Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary. Hobbes T.: Reason and the “war of all against all”

To substantiate his ideas about the state, Hobbes resorts to the already proven method of depicting the “state of nature.” In it, all people are equal, and everyone is guided by their own needs and interests. Man is selfish, he is endowed strong passions, desires power, wealth, pleasure. The principle of his behavior is extremely simple: a person strives to get as many benefits as possible and avoid suffering. Human freedom. Everyone has the right to everything, even to the life of another person. This leads to constant conflicts, to the inability to provide public good and protect yourself from evil. This is how a war of all against all arises.

First introduced in the treatise “Leviathan”.

Write a review of the article "War of all against all"

Links

Excerpt characterizing the War of all against all

The most important in the process of studying the political and legal teachings of T. Hobbes are his socio-political views, which are contained in the works “On the Citizen”, “Leviathan”. T. Hobbes bases his philosophical system on a certain idea of ​​the nature of the individual. Starting point His reasoning about the social order and the state is “the natural state of people.” This natural state is characterized by him “by the natural tendency of people to harm themselves mutually, which they derive from their passions, but most importantly, from the vanity of self-love, the right of everyone to everything.”

The philosopher believes that although initially all people are created equal in terms of physical and mental abilities, and each of them has the same “right to everything” as others, man is also a deeply selfish creature, overwhelmed by greed, fear and ambition. He is surrounded only by envious people, rivals, and enemies. “Man is a wolf to man.”

Therefore, the philosopher believes that in the very nature of people there are reasons for rivalry, mistrust and fear, which lead to hostile clashes and violent actions aimed at destroying or conquering others. Added to this is the desire for fame and differences of opinion, which also force people to resort to violence. Hence the fatal inevitability in society of “... a war of all against all, when everyone is controlled by his own mind and there is nothing that he cannot use as a means of salvation from his enemies”

To have the “right to everything” in the conditions of such a war means “... to have the right to everything, even to the life of every other person.” In this war, according to Hobbes, there can be no winners; it expresses a situation in which everyone is threatened by everyone - “... while the right of everyone to everything remains, not a single person (no matter how strong or wise he may be) can be sure that that he can live all the time that nature usually provides for human life.” During such a war, people use sophisticated violence to subjugate others or in self-defense.

One way or another, but “... people are naturally susceptible to greed, fear, anger and other animal passions,” they seek “honor and benefits,” act “for the sake of benefit or glory, i.e. for the sake of love for oneself, and not for others,” therefore everyone is the enemy of everyone, relying in life only on own strength and dexterity, resourcefulness and ingenuity. Thus, egoism is declared to be the main stimulus of human activity.

But Hobbes does not condemn people for their selfish tendencies, nor does he believe that they are evil by nature. After all, it is not the desires of people themselves that are evil, the philosopher points out, but only the results of actions arising from these desires. And even then only when these actions cause harm to other people. In addition, it must be taken into account that people “by nature are deprived of education and are not trained to obey reason.”

It's about the state general war and confrontation, Hobbes writes about “the natural state of the human race” and interprets it as the absence civil society, i.e. state organization, state legal regulation of people's lives. In a word, in a society where there is no state organization and management, arbitrariness and lawlessness reign, “and a person’s life is lonely, poor, hopeless, stupid and short-lived.”

However, in the nature of people, according to Hobbes, not only are the forces plunging individuals into the abyss of a “war of all against all,” people are eager to get out of this miserable state, they strive to create guarantees of peace and security. After all, man inherently has properties of a completely different plane; they are such as to induce individuals to find a way out of such a disastrous state of nature. First of all, it is the fear of death and the instinct of self-preservation, which dominates other passions “... the desire for things necessary for a good life, and the hope of acquiring them through hard work.”

