PRECIOUS AND FEW

THE RECKONING

EVALUATION

This chapter will put Hobbes’ notion of man in scale together with the varied ideologies of some noted intellectuals. This is not to put so much stress on his assumptions; leaving him pressed flat without any speckle of considerable goodness and tenacity. Rather, the researcher tries as much to strike the balance to elucidate a more considerable regard on man, especially on his personal and social upbringing. After all, Hobbes’ philosophy seems to blatantly orchestrate with the daunting outcry of our contemporary and modern society – the undeniable particular crimes; corruptions, malicious incidents, abortions, terrorism down to the outburst of international disputes. Secular and technological advances, which adds-up to the burning coal of materialism, inhibit man’s peaceful societal condition. The philosophy of Thomas Hobbes seems never that far and indifferent to what is practically evident in our worldwide scenario, though, we’ll be running and opting for more square and optimistic scope concerning human condition.
The state of nature or the natural condition of mankind depicts the way in which men, being what they are, would necessarily behave if there were no authority to enforce law or contract. The researcher on the other hand will attend to the primordial cause of this conflict, which is man in particular, with a stroke of the current ambiance of the society as a greater slice in the pie of argument.

The aforementioned statement by Macpherson under the cradle of Thomas Hobbes’ notion, necessarily displays man’s condition as a “man of war,” a man of conflict and disharmony, a man that stirs-up the placid waters of the microcosmic humanity. The researcher then makes this as a point of departure to engage more in the scrutiny of man. We’ll have to evaluate man as what he is, and for what he is in the mantle of the earth. We’ll know if man by nature good or evil; if good, then why these ‘evil’ and ironical phenomena? Such as evil, then what on earth are we to hold and value humanity and all that constitute to them?

1. ON THE NATURE OF MAN
1. A A Brief Over-View
Before the preoccupation of the subsequent topics, as an evaluation of Thomas Hobbes’ ideology on man’s nature and condition, it is ideal to have first a slight touch of a philosophical stuff called nature.

Nature is a term copiously used in both philosophical and theological hallways, especially when we’re dealing with the foreground and essential definition of a thing. Etymologically, it took root from the Latin term natura, taken to mean the essence of a thing as this is the source of its properties or operations: such is a principle of motion [action].(New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X  p. 276.) The Ionians saw the world is in constant flux following a chronological fashion. These changes denote a life-principle – a source of activity. Thus nature was an intrinsic principle that accounted for the ceaseless change of becoming of things. More over, the very process of becoming; it seems, was itself called Nature.(New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 276.) This Ionian ideology scoped nature as a sense of becoming. Aristotle on the other hand puts it, as the principle of cause of being moved and being at rest in that which it is primarily a reason of itself not accidentally. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 277.)In a theological horizon, it is the natural disposition and relationship of creatures among themselves and to God, the extrinsic author and end of everything within the order.(Ibid.,p. 280) The philosophical ideology jives with the senses aforementioned, in its “nature” can mean “the totality of things…” laws and principles of structure by which the behavior of things may be explained. (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, S.V.) Nature can be viewed also as an imitation of a divine activity. J. S. Mill underscores it as an independent element of human existence, that is, “without the agency of …man”(Ibid.,  p. 456.)

1. B The Guesswork on the Nature of Man

Various theories were lined in every sector of theoretical highways, yet still there is this considerable dilemma in knowing (absolutely) the deep seating reality in human nature, especially if the crux of the argument is on social conflict and its respective causality. Ernst Cassirer puts it,

Without introspection, without an immediate awareness of feelings, emotions, perceptions, thoughts, we would not even define the field of human psychology. Yet it must be admitted that by following this way alone we can never arrive at a comprehensive view ho human nature. Introspection reveals to us only that small sector of human life which is accessible to our individual experience.  It can never cover the whole field of the human phenomena. Even of we should succeed in collecting and combining all the data, we should still have a very meager and fragmentary picture – a mere torso – of human nature. (Ernst Cassirer, An Essay on Man, p. 2)

Niebuhr argued that human nature is so intricate or complicated that it justifies almost every assumption and prejudice with which either a scientific investigation of an ordinary human contact is initiated.(Kenneth N. Waltz, Man the State and war: a theoretical analysis) Accordingly, both elements justifies man as such. Can we have a clear-cut inference of man’s nature, taking into account the results of his behavior as rapes, murders, and thefts? Can that be enough to prove him as having a pervasive nature? The other side of the coin rather exemplifies the explicit counterevidence drawn by acts of charity, love and self-sacrifice. Kenneth Waltz elaborates that this is a proposition difficult enough to capsulate for evidences and data rely so much on the beholder of the theory. Emile Durkheim states, “the psychological factor is so much general to predetermine the course of social form rather than another…it cannot explain any of them.”  Whether we do adhere or not to the aforementioned arguments, Kenneth states that it can be “human nature who may in some sense have been the cause of war in 1914, but by the same token it was the cause of peace in 1910.” 

