Decency
Rules of etiquette or politeness
Manners
Rules concerning living together in peace and unity
Internal Questions to a Practice
Ex: “What is proper etiquette at this country club?”
External Questions to a Practice
Ex: “Is the table etiquette at this country club worth learning to me?”
Why be Decent?
- External Question
- We cannot use requirements of decency for reasons to be decent (Internal Answer)
Why have Manners?
- External Question
- Question about things that make up morality
- What reasons do we have to do what morally requires?
Hobbes Denies the existence of a Good
- “good is relational”
- Ex: “X is good for ___” (good for)
Why be Moral?
- Answered by “Why have Morals?”
- Morality is effectively a system of manners requiring External justifications
- We should behave or refrain or refrain from behaving in certain ways to one another
- ‘Being Moral’ has practical advantages (in your self-interest
Difference between Decency and Manners?
- They differ on whether they are required for a stable coexistence with one another
- They both need an External Justification
What sort of justification does Hobbes appeal to in regard to why we should engage in moral behavior?
- Check if this answer is correct
Hobbes appeals to external justifications in regard to why we should engage in moral behavior.
What is the difference between an internal and external justification, and how do these types relate to “decency” (i.e. etiquette) and “manners” (i.e. moral behavior)?
We can ask internal questions to practice requiring internal answers
The State of Nature Quotes
- Vulnerable
Nature has made men so equal in their physical and mental capacities that, although sometimes we may find one man who is obviously stronger in body or quicker of mind than another, yet taking all in all the difference between one and another is not so great that one man can claim to have any advantage (of strength or skill or the like) that can’t just as well be claimed by some others…”“…the weakest man is strong enough to kill the strongest, either by a secret plot or by an alliance with others who are in the same danger that he is in” (56)
-Combative
So I give primacy, for a general inclination of all mankind, to a perpetual and restless desire for power after power, a desire that ceases only in death”“…a man cannot assure his present level of power and of means for living well without acquiring more power” (44-5)
The State of Nature
a “condition of war of everyone against everyone”
- Self-Preservation is, thus, in each individual’s own interest
Humans in the State of Nature
Self-Perservation: The struggle for happiness and avoiding misery
- The source of struggle (i.e. Condition of war) stem from our basic nature
- “in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of discord”
“In the nature of man, we find three principal causes of discord “
- Competition: We all desire various resources, but resources are limited
- “So if any two men want a single thing which they can’t both enjoy, they become enemies; and each of them on the way to his goal… tries to destroy or subdue the other” (56-7)
- Distrust or diffidence: We don’t trust each other
- “In a purely defensive posture, they wouldn’t be able to survive for long”
- Glory: We take pride pride in being more powerful than others
- “Every man wants his associates to value him as highly as he values himself; and any sign that he is disregarded or undervalued naturally leads a man to try, as far as he dares, to raise his value in the eyes of others” (57)
The state of Nature involves:
- A Right of Nature (jus naturale)
- A Law of Nature
A Right to Nature (jus naturale)
- Liberty: “the absence of external obstacles” that can “take away part of a man’s power to do what he wants”
A Law of Nature
- By our very nature, we are bound by certain natural laws
- A right is to liberty of action.
- A law is a command to preserve your life.
A condition of war is a state of constant mayhem
- We have a natural right to “everything” (which includes other people)
- Each has a right to preemptively kill to prevent being killed
- We are commanded by natural law to do what we must for preservation
- Since a condition of war will likely result in deaths for each of us, general rules of reason will require us in this condition to seek a different kind of condition, to leave the condition of war
- Natural law requires us to seek a condition of peace
Two basic laws of nature for a Condition of Peace
1st Law of Nature: “seek peace and follow it”
- this reaffirms the idea that protecting what is most important to us (self-preservation) is best achieved in a condition of peace.
- Peace is in our self interest
2nd Law of Nature: The Conditions of Peace
- These two laws require us to collaboratively seek a condition of peace
The priority of a condition of peace over a condition of war
Only if one cannot obtain a condition of peace does a right of nature require “all helps and advantages of war” that is, in a condition of war
The Generation of Morality
Problem: A condition of war to a condition of peace, how?
- Doesn’t a condition of peace involve violating our natural rights?
1/3
Theres is a series of stages in which we do not have our rights violated”
- Transferring or renouncing your right:
- You can give up your right to attack now and take neighbor’s food
- Neighbor can give up his right to attack you now and take your milk
- Instead of attacking, you both can simply offer a trade: food for milk
- A Mutual and immediate transference of rights: a Contract
- A contract does not violate your neighbor’s right since you both have limited your rights/liberties in the same way
- A mutual and promissory transference of rights: a Covenant (agreement)
- Transfer goods at a future time; do not attack in the meantime
- This is moral behavior
Problem: A condition of war to a condition of peace, how?
2/3
- Isn’t making covenants (moral Behavior) irrational?
- People are by nature untrustworthy, power-hungry, etc
- So you’ll eventually either be cheated by your neighbor, or some other neighboring people will attack both of you
- So, while a condition of peace might be good ‘ in theory’, and you might achieve a localized condition of peace with your neighbor, such a condition is flimsy
- Some people will never make a covenant with people he can conquer
- Some people mistakenly think that war is better for self-preservation
Is there a next stage that can address this problem?
- If not, it’s not in pour rational self-interest to have contracts or covenants with others
- If not, a condition of peace is only in theory desirable, but practically unachievable
Problem: A Condition of Peace, how?
3/3
- Achievable with a Leviathan
- What we seem to need (due to people not being trustworthy by nature) is some sort of external constraint on your choice and actions, as well as the choice and actions of others
- We must believe there will be consequences for actions against others
The Leviathan (External Constraint)
- Man-made laws clearly state what one can do
- A dedicated police force will insure that people are protected and punished
- The Leviathan is brought about by establishing a commonwealth
Problem: What if you can get away with immoral behavior sometimes?
- We want a Leviathan only because we want a condition of peace
- We want a condition of peace only because it is better for preservation
- Preservation is in our greatest rational self-interest
- Ex: If it is in your self-interest to, say, take someone else’s food because you are starving and you know you won’t be caught it seems rational for us to perform that particular immoral action