Together with them comes natural reason, or natural law, i.e. the ability of everyone to reason rationally about the positive and negative consequences of their actions. Natural law is a prescription of human reason. According to Hobbes, natural laws come from the very human nature and are divine only in the sense that reason “is given to every person by God as the measure of his actions,” and moral institutions Holy Scripture

, although announced to people by God himself, can be deduced independently of him “through inferences from the concept of natural law,” i.e. with the help of the mind. The main general precept of reason according to Hobbes is that every man must strive for peace if he has any hope of achieving it; if he cannot achieve it, then he can use any means that give an advantage in war. Therefore, the first part of the basic natural law deduced by the philosopher says: one should seek peace and follow it. The second part is the content of natural law, which boils down to the right to defend oneself by everyone. From the fundamental law, Hobbes deduces the remaining natural laws. The most important among them is the renunciation of everyone’s rights to the extent required by the interests of peace and self-defense (the second natural law), and the renunciation of the right to resist violence and attempts to deprive them of freedom. The renunciation of a right is accomplished according to Hobbes, either by simple renunciation of it, or by transferring it to another person. But not all human rights can be alienated - a person cannot give up the right to defend his life and resist those who attack him. You cannot demand to be sent to prison, etc. The mutual transfer of rights is carried out by people in the form of an agreement - “A contract is the action of two or many persons transferring their rights to each other.” When a contract is made regarding something that relates to the future, it is called an agreement. Agreements can be concluded by people, both under the influence of fear and voluntarily.

The third law follows from the second natural law: people are obliged to fulfill the agreements they make, otherwise the latter will have no meaning. The third natural law contains the source and beginning of justice.

In Leviathan, Hobbes, in addition to the three indicated, indicated 16 more natural (unchangeable and eternal) laws. Most of them are in the nature of requirements or prohibitions: to be fair, merciful, compliant, unforgiving, impartial and at the same time not to be cruel, vindictive, arrogant, treacherous, etc.

So you can do next output. T. Hobbes based his teaching on the study of nature and human passions. Hobbes's opinion about these passions and nature is extremely pessimistic: people are characterized by rivalry, mistrust (the desire for security), and a love of glory. These passions make people enemies. Therefore, in the state of nature, people are in a state of war of all against all. But this natural state can be overcome thanks to the presence of natural reason, a natural law that makes you think about the consequences of your actions and regulate your behavior. Hobbes reduces all natural laws to one general rule, subsequently voiced in the categorical imperative of I. Kant, which consists of refusing to do to other people what you do not want to be done to you.

Before the social contract, people are in a state that Hobbes calls “a war of all against all.” These words are very often interpreted as if Hobbes were a simple evolutionist. Once upon a time, they say, there was a time when people fought and fought, got tired of fighting and began to unite. And when they united so as not to fight anymore, a state appeared. Hobbes supposedly argues this way.

Hobbes never reasoned like that. In his writings one can find direct indications that such reasoning would be absolutely wrong. Rather, everything looks completely different. It is not the war of all against all that is at the beginning of everything, but the social condition, the state of the people, is constantly fraught with war.

People, in principle, according to Hobbes, are quite hostile towards each other. Even in a peaceful, solidary state, when there is no war, when there is a state, people are such that they have to fear a neighbor, fear another person, rather than count on him being their friend. During war, as Hobbes says, “man is a wolf to man,” but in a state of peace man must be God to man. This, unfortunately, does not happen. We are afraid of another person, we lock the doors, we take weapons when leaving the house. When going on a trip, we stock up on security and so on. This wouldn't happen if we trusted another person.

Leviathan as a guarantor

leviathan philosophical hobbes scholasticism

This means that no normal life between people is possible as long as the contracts that they conclude among themselves are simply contracts based on trust, in the expectation that the other party will simply comply with the contract.

What is needed? Hobbes believes that we need a contract that cannot be broken. It is impossible to violate only such an agreement that has a guarantor. None of the parties to the agreement can be the guarantor of this agreement, because they are all the same, they are equally strong and equally weak. And since none of the participants can be a guarantor of the agreement, it means that this guarantor must appear from somewhere outside. But where will he get the strength, where will he get the rights to guarantee all other participants? How can it be? Only one way. They must agree that they give him a certain kind of rights during the contract and after that they cannot do anything to him.

Because he receives from them those rights that they no longer have, namely the right to death for violation of the contract.

And he combines in himself those powers that they are deprived of, combines in himself those rights that they alienate in his favor, and he becomes the one who says pacta sunt servanda, “treaties must be respected.” And from here everything else comes, all the other laws. This is how the sovereign appears.

And only the sovereign can make any law, only he can interpret any law, punish for breaking the law, appoint judges, appoint any executive branch, all ministers, all officials, all controllers, absolutely everyone. Only the sovereign can determine which opinions are harmful in the state and which are useful. Only he can, with an authoritative decision, put an end to disputes that could end, say, in a civil war.

