How does one determine the rationality of an action? The contextual definition of rationality is acting in accordance with logic and reason, to maximize one’s personal wellbeing. This essay will utilize frameworks of rational choice theory to scrutinize Hobbesian principles of the state of nature and his conceptualization of an absolute sovereign. Fundamentally, this essay will determine whether individuals are better off submitting to an absolute sovereign or living in the state of nature.
The underlying reasons necessitating Hobbes’ absolute sovereign are his theories on the state of nature. He posits men equally have needs and wants, mainly towards procuring the means to commodious living. Due to diffidence, as we are all aware of each other’s claim to a better life and want the same for ourselves, humankind is in a perpetual state of competition for personal glory.These intrinsic human characteristics put mankind in a constant state of war, aggravating the basic economic problem of allocating finite resources among infinite, competing wants. Hobbes uses this background to justify the need for a higher power, an elected sovereign which will codify right and wrong into law and arbitrate moral dilemmas – saving us from anarchy. Here, Hobbes develops his social contract theory. He argues one tacitly agrees to the social contract once he accepts the protection and safety offered against the primal state of nature, provided he compromises some of his rights. Fundamentally, we promise to cease war on others in exchange for the same, fostering cooperation. This series of promises are enforced by the sovereign, creating a civic society and obligations by covenants, whilst there are none in the state of nature. The foundation of Hobbes’ political philosophy is this, it is rational to submit to this absolute sovereign to escape the chaotic state of nature.
Nozick however, refutes Hobbes’ notion of reciprocity by arguing this creates a slippery slope for the enforcement of obligations upon others by forcing unwanted goods upon them. Klosko modifies the reciprocity argument, suggesting an obligation only exists if the goods supplied in the exchange are presumptively beneficial. For example, national defence is a non-excludable public good, necessary for prosperous life, but can only be provided with cooperative effort – justifying forcing all individuals to contribute. A critique is that solely because one desires and deems a good presumptively beneficial, does not mean he would sacrifice to obtain its benefits. To break this deadlock, this essay employs Hobbes’ dystopian characterization of humans, as prone to avarice, ambition or anger. The free rider problem is already rampant and faced by states across the world – the daunting reality is that the sins of humanity are only exacerbated in the natural state. Ultimately, Hobbes’ world, where some are forced to accept unwanted goods, seems preferable to the world missing markets for essential goods – providing rationale for absolute submission.
The Hobbesian position is better grasped in terms of game theory. In a variant of the prisoner's dilemma (PD), men enter covenants foregoing some degree of their rights in promise of protection. The worst outcome for a player is to honour the promise while others do not, with the best being everyone honours it except the player himself. Here the dominant strategy is to break the promise, to avoid the overall worst outcome, and possibly to take advantage of another’s fulfilled promise. Having a sovereign punish those who renege completely changes the dynamics of the game. The nash equilibrium would then be to not renege as the dominant strategy would be to avoid punishment, regardless of whether others honour their agreements. However, the efficacy of this line of thinking is contingent upon whether this seems like a one-shot or a series of PD games to Hobbesian people. The latter aids Hobbes’ case, as there is incentive for individuals to not break renege because trust comes into play – one who has proven himself untrustworthy is unlikely to be trusted in the future. Thus in the long-term, people will be reluctant to break their word. Yet, Hobbes’ characterization of men again, defeats this notion. If men were so short-sighted and barbaric to warrant the need of a sovereign to prevent chaos, what assurance is there of their sudden rationalisation? In fact, they disregarded the long-term benefits of cooperation to access resources to begin with, leaving the impression they are incapable of ever cooperating with one another. Hobbes fails to clarify how the rational calculus of men change, as the fear of others who act to further their own interests, and impedes my own, is unaltered. Although a proponent of natural law, Hobbes acknowledges intrinsic human motivations overcome their ability to cooperate. Hobbes shoots himself in the foot, writing ‘for nothing is more easily broken than a man’s word’. Despite the obvious deterrent of punishment for renegers, it does not take away from the fact that society will yet again be rife with mistrust and diffidence, reminiscent of the anarchic state of nature. This begs the question, is it rational to submit one’s rights without concrete assurance that the same will be provided?