1. C The Subjectivity of Good and Evil
It is obvious in the arguments of Thomas Hobbes recounting the state of nature, that good and evil are whimsical elements of man in this state. There is a considerable conflict if we consign to man the universal validity or code of these binary truths, because the latter fallout will be a wild confusion and atrocity among men. The diversity of goodness itself would rather result to a radical turnabout, as adversity. Ethical realism maintains that there are ethical properties that exist on things beyond and independent of human consciousness. Further, it exists in the real world, apart from desires and aversions, the pleasures and pains of human beings.  The reference of these binary moral elements to the subject rather than its inherence to the object, results to the cobweb of confusions, the absurdity of the use of reason and other derogating reverberation. Apart from what Hobbes said, good and evil are not properties of the mind, or, of the sovereign, rather it is objective and intrinsically founded on things; that is, unchanging and absolute, in a necessary or must always, under all circumstances possess it in exactly the same degree. Moreover, morality or good and evil cannot be consigned to authority, though in some sense authority must know in greater degree than those of his subjects (say, seminarians are subjects to the tenets imposed by the rector). With this scant analogy, it doesn’t follow that authority can, and be a fount of these truths, since he can either use it in an impure motive or do it in accordance to his favor or inordinate whims. Cicero further exemplifies this in a framework of justice, the essential justice binds human society together and is maintained by one law as right reason, expressed in commands and prohibitions…but if justice [good and evil] is defined as mere compliance with the written laws and decrees of nations. All actions are to be measured by their utility; a man who thinks to gain advantage thereby will disregard the laws, if he can. Further, Cicero tries to emphasize the mutability of a mortally grounded laws and moral directives under the custody of a self-interested and superficial whimper of judiciaries and popular or public demands. The legalization of abortion, contraceptives [abortifacients], death penalty and other sort of butchery of human life without due consideration of its uniqueness and sacrosanctity, is a great oblation of the whimsical laws. Considering also the intrinsic entity of an act, as to evil or good which transcends even to various cultural orientations. Again, Cicero draws a firm line of argument that Nature, which packages us with all these precepts, is the flourishing point of laws and of morality. He continues, “only real justice is that based on Nature…it is only nature’s precepts that teaches us to distinguish between a good law and a bad”

The further ricochet of this of this particular subjectivism follows:

“The idea of values being subjective is a denial of the need or possibility of morality. Since any values can be accepted without consequence, there is no guide to determine which values should be accepted. Since there is no objective moral standard, reason cannot be used to determine how one should act. Emotions are all that is left to make the decision, and subsequently, one is ruled by one’s emotions. A second consequence to espousing subjective values is a demand for no moral judgment. Since morality is subjective, and right or wrong are not real, it makes no sense to judge others by your own personal moral whims. And when moral judgment is not practiced, justice is impossible. Crimes cannot be punished. The innocent cannot be protected. It is easy to see who benefits from this policy.”

1.D The Tripartite of Self-preservation
Thomas Hobbes’ exegesis on self-preservation packaged three elements, as friendship, felicity or happiness and wealth, which he termed further as ‘powers.’ It is practically in man the desire for powers, which may appear in varied forms. And these elements are likely essential for man to survive. The intimacy of friends increases the likelihood of survival rather than conflict. Friends may have transcendent value, but acknowledging the sense word friend, in the first sleigh it connotes collegiality and communion, which is an essential component of human survival. It is sad however, when we face the other side of the canvas, that those friends sometimes, as we consider them, transgress us the most. Consider how Dwight L. Moody extends his opinion, “trust in yourself, and you are doomed to disappointment. Trust in your friend, and they will die and leave you; trust in money, and you may have it taken from you; trust in reputation, and dome slanderous tongue may blast it […trust in God you will never be confound]” His statement arrested the tree elements into litigation under a religious scruple, which I say a somber demander of ‘abstinence’ from inordinate emphasis on wealth and other ephemeral goods.

