When you leave behind the Watchtower, and start thinking for yourself, you necessarily have to ditch their view of human society. Over the past year, I've given quite a lot of thought to other explanations for human behaviour, and the way human society is the way it is, with it's enormous contrasts and inconsistencies. One of the viewpoints I've considered is that of Thomas Hobbes, and so far (in my opinion) it is the simplest model that fits observed conditions. Less happily, it is not a very nice view of the universe. A good friend I described it to observed it to be "bleak", and bleak it is. Yet, where is there a law that the universe cannot be bleak? What follows is based on Hobbes, with a lot of my own thoughts mixed in.
Brief bio. Of Thomas Hobbes
English philosopher, mathematician, and linguist. Hobbes was born of an impoverished clerical family in Malmesbury, Wiltshire, in 1588. At school he quickly excelled, making a reputation as a linguist and fluent poet and translator. After Oxford he entered the employment of William Cavendish, and except for a short interval remained secretary, tutor, and general advisor to the family for the rest of his career. His employment included several "Grand Tours" during which he met the leading European intellectuals of his time. As a spokesman for the royalist Devonshires, Hobbes was caught up in the turmoil preceding the Civil War, and fled to France in 1640, remaining there until 1651. Because of his writings, especially Leviathan, Hobbes lived in serious danger of prosecution after the restoration of Charles II. Hobbes's principal interests in his later years were translations, and he lived out his old age at the Devonshire's home, dying in 1679.
Definition of materialism
Hobbes's philosophy is grounded in materialism, the belief that only physical things truly exist. Human beings are physical objects, sophisticated machines all of whose functions and activities can be explained in purely mechanistic terms. Even thought itself, therefore, must be understood as an instance of the physical operation of the human body. Sensation, for example, involves a series of mechanical processes operating within the human nervous system, by means of which the sensible features of material things produce ideas in the brains of the human beings who perceive them. Human action is similarly to be explained on Hobbes's view. Specific desires and appetites arise in the human body and are experienced as discomforts or pains which must be overcome. Thus, each of us is motivated to act in such ways as we believe likely to relieve our discomfort, to preserve and promote our own well-being. (Leviathan I 6) Everything we choose to do is strictly determined by this natural inclination to relieve the physical pressures that impinge upon our bodies. Human volition is nothing but the determination of the will by the strongest present desire.
Basics of Hobbes' Philosophy
Here is the foundation of Hobbes' philosophy:
The primary motivation behind human behaviour is self-interest.
Hobbes explains that because of this, the natural state of humankind is a state of perpetual war, of all against all.
"During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man." - LeviathanI've classified the spoils of this war as power, possessions, and pleasure. Why would war be the natural state? Firstly, by natural state is meant the first undeveloped state of human society with no organisation whatsoever. How we began, in other words. Now, let's say that I have something that Jones wants i.e. he sees that it would be in his self-interest to have this object. It will therefore be in Jones' best interest to take that object from me, by force if I resist. Similarly, I will be trying to take desirable possessions from Smith. And so on. Everyone will be in a state of competitive conflict with everyone else for finite desirable resources, thus a universal state of war.
"...in the first place, I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death." - Leviathan
"No arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."What about morals and ethics?
Yes, what about them? Remember that the primary motivation of human behaviour is self-interest. Therefore our perceptions of what is "good" or "bad" will be formed by that motivation.
To put it simply: that which is in our perceived self-interest becomes "good" or "ethical" to us, and that which is against our perceived self-interest becomes "bad" or "unethical". This very nicely explains the inconsistencies, or "hypocrisies" of human behaviour. To take an example: the middle east conflict. Both sides claim the moral high ground while performing exactly the same types of aggressions against one another. "How can they not see the hypocrisy?", uninvolved people wonder. When you realise that it's not actions that are good or bad, but whether or not those actions serve our own self-interest that determines our ethical judgement, the mystery of inconsistent human behaviour disappears. This can be applied to any area of human actions i.e. how could German's go along with Nazism?, or the US's war to "preserve rights and dignity" while it denies those attributes to those of the enemy side it captures, or my bitching at someone who cuts me off five minutes after I've done the same thing to someone else.
"Moral philosophy is nothing else but the science of what is good, and evil, in the conversation, and society of mankind. Good, and evil, are names that signify our appetites, and aversions; which in different tempers, customs, and doctrines of men, are different." - LeviathanWhat about acts of charity and self-sacrifice?
Hobbes explained acts of charity as simply a delight in demonstrating our own power, which obviously results in our own pleasure, and is therefore in our own self-interest. Yet, what about if someone sacrifices their life for another? Surely there is no way that can be in that persons self-interest? Perhaps it could be though. If the person is sacrificing themselves for their own offspring this can be explained in terms of preserving one's genetic material, which is the most basic of human desires.
What if a person saves someone completely unrelated to them? The answer is that obviously there is no self-interest there. So how can this fit? Remember that the natural state of humanity is perpetual war. In any war, different types of weapons are used, and one of the most important weapons is propaganda. And in any war, there will be winners and losers. Consequently, it could be said that, when someone sacrifices their own life for another, they have succumbed to the propaganda that the other persons life is more valuable than their own. They have lost the war, in other words. This also explains why certain segments of society are given preference in perilous situations ("women and children first" etc). They have used the weapon of propaganda in their own self-interest very effectively.
So why are we not at each other's throats now?