Moreover, Hobbes’ metric for refusing to follow a sovereign’s orders is if said order was threatening one’s self-preservation, in his own judgement. This shaky parameter represents a deep flaw in the functioning of Hobbes’ covenant, and a contradiction in his principle. Either individuals can actively decide to harm themselves, or sovereigns are not all-powerful entities? Moving past his principle, the fragile framework of exclusion poses a problem – for example, when collecting taxes to fund war, one could argue the reduction of their income is tantamount to injury or detrimental to their standard of living. One could claim conscientious objection to war, where paying tax would be mentally tormenting. This unsolved hierarchical question hinders the sovereign’s ability to exercise its power and protect people, as pain is in the eye of the beholder. Given the grey areas concerning this theory, individuals are at best, submitting to a volatile political authority which does not fully control its subjects. At worst, people might collectively denounce sovereign rule. If some are left without political obligations, the incentive to engage in lawless behaviour is intensified, following a lack of sovereign moral imperative to interfere. Wolff fills the void of political obligations with moral ones. Pufendorf goes further in mitigating the dangers of the natural state, reiterating the Hobbesian account of equality in nature – because men are equally proportioned, the harm we pose to each other is limited. However, the idea that men would always be in a state of war still holds water. Conclusively, the uncertainty associated with a weak sovereign is incomparable to the wider uncertainty in the ‘no holds barred’ state of nature. A world where some checks and balances exist, is preferable to the world where individuals are the makers of their own justice and gain – rationalising submission to the sovereign. This essay goes further to argue that even if we accept Hobbes’ absolute sovereign as a just, effective authority, complete submission is worse than the natural state. The reason being freedom, even if that freedom exposes one to significant harm, is an inherently desirable trait. This view is echoed by Locke, who argues royal absolutism is the greater evil. He hypothesizes the objective of humans entering covenants, whilst foregoing some liberties in the process, is to ultimately gain more liberty. This essay accepts Locke’s foretelling of the human psyche, agreeing it would be irrational to submit our liberties to an absolute entity.
This begs the question, does a perfect sovereign even exist to begin with? Hobbes has conceded the sovereign might not always be just, but is still largely representative of public opinion. Hampton contends, arguing that since the sovereign is embodied by the very people who Hobbes characterizes so pessimistically, tyranny could arise. As the supposed long-term benefits of moderate rule are not clearly greater than the benefits of tyrannical rule, the sovereign might engage in rent-seeking behaviour. Hobbes illustrates a benevolent sovereign, as its power depends on social acceptance. As Hobbes and Hampton take diametrically opposing views on the nature of this sovereign, the truth probably lies somewhere between both extremes. The sovereign, despite coming from mankind’s animalistic instincts, would have strong incentives to remain in a position of elevated power. This makes it reasonable to expect a satisfactory standard of care and fair rule – and this will be assumed for the sake of argument. Taking this into consideration, why is it still irrational to completely submit? It would not be rational to submit to an irreversible contract with ambiguous outcomes. Given Hobbes believes in unrestricted sovereign power, there is no recourse for one who feels he has been wronged. Hobbes posits good laws rectify bad ones, but such political change is often difficult to undertake. Justice rules more favourably for those blessed with deeper pockets and political capital. Whereas Locke would argue consent extracted by violence or the threat thereof would invalidate a contract, Hobbes responds that elements of commonwealth by acquisition are sufficient conditions for a valid covenant. The latter view is more persuasive, given the decision to opt into the covenant has to be made with the anarchic state of nature in mind. All decisions are made, to a certain extent, under duress and this is no exception. Given Hobbes accepts individuals must understand their promise to make it morally binding, this essay extends this logic to posit accepting the sovereign in any case would be a decision beyond comprehension. Individuals cannot consent to what they don’t know. In essence, entering a contract which makes all future contracts void, greatly diminishes an individual’s opportunities. Consent should, as much as possible, be transient because there is unique utility associated with the presence of choice. Should circumstances change, for the better or worse, it is the rational option for one to broaden his horizons so as to increase his ability to adapt to the infinite possibilities of life.