Reconsidering Humanity
Some of the thinking I didn’t do at the gym yesterday has been going on in the background of my mind for a few days. Since Monday’s audio meet up and Tuesday’s discussion of libertarianism I’ve been considering my basic concept of humanity. For my general formulation of good governance to be true the underlying assumptions about people have to be accurate. This is a struggle I go through from time to time, but in the end I always cautiously side with hope rather than experience.
The two basic conceptions of man can be found in John Locke’s 2nd Treatise and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. In short, the former believed mankind capable of living in peace while the latter understood strife and conflict as the natural way of things. Out of the first grows our system of government where each person is at liberty to live as he sees fit so long as his liberty does not hinder that of another. Government exists primarily to protect such a society from external threats and to settle disputes arising when individual liberties become mutually exclusive. On these concepts conservatism (and even libertarianism) finds a solid foundation.
Growing out of the Hobbesian understanding of humanity, however, is a great and powerful centralized authority. Modern liberalism, whether aware of this root or not, takes its nutriment from the humus cultivated by Hobbes in the mid 1600s. Within this understanding, mankind’s inability to live in peace requires a strong authority for its very survival. Every person who would live in peace must first surrender his liberty to the great sovereign or be left outside of society to fend for himself against the might of the collective and the brutality of nature.
Obviously, Locke’s theory is to be preferred to Hobbes’. In one there is hope; in the other the only hope is in servitude to another. The former leads to a fragile (but contented) peace; the latter leads to a rigid (but joyless) stability. But, who is right? When one stands aside and views humanity what understanding of the way of mankind rings true? I ask the question because faith in my fellow man is often shaken by the behavior I see around me. Sadly, the state of war of all against all can be readily seen in places it should be least expected. Ever watch the stands at a youth sporting event? Ever watch the cars exiting a busy church parking lot? Seen any Republican presidential primaries lately?
If people really do suck, if irrational self interest rules the mind of man, then Hobbes very well could be right. Sadly, his theory of governance becomes a very rational option if this is so. We conservatives and libertarians are spitting into the wind and striving to turn back the tide of humanity if Hobbes is correct. My only defense against despair when I consider this is that the sovereign to whom I would be forced to bend a knee would be one of the selfish asshats who make the whole thing necessary in the first place. Hobbes’ theory becomes rational but impossible. Only Locke remains, but there also remains humanity, striving against him at every freeway onramp.
- Comment (63)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Sep '11
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
Locke's view works in a society in which most individuals know God holds them accountable. And, I would have to add, it is necessary that the members of the society share a common understanding of God and what God requires. Thus, a Judeo-Christian society works and ours did for the first century and some. Now, however, we have two distinct problems:
1. We no longer have a critical mass of Christian or Jewish believers and
2. Islam is not compatible with the founding principles of the United States.
Another way of saying this is that we are beset by enemies within and without.
One never wants to lose all hope of course, but...
Jan '12
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
Thanks for the post KP - I've observed the same thing between liberals and conservatives. As conservatives, we have a fairly optimistic view of humanity; I believe we tend to bet on people acting in their long term self interest. Locke is a hero of mine and it is his essential optimism that is fundamental to our movement. On the other hand, there is Hobbes, who is no fool. But that's why we have the 2nd Amendment.
Dec '10
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
The worst part is watching my own children try to prove Hobbes accurate, and they already live in a despotism, benevolent though it may be...
Mar '11
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
I prefer the synthesis of Locke and Hobbes that seems to be the heart of Federalist 51:
The system that came out of the men who thought this way has worked for too long to be completely invalid. No one ever said it was going to be easy, however.
Dec '10
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
Percival: I prefer the synthesis of Locke and Hobbes that seems to be the heart ofFederalist 51:
The system that came out of the men who thought this way has worked for too long to be completely invalid. No one ever said it was going to be easy, however. · 1 minute ago
I question the efficacy of the system sometimes as well. I don't know that the controls put in place are nearly as effective as the Federalists believed they would be.
Apr '12
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
I find what you have said so well is echoing in me. I, too, am questioning my belief system. I prefer Locke, but am wondering if Hobbes had it right after all.
Are humans so self-interested that they prefer to lick the hand that feeds them goodies to being independent and free? Is this where lies power over others?
Where are the strong Conservative voices pointing to the rewards of becoming mature, self-contained, self-directed, individuals? Has that world disappeared?
Dec '10
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
Red Feline: Are humans so self-interested that they prefer to lick the hand that feeds them goodies to being independent and free? Is this where lies power over others?
Where are the strong Conservative voices pointing to the rewards of becoming mature, self-contained, self-directed, individuals? Has that world disappeared? · 1 minute ago
Another worrisome facet is that the government we have and the direction it is going with the welfare state actively works against maturity, self-containment, self-direction, and individualism. Freedom and independence can be uncertain and frightening to those secure in their servitude.
Aug '10
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
The King Prawn:
If people really do [Hoover], if irrational self interest rules the mind of man, then Hobbes very well could be right.
Or, you could view it this way:
If people really do [Hoover], perhaps it's better that the interests of many relatively powerless people compete against each other and cancel each other out than to have some real Hooverers in power dominating the rest of us. For if everyone Hoovers, those in power are just as big Hooverers as we are.
(The, er, vacuum word has caused CoC consternation from time to time, so I employ the euphemism "Hoover" -- as in the vacuum cleaner, and the president who set the stage for FDR and the New Deal. Not every Republican fails to Hoover from the conservative point of view -- Hoover didn't.)