Through this, peace, quiet and security are established - the old formula of a police state. And although Hobbes does not talk about the police, he leads the conversation in that direction. He is a supporter of ensuring that peace, tranquility and order are established through a certain limitation of rights, freedoms and everything else. As for the rest, which does not threaten the existence of the state, people are absolutely free. They can engage in any type of activity, they can acquire property, they can enter into contracts among themselves, they can even profess any beliefs, but with one limitation: so that this does not harm the state.

Irish black comedy War against everyone"will be released in Russian cinemas in a week. Our reviewer Anna Kravchenko watched the film and shared her own:

Characters from John Michael McDonagh's War on Everyone talk about what's playing main role in cinema, and come to the conclusion: the main thing is the script. No script - no film. The author of the film (it was McDonagh who wrote the script for his film) puts his creative credo into the mouths of the characters. And he confirms its truth with action.

Try making a noir today and resist the temptation to create another clone of early Tarantino. McDonagh did it: stylish, bantering, tasteful, with a touch of real Anglo-Irish polish. I haven’t come across such a dense film text in a long time. The characters interrupt their mono-dialogues only for a couple of seconds: punch the enemy in the face, gouge out the villain’s eye, chop off the creature’s head or shoot off the balls of the adversary. At the same time, the content of the conversations is not limited to variations on the traditional theme for crime dramas. A whole cascade of jokes falls on the viewer. And these jokes are not for average minds, formatted by modern secondary education. In passing, watching the twists and turns of a seemingly familiar noir plot about good/evil cops blowing out the brains and pulling the eyes of gopotas of all different calibers from black American drug addicts to snow-white British lords, you can seriously expand your erudition.

Head Gear Films What body parts were Rene Descartes and Walt Whitman buried without? Why did Yukio Mishima's seppuku enter the annals of exclusive hara-kiri? How did Joseph Conrad and Vincent Van Gogh attempt to commit suicide? What is a Zen koan, and what piece of furniture can this thing be associated with? How is Simone de Beauvoir different from Pierre Joseph Proudhon (hint: it's not about gender differences)? If in high school
, which you deigned to graduate from, did not pay attention to such issues - watching the film “War against everyone” will become an exciting intellectual adventure for you. By the way, the very title of the film is a quote from an English philosopher of the 17th century. The authors of the film do not focus on this and do the right thing. The average Russian learns such things soon after mastering the intricacies of the multiplication table.

In general, loading the audience with philosophy in this way is a very risky technique. Some people may not like it. How do you like this problem from the field of forensic epistemology: someone, having drunk himself on pink elephants, shoots himself in the temple with a revolver; the bullet, piercing his skull, hits a complete stranger; As a result, two corpses. What verdict (diagnosis) will be made (made)? Suicide plus an accident or suicide followed by the murder of a clinical loser? And is it possible to talk about murder as an act of will with unlawful intentions in the case when the person who pulled the trigger is already dead? Can a dead man become a murderer? McDonagh sprinkles such problems left and right. A strong dramatic move. After all, it is thanks to such tales that Khlestakov tells that “The Inspector General” turned from a banal vaudeville show into a masterpiece of Russian literature. Is McDonagh really familiar with Gogol's work? Anything is possible, the Irish with a hangover are not capable of such feats.

Big things can be seen from a distance. It turns out that the famous British humor has pronounced cultural and regional shades. McDonagh presents us with a magnificent example of his Irish variety, distinguished by that exorbitant degree of blackness that Malevich himself would envy. The film's dialogues can be considered a standard of bantering cynicism; they transform a crime drama into a full-fledged work of modern cinema. Spoilers are not welcome in this review, but I can't resist sharing a few examples.
, which you deigned to graduate from, did not pay attention to such issues - watching the film “War against everyone” will become an exciting intellectual adventure for you. By the way, the very title of the film is a quote from an English philosopher of the 17th century. The authors of the film do not focus on this and do the right thing. The average Russian learns such things soon after mastering the intricacies of the multiplication table.