A political chair tainted with a gruesome bloodshed of a dirty political dancing is a congeal reflection of what Thomas Hobbes asserted, the desire for the same thing which both will not enjoy, rather, they just become enemies. The Philippine political highway makes known the utter relevance of this proposition.
Self-preservation is never meant for an excessive emphasis. Hobbes asserted that self-preservation is man’s primary interest. Fulton Sheen states same ideology, “self-preservation is one of the first laws of nature, and it implies a legitimate self-love.” But because enmity and distrust from competition, because some men are selfish, full of pride, and eager for revenge every one is on the state of quarrel. Again, self-preservation is the primary imperative of laws of nature. Everything is vain without one preserving his own integrity: the physiological, psychological and spiritual dimensions. Since an individual will cease to survive in this material world without regard to these things. We have to admit that our existence in this ephemeral universe partly calls for material compensation.

We cannot be indifferent and come to deny the fact that we have high regard over these tripartite elements of human felicity and preservation. And these are not evil in themselves; rather, the perversion or the perverted employment of man over those matters gave it a radical turnabout. Thomas Hobbes just accentuates the inordinate and the probable outcome of the misguided and contorted treatment of man.

Hobbes italicized happiness as one of the congruent result of self-preservation. Consequently, self-preservation is intensely defined by the bulk of possessions we have. The more we inhibit properties, the more we house material happiness, which on the other hand, cuddles us to devalue other significant constitutions of human existence. Rick Warren asserts, “habang nagiging malpit ka sa Diyos, lalong lumiliit and halaga sa iyong ibang bagay.”  The more your engrossed in spiritual value, the lesser the significance of the mundane existence that you’ll consider, if that would be the case rather.

In agreement to man’s transient and evanescent existence that in a way needs material remuneration, and that besides, is tantamount to immoderate use, Aristotle suggested a ‘mean.’ The virtute in medio stat holds each individuals, families, villages and states into moderation according to their capacity and needs to survive. One of the big slices in the one whole pie of the conflict is man’s restless desire and craving for more than he needed to survive. R. E. Denny puts it, “it is not sin to have possessions, but it is a sin for wealth to have us. It is sin when ‘to have’ is more important than ‘to be’. And the poorest man in the world is the one who always wants more than he has.” Though it is absurd in man to have no desires at all, yet desires must not outwit reason in his faculty.

1. E The Triad Feud Factors
The 2000 and 2001 outcry and repulsion of the Filipino people against each others noses because of a political may day drew a melancholic reverberation and a demeaning ricochet to Filipinos’ pre-worsening economic, social and political state. The EDSA II was alighted (maybe) by a good-for-nothing and an ill-managed political slot. The highest ranking political leader is requested to be ousted by the populace who can practically savor his obnoxious political manipulations and retinue. Supporters however of the pro, snatched the aisle in an effort and desperate diffidence of immortalizing the sit of their idol.

The Marcos regime speckled the same phenomena wherein more often than not, lives of poor and innocent individuals were grilled at stake, this political-social phenomena ruptures even more the other coasts of the world’s nations. The table on the proceeding page captures the demographic and statistical ambit of the baleful political rivalry:

Charles Darwin’s theoretical compendium of the evolutionary theory highlights a said biological competition and survival; the survival of the fittest. The fittest of all the living organisms from a single celled protozoan to the more complex biological organisms subsist among others, and thus considered triumphant among the beastly and vegetative kingdom. It is evident that in the microscopic as well as macroscopic analysis, competition, diffidence and glory had their practical analogy.

