Aristotle’s theory of human nature

1. Aristotle’s theory of human nature • Everything can be explained by it’s telos – or purpose. • What distinguishes man from animals is the use of reason, so it is man’s natural purpose to be rational. • Acting rationally means acting virtuously. • The activity which affords most opportunity to display one’s virtue is politics – understood as ordering society well for all. • Man is naturally social, political and moral.

2. Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics ‘If this is the case, and we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete.’

3. Pre-Hobbes (Thomist) theory of the state of nature • ‘Thomists’ are named after St Thomas Aquinas who followed Aristotle but gave his ideas a Christian spin. • According to the Thomists all men have the ability to apprehend the law of nature (God’s law modelled on Aristotelian lines), so men would lead a social, not solitary, existence without a political state. • But they are ‘fallen’ so tend to ignore many aspects of morality and to be uncertain of others. • So they would, and did, choose to give up their liberty for the sake of the protection of positive law. • The notion of ‘natural rights’ as distinct from ‘natural law’, referring to an area of subjective freedom for individuals.

4. Morality and Justice in Hobbes’ State of Nature ‘To this warre of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be Unjust. The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place. Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law no Injustice. Force, and Fraud, are in warre the two Cardinall vertues. Justice, and Injustice are none of the Faculties neither of the Body, nor Mind.’

5. Hobbes’ right of nature ‘The RIGHT OF NATURE, which Writers commonly call Jus Naturale, is the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himselfe, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own Judgement, and Reason, hee shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.’ - Which is best understood as asserting a right to do whatever one wants.

6. Hobbes’ law of nature ‘ A LAW OF NATURE, is a Precept, or generall Rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved.’ - This is best understood as a psychological law requiring one to act, and these laws are directed towards self preservation rather than what would be usually seen as ‘moral’ ends.

7. Right and law distinguished • ‘RIGHT, consisteth in liberty to do, or to forbeare; Whereas LAW, determineth, and bindeth to one of them: so that Law and Right differ as much, as Obligation, and Liberty; which in one and the same matter are inconsistent.’ • So if you’re starving and your neighbour has a full larder, the right of nature says you’re free to choose to go and steal his food, or not, as you wish. The law of nature says you should go and steal his food (assuming you can get away with it).

8. How extensive is the right of nature? ‘.. because the condition of Man..is a condition of Warre of every one against every one; in which case every one is governed by his own Reason; and there is nothing he can make use of, that may not be a help unto him, in preserving his life against his enemyes; It followeth, that in such a condition, every man has a Right to every thing; even to one anothers body.’

9. Why we would sacrifice our freedom ‘And therefore, as long as this naturall Right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man...of living out the time which Nature ordinarily alloweth men to live’

10. The Fundamentall Law of Nature ‘ And consequently it is a precept, or generall rule of Reason, That every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps and advantages of Warre.’

11. The second law of nature ‘That a man be willing, when others are so too, as farre-forth, as for Peace, and defence of himselfe he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himselfe.’

12. Second law of nature is Law of Gospell ‘But if other men will not lay down their Right, as well as he; then there is no Reason for any one, to devest himselfe of his: For that were to expose himselfe to Prey, rather than to dispose himselfe to Peace. This is that Law of the Gospell; Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them.’

13. A nice anecdote! One time, I remember, goeing in the Strand, a poor and infirme old man craved his almes. He [Hobbes] beholding him with eies of pitty and compassion, putt his hand in his pocket, and gave him 6d. Sayd a divine that stood by – ‘Would you have done this if it had not been Christ’s command?’ – ‘Yea’, sayd he. – ‘Why?’ quoth the other. – ‘Because’, sayd he, I was in paine to consider the miserable condition of the old man; and now my almes, giving him some reliefe, doth also ease me.’ from Aubrey’s Brief Lives.

14. Hume’s theory of practical reason ‘Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them...’Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger..’Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledg’d lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection fro the former than the latter.’ - Treatise of Human Nature 1740

15. Kant’s theory of practical reason ‘The foundation of this principle is: rational nature exists as an end in itself. Man necessarily conceives his own existence as being so; so far then this is a subjective principle of human actions. But every other rational being regards its existence similarly, just on the same rational principle that holds for me: so that it is at the same time an objective principle, from which as a supreme practical law all laws of the will must be capable of being deduced. Accordingly the practical imperative will be as follows: So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only.’ - Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals 1785

16. Hobbes’ third law of nature ‘From that law of Nature, by which we are obliged to transferre to another, such Rights, as being retained, hinder the peace of mankind, there followeth a Third; which is this, That men performe their Covenants made; without which, Covenants are in vain, and but empty words; and the Right of all men to all things remaining, wee are still in the condition of Warre.’

17. The origin of justice And in this law of Nature, consisteth the Foundation and Originall of JUSTICE. For where no Covenant hath preceded, there hath no Right been transferred, and every man has right to every thing; and consequently, no action can be Unjust. But when a covenant is made, then to break it is Unjust: And the definition of INJUSTICE, is no other than the not Performance of Covenant. And whatsoever is not Unjust is Just.’

18. So can’t everybody just promise to be good? Hobbes’ answer is no: ‘because Covenants of mutuall trust, where there is a feare of not performance on either part, (as hath been said in the former Chapter,) are invalid; though the Originall of Justice be the making of Covenants; yet Injustice actually there can be none, till the cause of such feare be taken away; which while men are in the condition of Warre cannot be done. Therefore before the names of Just and Unjust can have place, there must be come coercive Power, to compell men equally to the performance of their Covenants.’

19. Was Hobbes’ argument successful? According to Iain Hampshire-Monk in A History of Modern Political Thought ‘despite the widespread social penetration of the idea of contract, Hobbes’ argument was not a rhetorical success. The groups to whom the language of contract was most congenial to were those most opposed to his political views, and those – the royalists – closest to his political conclusions found the individualist premises and contractarian argument he used to support them threatening...he lacked immediate political influence.’