Katsu asked:

I don't understand Hobbes's answer to the following questions: What is war, why does it exist, and
why do we need the state?

============

Hobbes thought that without some form of government humans would live in a 'state of nature'.
Because of his views about human nature, Hobbes thought that this would be a terrifying, harmful,
ugly, and dangerous existence for most people. Because in a world of finite and possibly scarce
resources each person would strive as hard as they could to protect what they had and to gain more
in order to provide for the future.

Inevitably in such a state conflict would arise. Each person would try to get what the other has, either
to reduce the risk of the other taking their possessions, or. to ensure that they, themselves have
enough to survive. This would be a state of war, what Hobbes called a 'war of all against all'. Hobbes
did not mean that such a war would be a state of constant fighting and conflict, but rather the war
would be one of constant readiness to fight, an ever vigilant existence one with not a moment's
peace, always the possibility of death.

Now certainly individuals could form alliances in order to protect themselves against stronger
aggressors. But what guarantee is there that they will not be betrayed for a stronger alliance with
someone else? (this is a form of the prisoners dilemma). Trust could never be generated, any alliance
would crumble and we would go back to killing each other.

So according to Hobbes, as long as there are individuals each competing against one another for
their own benefit there will be war, and conflict and death. it is primarily the universal fear of death
that leads to the formation of the state. But for Hobbes this cannot be just any kind of state, it must be
one where individuals give up their freedom to do what they want (this is what causes the war in the
first place) for the sake of self-preservation. Hobbes imagines the best state to be a commonwealth,
headed by a supreme sovereign, who has the power and authority over all, because all have agreed
to his being in control.

The war of all against all is over. Survival and the elimination of the prospect of death are guaranteed
in the state. But only when individuals give up their freedom to a ruler who has the power to install the
fear of death in everyone. The fear of death is still there, but at least in the state we know that death
is not looming over our shoulders ready to strike at any time, only the sovereign has the power of
death over us, and this is the only way, Hobbes thought, to ensure that stability and our survival could
be preserved.

Now it may be objected that Hobbes is wrong in his account of human nature. People may not be
intrinsically selfish and egocentric, but are rather socially amenable and co-operative. Locke and
Rousseau have different conceptions of human nature, but all share the idea of individuals coming
together to from a society. Hobbes may also be wrong about the need for a society. What if people do
not have a fear of death, or are strong enough to protect themselves from any aggressor? (Hobbes
does have answers to these objections, they centre around his notion of 'felicity', but that's probably
another question!)

Another objection is that Hobbes misses out an essential part of human life, namely morality. Hobbes,
it could be argued, is only concerned with prudence, not ethics.

However, Hobbes does talk about 'Laws of Nature' which have the air of morality about them, but
which Hobbes thinks we only have a duty to obey if everyone else obeys them. That is when a state
is established. In the state of nature we desire that everyone obeys the Laws of Nature, but because
mutual obedience can never be guaranteed, actual obedience is so rare that we might as well say
that morality per se is not achievable in the state of nature, but only once the commonwealth has
been established.

Brian Tee
Dept of Philosophy
University of Sheffield