Reputation, which is underscored by glory, maybe backed-up by competition and diffidence. That is the effort to compete, and the further effort to immortalize the ‘goods’ necessary to the attainment of glory. William Sacksteder in his commentary of Peter Caws hook, The Causes of Quarrel, elaborated that in the circle of international relations, competition for goods and powers are the more imminent controversy, conspired with diffidence, which he conjectured as distrust and suspicious preoccupation against emending attacks. In a wider scope taking into account international relations. William Sacksteder writes in his commentary,  “but I shall argue here that glory, although the more evanescent origin of conflict, is also the more insidious and destructive cause of quarrel among nations.” Since glory gives voice to a nation’s admiration for its own dignity, any detraction from it threatens to undo that stature on which rests communion with all other nations.  However, this is the glory, which Hobbes called as vain-glorious. Hobbes characterization of glory connotes healthy sorts. He further elaborated,

“Joy, arising from imagination of a man’s power and ability, is that exultation of the mind which is called GLORIYING: which if grounded upon the experience of his own former action, is the same with CONFIDENCE: but if grounded on the flattery of others; if onely supposed by himself, for delight in the consequences of it, is called VAIN-GLORY.”

People who are glory monger maybe divided into two kinds, the one that is reasonable, and the later, which is defined by insincere flattery. A vainglorious person, writes Hobbes in Leviathan,

“Looketh that his companion should value him at the same rate he set upon himself: and upon all singnes of contempt, or undervaluing, naturally endeavors, as far as he dares…to extort a greater value from his contemner, by dommage; and from other, by example.”

Consequent to this vain-glorious disposition is man’s propensity to maim or devalue others. This follows, in the later fallout that the demotion of others from the chair or office; the shame of other, the injury of others and worse, the death of others would thereafter mean the ‘glory’ of the latter. The chart that was attached above exhibits the carnage of a slained social-political body blushed by the gruesome bloodshed of a vain-glorious social and political perversions of its agents.

The 2002 Bali bombing, coincided by the September 11, 2002 Word Trade Center gruesome man-made catastrophe,  the holocaust brought about by the genocide under the perverted political maneuver of Adulf Hitler, and the plague fostered by world wars I and II, were just few of the debilitating phenomena that this vain-gloriousness of man made by competition and diffidence. This maybe sealed by a final remark of Hobbes,

“For such is the nature of man, that whosoever they may acknowledge many other so be more witty or more eloquent, or more learned; yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves. For they see their own wit at hand, and other mens at a distance.”

 

2. THE NATURAL CONDITION

After the expose on man’s nature as that according to Hobbes, packed with the feudal elements. We now have to entertain the further upshots of these in a wider scope, in an actual interplay of the state of nature.

We know that the state of nature is a natural condition wherein “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called warre; and such warre, as is of every man, against every man,” Hobbes explains. Driven by their desire for power after power, which ceases only in death. These powers deemed as necessary for him to preserve himself (besides the delectation) against aggression, intimidation, danger of injury, and the chief proponent of this is the perturbation against death. Consequent to these is the absence of some essential factors in a well-founded society. The researcher will evaluate these subsequent topics with due account to some ideologies of social thinkers. Some social phenomena will serve as sealant and objective evidences in our interplay of opinions and ideas.

2. A The Patent Upshots
The breakdown of this topic includes futility of justice, property, continual warfare and absence of social culture and industry. These elements as I consider, are the founding blocks of a ‘perfect’ society, yet in Thomas Hobbes’ perspective, they are the unknown and demoted constitutions. 

I. Justice Denied, Justice Delayed
Can we just imagine of a world wherein everything is a free, or, is in free disposition of every body, even to one’s body? Wherein, for instance, one is being robbed of his property; his whimper for the retrieval is a ‘useless passion.’ Or, if one was killed by a perverted or unjust aggression, one cannot reprimand for justice over judiciaries, which is an absurd facet in the state of nature. Not unless every body take stance for a civilized society…“nothing can be Unjust. The notion of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place,” he said. Since if justice were to be given a slot, then state of nature ceases to plague in. He adds, “Force and Fraud, are in warre, the two Cardinal virtues. Justice, and Injustice are not of the faculties neither of the Body, nor the Mind.” Now, if law is to be given a place in the society, justice may take its shape and value. Law gives order, and with that, justice. One may now appeal to the judiciary or the authority once he is robed of something or call for compensation of the damaged property.

The researcher did not divorce his adherence to this argument. If we have to turn the entire picture of this ideology to our sociological panorama, it is evident that individuals are restrained (at least) from aggression and any counter ideals from the law. But, more often than not, laws are disregarded and trashed by the violations of the individuals in the society. Thus, if individuals in a civilized society, can manage transgressing each other with law attached, how much more those thriving in the state of nature.

Real justice cannot be consigned to authority or any personage. Rather, they can just be an advocate and beneficiaries of it. Cicero, writes his notion, “…that man was born for justice, and that justice was established not by the judge of men…this truth will become even more manifest if we study the kinship of man to his fellow man.” Justice therefore regards collegiality and communion rather than anti-socialization. Justice has a deep ground according to Cicero, and not just a mere whim of a social contract, nor of the postulates of the authority. He further states, “The essential justice binds human society together and is maintained by one law is right reason, expressed in commands and prohibitions…but if justice is defined as mere compliance with the written laws and decrees of nations…all actions are to be measured by their utility, a man who thinks to gain advantage thereby will disregard the laws, if he can.”

It might be easy to commit adultery, pervert the morality of abortion, murder, suicide, same sex marriage and the like if it were made by popular demands, official decrees, or judicial decisions (which is palpable now in our contemporary society). Cicero writes again, “[Since] if laws are to be made by popular demands, official decrees, or judicial decisions, then it might become right to rob, commit adultery, or bare false witness, whenever such acts were approved by the votes and decisions of the multitude. If the ideas and desires of foolish men can subvert Nature by a simple vote, can they not compel us to treat evil and harmful actions henceforth as good and helpful? If a law can make justice the fruit of wrongdoing, cannot the same law make good come from evil?

  II. The Taboo of Private Property
It is obvious in the previous deliberation that nothing can be right or wrong, nothing can be just or unjust. As long as it helps built-up your purpose for self-preservation it is quoted as ‘good’ or ‘just’ without the weight of subsequent sanctions. Same value applies to simple ownership, the mine and thine respectively. Any body can hoard things as long as he is tough enough in keeping it. Hobbes further dictates, “followeth, that in such condition, every man has right to everything; even to another’s body.”  Therefore, it is highly probable that sexual harassment, malicious mischief and any forms of sexual exploitation must be an endurable component of such condition. The character and form itself is prevalent in our present society even within the presence of roaming laws and moral entreaty.

In the Filipino context, it is said that we are grappling in the quagmire of poverty, economic deficits and social crimes (bedsides the incessant political upheavals). Yet it is evident also, that lots of Filipinos amassing great bulk of wealth, more than enough to the call of their survival. Some corrupt politicians and other persons in the government might spearhead this matter. This on the other hand thwarts the equilibrium in the dissemination of property necessary for the attainment of ‘good life’ according to Aristotle. Thus, it might be fallacious to argue that poverty (in the Philippines) is caused by the lack of resources. Else, we might just say, “Filipinos are congenitally poor.” From womb to tomb, we have to succumb into the stinking highway of poverty. However, we must have neglected to recognize those individuals amassing an inordinate heap of wealth, which once again beyond the fit of their survival. These self-interested wealth monger individuals had leeched the goods that must have been entitled for the poor. The researcher is just reminded of a certain gnome, “in this world, there is enough for man’s needs, but not for man’s greed.”

Aristotle holds that property, in the sense of basic necessity for survival, was given to all man by nature. Thus, at the beginning he implies that neither the household nor the state is concerned simply with bare survival. He further argued that unlimited acquisition is not the end of economic activity and that unlimited wealth will thwart rather than facilitate the living of good life. Aristotle on the other hand, does not disregard mans’ s propensity to hoard excessive wealth and property due to insatiable desire, he rather admits that such process is unending and can never buy true happiness. It is for him, like any other contemporary thinkers of his era, the harmony of one’s personality that leads to genuine happiness. Thus, it is here that the principle of the mean of virtue of Aristotle applies. This applies to individuals, families, villages or the state. The ‘mean’ vary from the degree of their necessity.

  III. Up the Smog of Perpetual Warfare
United Sates of America is considered as the lone towering citadel of economic, political and military endowment over other fragmentary continents in the world. Besides the booming economic atmosphere, military sinew is on its jest of re-empowering and in stance for the probable and imminent provocation of the neighboring military nations. A recent survey on the Philippine National Situation, scoped last July 28, 2005 states,

“…the government of the United States is unhappy with her (Macapagal-Arroyo) administration because of its inability (up to this time) to provide stability for the Philippines which the U.S. is thinking of as  a possible major ally. It’s drawing closer to China, through economic and security arrangement, which the U.S. considered a rival for economic, political, and military hegemony in the western Pacific area. And that her (Arroyo) administration moves to strengthen ties with India, a regional power, in order to provide balance to U.S. and Chinese influence.”

