I'm reading the Leviathan and having some issues following the state of nature argument. After explaining the state of nature in Ch. 13, Hobbes goes on in Ch. 14 to say something along the lines of: According to the Natural Right of Liberty, rationality seems to require us to attack others. According to the Laws of Nature, however, rationality seems to require us to seek peace. But how can rationality require us to be both at peace and at war? The difference seems to come down to Collective Rationality (Laws of Nature) vs. Individual Rationality (Right of Liberty). The individual rationality seems to be the one when we are in the state of nature and collective rationality when we form the social contract/create a government so that Collective rationality requires that we pursue peace, but individual rationality requires that we attack one another. In this way, individual rationality threatens the collectively rational position.
Is Hobbes saying that it would be rational for individuals to resort to anticipatory violence in pursuit of their ends, or is it rather that their passions lead them to act in ways that are at odds with their own prudential interests? Do you agree with Hobbes about the rationality (or irrationality) of anticipation in the state of nature? Why of why not?
---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ----------
Also, what assumptions about human nature contribute most significantly to Hobbes's argument? Is it equality?
Is Hobbes saying that it would be rational for individuals to resort to anticipatory violence in pursuit of their ends, or is it rather that their passions lead them to act in ways that are at odds with their own prudential interests? Do you agree with Hobbes about the rationality (or irrationality) of anticipation in the state of nature? Why of why not?
---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ----------
Also, what assumptions about human nature contribute most significantly to Hobbes's argument? Is it equality?