The other day you knocked out the eye of another scoundrel. Meet with this person for a decisive conversation. He glares at you with only one eye (the blind part of the binocular sphere, which is a normal human head, is covered by a black bandage). Your response? Right! Let's talk face to face. Your informant was beheaded while discussing the exploits of the author of the Golden Temple. Having chopped the antagonists into cabbage, you sadly approach the severed head of this unfinished Alfredo Garcia. What kind of farewell speech will you dedicate to the memory of the idiot who was flattered by a measly ten pieces of greenery? The correct answer is: he was already starting to go bald, and the guy’s teeth were no good. By the way, your acquaintance with the balding dentist's client began like this - he complained that he suffered from dyslexia, to which you rightly noted: movie stars can suffer from dyslexia, and your diagnosis is ordinary stupidity. After which they prescribed the patient a hefty kick to the crotch. Special forces put a gang of raiders at the crime scene. Comment from a seasoned cop: good news, it’s not just blacks here (that is, another scandal with police negrocide and subsequent pogroms/shootouts does not threaten us).

You can also learn from the film that the Irish are very similar to the Russians. No, I’m not talking about drinking, we’re not their competitors here. People from the green island named after. St. Patrick is also terribly disliked by the Anglo-Saxons, be it the Americans or the English. The first ones are too stupid for them, they don’t study “The Odyssey” in school, and the second ones are distinguished by such arrogant show-offs that you won’t even take 800 thousand dollars from them. Better to kill.
, which you deigned to graduate from, did not pay attention to such issues - watching the film “War against everyone” will become an exciting intellectual adventure for you. By the way, the very title of the film is a quote from an English philosopher of the 17th century. The authors of the film do not focus on this and do the right thing. The average Russian learns such things soon after mastering the intricacies of the multiplication table.

McDonagh made a very funny movie. The actors did not let the director down: corrupt on the outside, but kind on the inside (and damn charming) cops Terry and Bob, played by Alexander Skarsgård and Michael Peña, performed a wonderful clown duet. And how they raise their children is simply fascinating to watch! The villains looked quite villainous, the female characters showed off the right body parts or acted smart in a way that was not childish (the couple were smart and beautiful). And a couple of times such cute horses were caught in the frame. Special thanks for the soundtrack. Very stylish. Who would take such a thing from us? I’m afraid that the task of making a banter noir with philosophical overtones is not yet within the capabilities of modern Russian authors. It's a pity.

Name the theory of the origin of the state, the foundations of which are expressed by the author of the text. Write out the author’s phrase from the text that argues for your answer.

In the absence of a civil state, there is always a war of all against all. From this it is obvious that as long as people live without a common power that keeps everyone in fear, they are in that state called war, namely in a state of war of all against all. For war is not only a battle, or military action, but a period of time during which the will to fight through battle is clearly evident.

The state of war of all against all is also characterized by the fact that in it nothing can be unfair. The concepts of right and wrong, fair and unfair have no place here. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where there is no law, there is no justice. Strength and cunning are the two cardinal virtues in war.<...>This state is also characterized by the absence of property, possession, and the absence of a precise distinction between mine and yours. Each person considers his own only what he can get, and only as long as he is able to keep it.

<...>The purpose of the state is mainly to ensure security. The ultimate reason, purpose and intention of men (some by nature love freedom and dominion over others) in placing upon themselves the bonds (by which they are bound,<...>living in a state) is a concern for self-preservation and at the same time for a more favorable life. In other words, in establishing a state, people are guided by the desire to get rid of the disastrous state of war, which is the necessary consequence of the natural passions of people where there is no appearance of authority, keeping them in fear and under the threat of punishment, forcing them to fulfill agreements and observe natural laws.

<...>Such a general power as would be capable of protecting the people from the invasion of foreigners and from injustices inflicted on each other, and<...>to provide them with that security in which they could feed themselves from the labors of their hands and from the fruits of the earth and live in contentment, can only be achieved in one way, namely, by concentrating all power and strength in one person or in an assembly of people, which, by a majority vote, could would bring all the wills of citizens into a single will. In this person or collection of persons lies the essence of the state, which needs the following definition: the state is a single person, for whose actions a huge number of people have made themselves responsible through a mutual agreement among themselves, so that this person can use the power and means of all of them so as he deems necessary for their peace and common protection.

Explanation.

The correct answer should indicate:

Theory of social or mutual contract (author T. Hobbes may be indicated)

Quote from the text: “In this person or collection of persons lies the essence of the state, which needs the following definition: the state is a single person, responsible for whose actions a huge number of people have made themselves responsible through a mutual agreement among themselves, so that this person can use force and means of all of them as he deems necessary for their peace and common defense."