This international discrepancies orchestrate that of what Thomas Hobbes stressed of a, though civilized society, still in the posture of war because of continual jealousies and pride of power, “…and in the state and posture of Gladiators; having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another; that is, their forts, Garrisons, and Guns, upon the Frontiers of their Kingdomes; and continual Spyes upon their neighbors; which is a posture of War,” Hobbes asserted. Therefore, a civil society can never absolutely guarantee man’s security, peaceful relations and the securing of self-preservation. Civil society, either by material contract (as that of Thomas Hobbes’ Social Contract) or by natural inclination (as that of Aristotle) cannot subvert or change these menacing elements seated in man. Laws and precepts of morality nestled in the heart of the civil society may just serve as a “strings attached” to the seemingly puppet-like individuals wherein if laws will be snapped or being snapped-out, then the usual ‘state’ will be reassumed. St. Thomas puts it that, “law is a rule and measure of acts, whereby man is induced to act or is restrained from acting: for lex (law) derived from ligare (to bind), because it binds one to act.”

Another hypothetical proposition of this continual warfare is the said immutability of human nature. Kenneth Waltz, in his book, Man, the state and War, elucidates “the assumption of a fixed human nature, in terms of which all else must be understood itself helps to shift attention away from human nature, because, human nature by the terms of assumption cannot be changed, whereas social-political institution, can be.” Waltz further elaborates, “if human nature is fixed, then we can never hope for peace, this is a particular assumption of the first-image pessimist,” which according to Waltz, is very radical. Few thinkers agreed that a particular variant of study couldn’t suffice to have a clear-cut notion on human nature. Ernst Cassirrer asserts,

“Without introspection, without an immediate awareness of feelings, emotions, perceptions, thoughts, we would not even define the field of human psychology. Yet it must be admitted that by following this way alone we can never arrive at a comprehensive view ho human nature. Introspection reveals to us only that small sector of human life which is accessible to our individual experience.  It can never cover the whole field of the human phenomena. Even of we should succeed in collecting and combining all the data, we should still have a very meager and fragmentary picture – a mere torso – of human nature.”

Thus, to adhere that certain phenomena happened because of the stupidity of man is either rejected or accepted according to the mood of the writer. Emile Durkhiem admits, “the psychological factor is too general to predetermine the course of social phenomena. Since it does not call for one social form rather than another…” This according to Waltz is to commit “an error of psychologism.” Niebuhr explains, “human nature is co complex that it justifies almost every assumption and prejudices with which either a scientific investigation or an ordinary human contact is initiated.” Neither the causes of conflict can be charged to the environment if that would be the cause (wherein we know that the psychological nature of an individual is highly motivated and affected by his environmental milieu). Fulton Sheen shared, “neither the cause of the conflict is not the persuasion of the environment. A golden bit does not make the better horse; Judas, who had the best environment in history, died in agony and shame.” Hence, civil environment cannot guarantee an absolute disposal of a peaceful society.

IV. The Absence of the Fundamental Social Foundations
It is obvious that when Hobbes attributed to man the anti-social nature of man because of his self-interested motives, it jives then to its necessary upshot – the absence of the fundamental elements needed for the existence of the so-called society. The proper establishment of industry, navigation, arts, letters and the like call for a certain communion of men. A prolific business enterprise is possible only via pure interest of an individual businessman to his fellow business magnate. Arts then, have their no place since its value, as most consider it and Thomas Hobbes asserted recently, is dependent on the others giving it value. Fruits of labors are vain. Who will care for the peddlers merchandise, much more to its respective monetary price? In the state of nature every thing is accessible, free of charge, no debts, no credits. Everything is a ‘mine’ fashion as long as one is tough enough to hoard it over. ‘Yours,’ if you prove the same. He might be able to sale his merchandize – but without revenue. And still, more to be mentioned. With this, it is verifiable that, “…the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short.” Aristotle suggested that security and other goods are accessible only in a society, in a state, in a sphere where there is communion. He states,

“In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist with out each other – namely, of male and female – that the race may continue. (And this is a union which formed, not of deliberate purpose, but because…mankind have an image of themselves), and of natural ruler and subject, that both maybe preserved…”   

It is even impossible to form a basic cell of society in the state of nature – the family. Aristotle emphasized the inductive formation of society by virtue of the union of the two heterosexual species of human beings. It is the union, according to him, established by nature, which serve, as correspondent to man’s every-day-consumption. Then follows the several chronological fusion of this miniature society into a larger scope, which is the state. The state serves as the jumping board of individuals to attain “eudaimonia” or the “good life.” The state must provide all the particular facets towards fulfillment of a good life. Aristotle maintain that, “…the proof of the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that, the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing, and therefore he is like a part in ralation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society because he is sufficient for himself, just be either a beast or a god; he’s no part of the state.”

