust, World
Wars and other catastrophic [human] events to support this claim. However, we
have also discussed in the course the underlying message in Hobbes argument:
working for peace. Thomas Hobbes is dicsusted by mans’ innate brutish character
and the purpose of a sovereign is to gain peace. We give up all of our rights
to work for peace. Now, imagine if
realists realized this key component and how drastically their views would
change. How can having a strong military, an economy only focused on sustaining
a military and citizens totally engrossed by their country’s militaristic ways,
helping to promote peace? While I understand that security is important, I
would like to imagine a world where no country had a military. Any anxiety
about attack would be gone, and wars would be virtually impossible. While realists
claim that the one way to feel truly safe is by having a good and prosperous
military, I would argue that I would feel safer knowing that military wasn’t needed
in our world. World leaders are too quick to use the big red button with “WAR”
engraved on it rather than talk it through. If realists truly wanted to live
according to Thomas Hobbes, I think they would advocate for having no military
at all.
After looking at Thomas Hobbes’
philosophy in its entirety, I think he would advocate that the role of the
government is to give meaning to their citizens lives. Think about it, how do phycologists
plan to tame a wild child? Let them run, keep them busy, give them something
else to live for besides beating each other up all the time. Imagine if we
could take the inherent “wildness” that is human nature and turn it into
something useful and productive, how amazing and progressed the world could be?
Instead, we tell citizens that if they want to do something meaningful they
should give up their lives and their able body to a machine run by those in
power as a means of continuing problems that should have never started in the
first place. This isn’t to say that soldiers shouldn’t be admired for their
bravery and patriotism, I just personably believe that Thomas Hobbes would
advocate that the human spirit is worth more. Our world should strive for
peace, and the only way to truly achieve this is by giving citizens a reason to
live. Providing them with reasons to want to do better and be better and
contribute positively to society.
Your post was very interesting. I am also taking Power, Order, and Justice and I thought it was interesting how Hobbes' views are so closely aligned with those of realism. I agree with you that I think the world would be a much better place if we no longer had to worry about using a military. My question is whether you mean that Hobbes would be against the use of a military or if he would accept the need for it but would not fully support it because he believes it interferes with the reasons why people have a government?
ReplyDeleteHi Taylor! Thank you for responding. I think you bring up an excellent point about Hobbes final thoughts about military. I think that Hobbes would advocate that under a sovereign who kept everything under control, nothing would escalate to the point of NEEDing war, or violence. After all, if the world was going to constantly be in a state of war even under a sovereign then what would be the point of his philosophy?
ReplyDeleteInteresting post Morgan!
ReplyDeleteSomething else to think about. Yes, Hobbes writings comes from his experiences in the English Civil War. But not everyone has that experience and therefore may have perfectly valid view of human nature that are quite different. So we could even extend your argument to a place where we challenge Hobbes' basic assumptions.
Also, wait until you get to Rousseau in POJ. He makes the argument that the reason people act like they do in civil wars (and lord of the flies like situations) is because they have been civilized and don't know how to act without power. So it isn't human nature but instead society that causes these problems.
Hi Professor Shirk! Thats's interesting and now I can't wait to get to Rousseau because I think that is how I feel as well. While of course, the context of these philosopher's lives are imperative to truly understanding their theories, in some ways I think it weakens their argument. Hobbes and Locke are trying to create hypothetical situations based on their experience and I think that is where their flaws lie. Hobbes in general is a very over the top/gothic philosopher and it''s true, I'd like to challenge his basic assumptions; and I think it would behoove realists to do the same.
DeleteYour post was very nice. I liked how you used an example from another class to tie into your argument. Though your argument about no countries would be ideal I don not think it would be very realistic. There will always be evil in the world no matter what. Countries like America need great big armies in order to protect us from these evil. The world has been at war since the beginning of time and I do not believe the world will stop. I will only feel safe with a well organized military to protect me from the evils in the world.
ReplyDeleteHi Theo, thank you for commenting! Quick question to make you think: do you truly believe that there is evil in the world, or do you think this idea of good vs evil has been pushed by the Church and society as a whole? Think about it; do you think that ISIS think they're bad? No, quite the opposite actually. Similarly, Americans tend to think we're always doign "good", when in fact, a lot of countries are annoyed with us for very valid reasons. Taken North Korea for example. Yes, he is without a doubt crazy, but he is holding some resentment towards America for a VERY valid reason.
DeleteThis was a very interesting topic to blog about and I found some very compelling arguments. I agree with you that it seems as though realists and Thomas Hobbes think along the same lines, however, I disagree with your point about there being no military. Why I do think some would be in favor of using something other than war to overcome problems I think getting rid of military is too extreme. If you didn't have military than it would be hard to keep order because through militaries people remain peaceful. I don't think it's possible to tame the "wildness" of people and turn it into something productive so without a military there would constantly be conflict.
ReplyDeleteHi Jon! Thank you for your comment- I'd like to start by referring to my comment back to Theo above. I think we should always question what we've been taught- while perhaps we don't like the decisions of others, I would be careful to call any decision that doesnt directly benefit us, "evil". I would also like to go back to the beginning of time, why do you think the very first conflict happened? I like to believe tat it happened because someone took what was not theirs, they destroyed something that was not theirs. Conflict routes in folks not keeping to themselves. Wars happen because of conflict between two great powers and then the misconstruing of information to the public and thus the creation of "we're right , you're wrong, let's fight!" I like to believable hat we are more rational than that, but great powers find it easier to throw us into battle rather than solve issues.
Delete