Let's say I have lots of nice stuff. So does Jones, and so does Smith. We are in a state of war, constantly knocking each other over the head to take each other's stuff. However, at some point, we begin to figure out that, hey, maybe it isn't in our self-interest to keep doing this after all because we want to keep the stuff we have, and if we band together, we will have more power collectively to takes other's stuff. So, we make an agreement that Jones, Smith and myself will not take each other's stuff.
What is the value of this agreement? Absolutely zilch! Why? Because I know that it is still in my own self-interest to take Jones' and Smith's stuff so long as I don't get caught. They know the same thing. Such an agreement is therefore worthless.
"For the laws of nature (as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we woud be done to) of themselves, without the terror of some power, to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge and the like." - LeviathanBut, now we are ready for a big jump in human society, because we still recognise that it's in our own self-interest to keep our stuff. So, we go to Windsor, and we say "Windsor, we will give you the power to enforce our agreement, to punish any of us who break that agreement. And to make it worth your while, we will give you lots of the best stuff we have." Windsor agrees, and hey presto, we've invented government!
Government, according to Hobbes, is simply a mechanism to keep us all from each other's throats. This is why when the power of government wanes, crime and conflict increases e.g. looting after a natural disaster. Hobbes' preference was for a strong government with absolute power, hence his support for the monarchy (the danger of persecution after the restoration of Charles II came from a different angle, see later). But his model includes any form of government or power.
As an aside, this also explains the many conflicts between governments and the collectives that set them up. If Windsor amasses enough absolute power, it becomes in his own self-interest to take everything, all power and possessions. If Windsor loses power, the collective agreement becomes worthless, leading to civil war again, until someone gains enough power to replace Windsor. The balance is constantly in flux, as all parties try to maximise their self-interest. Hence, frequent civil war.
The next step.
Hobbes, in Leviathan, explained how these nations (definition: a collective agreement under a government), become in effect large individuals (Leviathans). They act like individuals, and since the default state of individual existence is, you guessed it, war, it makes sense that nations will begin a new round of conflict, trying to take power, possessions, and gain the resultant pleasure, from each other. Hence, all the national wars throughout history. Hobbes applies this to government, but any organisational aspect of human society fits the model e.g. religions (a collective agreement of people to band together to serve their perceived spiritual self-interest), or unions. These types of organisations have extensive histories of conflict, too.
Hobbes died in 1679. So he didn't witness the next step. That is when Leviathans begin to recognise that collecting together and making agreements to cease conflict is in all their self-interests. This phenomenon has only really been apparent for the last 75-100 years, as nations have come to accept that collective agreements between them are worthless without yet another form of power above them to enforce the agreements. Thus we now see the beginnings of this new stage in society manifested as the United Nations in the political sphere, NATO etc in the military sphere, the ecumenical movement in the religious sphere, and so on.
Why is the UN so crap?
According to this mode of thought, it is simply because it doesn't have enough power. This is largely because the most powerful members to the agreement (the US, China, certain European countries) realise that it is not yet in their self-interest to give it that power. Particularly for the US, far and away the most powerful national collective, putting itself under the power of the UN will mean a substantial loss of power for itself, which is not in it's current self-interest at all. Other nations see this as bad because it does not serve their self-interest.
A way of measuring human progress
It could be said, then, that a measure of progress is how much an individual or Leviathan realises that it is in everyone's self-interest to agree not to keep knocking each other on the head. Using that measure, countries like the US and Britain score well by being at the forefront of the formation of collectives such as the UN, the Commonwealth, the EU etc. But they score badly in their lack of ongoing support for these organisations. A moderate score for these countries then.
In religious terms, those religions who support ecumenism score highly, while religions such as the JW's (you knew they would come into this somewhere, didn't you?) and other Christian and Islamic fundamentalist groups score very lowly with their insistence on non-co-operation and exclusivity in their message of salvation (a weapon in the war to achieve power).
The Future
Ah, the silver lining! At some point in the future, as technology develops and globalisation continues, it will become more and more apparent that it is in our collective self-interests to make higher powers like the UN work. It is in all our self-interests to co-operate in agreements of non-aggression. At some point in the future, then, humanity will make up one giant Leviathan, with potential that boggles the mind! Thus, Hobbes' philosophy, while brutal and nasty in it's early stages, does indicate a more developed future, while acknowledging the unpleasant realities of human behaviour.
A final advantage of Hobbes' philosophy
And this is also the reason for his fear of persecution later in life. Hobbes' model explains very nicely human behaviour and the presence of "good" and "evil" without the need for any God and Satan . It meets the logical argument: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem - entities are not to be multiplied unnecessarily (known in more basic terms as: the simpler explanation is likely to be the correct one.)
This was apparent to the powerful church of his period. Hence the widespread condemnation of Leviathan and his fear of persecution. Hobbes went through the motions of religion, yet it is likely he was an agnostic.
"I am about to take my last voyage, a great leap in the dark." - Attributed last wordsNot only that of course, but it also explains religion itself very nicely, a collection of people who band together for their own self-interest, which manifests itself in everything from a ticket to heaven, to temporal power and riches. The behaviour of religion, it's record of preaching love and peace while engaged in wholesale burning and slaughtering of non-members, is also explained and made rational when you remember the basis behind "morals" and "ethics".
In short, it shows that religion is no different from any other human device, and widespread acceptance of that quite obviously is not in the self-interest of those in positions of religious power.
My primary purpose in typing all this out was to oder thoughts in my own head, not to preach a message. However, any comments, blood curdling screams of rage, observations, pointers to where I've screwed up, knocks over the head etc are very welcome.
Expatbrit