Contempt against each other and their natural tendency to destroy is one of the seen blockages that stifle the development of a harmonious state. This is overshadowed when one goes well accompanied; when he sleeps he locks his doors; when he is in his house at guard, he locks his chest. This reminds of a politician who set out for a campaign for a political favor from the masses. He seems so amicable in intent in a some how assumed friendly stunts; yet he hoards with him highly armed goons. “What opinion he has of his fellow subjects?” asked Hobbes, “does he not there accuse mankind by his action?”

Justice calls for Aristotle another significant element of a good state. In justice we find harmony. For him, man is congenitally armed, and without the guidance and custody of intellect he may use this in a worst end. He continues, “but justice is the bond of men in the state; for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of an ordered political society.” Justice is inducted first in a basic organization. Confucius recites a poem,

“When wives and children and their sire are one,
‘Tis like the harp and lute in unison,
When brothers live in concord and at peace
The strain of harmony shall never cease
The lamp of happy union lights the home,
And bright days follow when the children come.”

2. B The Resolution
With the alarming situation, reason according to Tomas Hobbes, excites every individual to establish a certain rules wherein they could settle their despute and grievances against each other. Chances are, ratio of survival is abated and, in an offshoot, it would eventually erase the entire populace. In coherence to this call, men in the state nature enter into a so called social contract which is condensed with it are the “right of nature” and the “laws of nature” and the pact or the “covenant.” Within the contract, an individual is called to follow certain tenets sealed by the virtue of the covenant. The laws and the right of nature, however, just kindle the conjointness of every individual to look for peace and follow it; to get what calls for the preservation and divest what is the opposite.

We cannot, however argue on Hobbes’ notion of these laws, especially on the laws of nature. This is the primary importance of morality. St. Thomas Aquinas quoted it as the adherence to good and the avoidance of evil. Patrick Heyden elucidates, “Aquinas distinguishes four terms of law; the natural law, divine law, eternal and human law. They are essentially related and formed in the basic moral task of human beings: to do good and avoid evil. For Aquinas, this task is the first precept of the law of nature.” Patrick Heyden further elaborates as he quotes Hugo Grotius, “Grotius regarded the foundation of international law to be the universal law of nature…as a dictate of human reason, which is similar in all peoples, natural law provides a moral standard common to all human beings… the core doctrine of natural law is the right to self-preservation, possessed equally by all individual.”

In the society fostered by a social contract, any act of advantage towards a constituent is repugnant to the law of nature, and is a breaching of the covenant (which deserves a severe punishment according to Hobbes). Grotius says, “thus for instance, to deprive another of what belongs to him, merely for one’s own advantage, is repugnant to the law of nature.” Again, within the contracted society one is commissioned not to plot or scheme a danger against another. This jives with Grotius Quoting Florentinus, the lawyer, “(Florentinus) maintains that is impious for one to form designs against another, as nature has established a degree of kindred amongst us.” Seneca goes as he was again quoted by Grotius, “(Seneca) remarks that as all the members of human body agree among themselves, because the preservation of each individual conduces to the welfare of the whole, so men should forebear from mutual injuries, as they were born for society, which  cannot subsist unless all the parts of it are defended by mutual forbearance and good will.” 

2.C The Golden Rule

This is the concision of he said tenets of reason. It grossly say, “this, Thomas Hobbes called as the law of the Gospel, do not unto others which thou wouldest not have done to thyself.” Yet, since the social contract is purely a material consensus, that is, no transcendent element that cuddles them to do so, and that according to Hobbes it is in the nature of man to subvert and destroy his fellow. Their gutfull of hallow points are still incessantly pointed against each noses. It is an obvious evaluation that Hobbes motivation of civil society is so counter-Aristotelian, wherein man for Aristotle is a political animal.