Aug '10
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
Conservatives are fond of saying that men differ less than dogs -- and it's this insight that makes a free society preferable.
Despotism isn't about believing people are bad. It's about believing that some people are so much more virtuous and far-sighted than everyone else that the world would be better with them making all the decisions. And believing that these virtuous, far-sighted people, as opposed to the thugs and scoundrels, will be the ones to win political power.
However, if all people are more-or-less equally good or bad, freedom, where no interest has dominance, is better.
Dec '10
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
The King Prawn:
If people really do [Hoover], if irrational self interest rules the mind of man, then Hobbes very well could be right.
Or, you could view it this way:
If people really do [Hoover], perhaps it's better that the interests of many relatively powerless people compete against each other and cancel each other out than to have some real Hooverers in power dominating the rest of us. For if everyone Hoovers, those in power are just as big Hooverers as we are.
Agreed. Hence why the founders feared the concentration of power rather than raw power itself.
(The, er, vacuum word has caused CoC consternation from time to time, so I employ the euphemism "Hoover"
I know. I chose it deliberately as a stark contrast to the cerebral mood of the rest of the post and as guttural description of people as we often find them.
Nov '11
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
John Adams, 1798
May '11
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
Growing out of the Hobbesian understanding of humanity, however, is a great and powerful centralized authority. Modern liberalism, whether aware of this root or not, takes its nutriment from the humus cultivated by Hobbes in the mid 1600s. Within this understanding, mankind’s inability to live in peace requires a strong authority for its very survival. Every person who would live in peace must first surrender his liberty to the great sovereign or be left outside of society to fend for himself against the might of the collective and the brutality of nature.
· 1 hour ago
An apt description of modern liberalism. But what you describe really isn't liberalism. Why have we allowed the left to highjack this word? I would argue Locke is the true liberal. A Lockean existence is full of human folly. But somebody that beleives in liberty beleives that man can correct his behavior thru trial and error and understanding the consequences of his own actions. The modern Hobbsian doesn't want man to go thru that process. We are to be protected from ourselves and our vices.
Aug '11
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
These are not opposed concepts, KP. One can have liberty and authority at the same time, so long as that authority is vested in an enforcement of the rule of law. Our founders designed a system of authority that they believed to be innoculated from despotism - power was diluted amoung many and separated into three branches, each accountable to the others and periodically, to the people. They did not see the rise of the political class (career politicians), the detrimental effects of stare decisis when applied in constitutional interpretation nor the resultant rise in the power of the now fourth branch of government, the bureaucratic leviathan. So our duty is clear - enact term limits, insist on originalist constitutionalism and deconstruct the bureaucratic state. Simple stuff. Glad I could help.
Edited on May 17, 2012 at 11:51pmDec '10
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
Agreed. They have captured the narrative, and we must find a way to take it back. The question becomes, however, have the people become so corrupted as to be incapable of living in true liberty?
Dec '10
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
Simple, yes; easy, no.
Mar '11
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
It's like riding a bicycle. Not as simple as it sometimes looks, but you get better at it with practice.
We've lost some of the balance we had between the different branches of government. The Judicial branch has morphed into an unaccountable legislature that can hand down diktats without concern for the will of the people. It can be done though, and we know that because we've been doing it.
Feb '12
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
Locke and Hobbes had essentially the same conception of man. Locke was simply added some sugar to his presentation. For Hobbes, survival was the most important goal of the average fellow; for Locke, it was comfortable survival. In either case, the individual is self-seeking and materialistic, and find life in nature inconvenient. (There are hints, too, that Locke, like Hobbes, didn't think men got along so well in nature.)
The big difference is between Plato/Aristotle on the one hand and Machiavelli (and those who followed after) on the other.
Take a look sometime at Natural Right and History. It's a difficult book, however (I can't say I understand it much), and a shorter version of part of it can be found in this more readable, brief essay, The Three Waves of Modernity.
Dec '10
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
Locke certainly saw the potential for men to violate the law of nature, but Hobbes declared it an unavoidable certainty. Indeed, Hobbes went so far as to declare the law of nature to be war among individuals. Hobbes removed from mankind free will. He made us slaves to our baser instincts. I can't buy it. Choosing to overcome the inner beast may be difficult (at times nearly impossible), but what separates humanity from the beasts is the natural, inherent ability to make such a choice. Locke saw a spark of the divine; Hobbes snuffed it out.
Feb '12
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
The King Prawn
Locke certainly saw the potential for men to violate the law of nature, but Hobbes declared it an unavoidable certainty. Indeed, Hobbes went so far as to declare the law of nature to be war among individuals. Hobbes removed from mankind free will. He made us slaves to our baser instincts. I can't buy it. Choosing to overcome the inner beast may be difficult (at times nearly impossible), but what separates humanity from the beasts is the natural, inherent ability to make such a choice. Locke saw a spark of the divine; Hobbes snuffed it out. · 17 minutes ago
We'd have to look at the texts together to go much further, but I don't believe that Locke saw the spark of the divine. He paid lip service to Christianity, and generally saw the advantage of writing in more pleasant terms than Hobbes, but he, like Machiavelli and Hobbes, promoted a secular way of thinking based on man's desire to dominate or acquire. They all saw Christianity as the main threat to their preferred political order. Locke was more subtle on this point than Machiavelli and Hobbes, but his view was substantially the same.
Feb '12
Re: Reconsidering Humanity
King Prawn,
Take a look at this essay from The Claremont Review of Books, reviewing a work by Prof. Michael Zuckert on Locke:
And note this passage in particular: