POL2108 A Prof.

Sophie Bourgault

Matthew MacNeil 4582829

Fear is the Mother of Morality

English philosopher Thomas Hobbes is best known for his social and political thought; his moral account of the world is of particular concern here because it continues to be relevant to contemporary politics and society at large. Hobbes main concerns are social and political issues about how human beings can achieve peace, together avoiding the dangers and fear implicit, says Hobbes, in returning to the state of nature. Hobbes solution, what he refers to as a commonwealth, is that we should give up our natural rights, offering them and our obedience to an unaccountable sovereign power (a person or group of people who are empowered to decide every social and political issue) and if we do not, as Hobbes says, men [who] live without a common power to keep them all in awe (in check), [will be] in that condition which is called war, and such a war is of every man against every man. (Leviathan, CH 13. Pg. 106) Therefore, Hobbess greatest fear was social and political chaos of which he had many opportunities to observe and also suffer its effects during Englands civil wars.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) believed that human morality was a result of fear; he seems to mean we are fearful of the non-rational faculties that come from or are connected to the drives or passions of the human body. As such, because people are born in this world not equal - people differ in their mental and physical abilities - some develop a fear of life. This fear of life, in Nietzsches opinion, develops from the many uncertainties of life, personal sufferings, and the finality of life that is found in death. This fear of life that Nietzsche talks about drives people to seek refuge in moral ideas and imaginary concepts like heaven and hell, trying to find peace and security from all the ailments that confront them in reality. Hobbes view of human nature strikes a familiar chord with that of Nietzsches, albeit less pessimistic, and ultimately, although they have different accounts of what morality is and its effects on humanity, it seems Hobbes would agree that, because of fear (of violent death that is everywhere in the state of nature) we establish a social morality and political system to protect peace and personal security. To Nietzsche, people do this either naively, by imagining other scenarios in which people somehow continue to exist in the way they do in this world, only more reasonably, or they do it in more sophisticated ways, the ways the ancients like Plato or other teachers (spiritual and/or religious) of a moral life recommend. However, in trying to escape the imperfections of the physical world by establishing moral prescriptions, thereby maximizing the liberties and freedoms of the fearful many, their retreat is always a manifestation of weakness, an inability to face reality in the way strong individuals would. Using the context of Hobbes thought experiment of the state of nature we will examine his moral philosophy by laying out how this fear works in establishing a need for social and political morality and discuss its origins. Nietzsche believed that strong persons would not only take suffering and other

adversities in stride, they would in a sense even welcome them as inevitable aspects of life. Therefore, Nietzsche proclaims in Beyond Good and Evil that, fear is the mother of morality (Beyond Good and Evil, pg. 115). While Hobbes would agree that the issue of fear in nature is at the root of the issue of social morality, he would assert that rational individuals trying to avoid suffering and adversities should establish laws of reason to help them escape the warlike state of nature.

In Hobbes, the origin of social and political obligation comes from human rationality; people learn to recognize that the pursuant of power in the state of nature is self-defeating. That pursuit power is self-defeating because we all fear death and as such we all seek power to avoid it. Power, as it is treated in Leviathan, is our need to secure a commodious life (things like friends, money, reputable status, etc.). For Hobbes, the desire for self preservation and our fundamental fear of death would best be served by coming together and establishing a common way of life, one that guarantees us peace and security. In other words, the masses, afraid for their possessions and of the threat of violent death in the pursuit of power, should make use of their powers of rationality to realize the laws of nature, which are understood as a set of rules promoting self preservation. The first of these two important laws regarding morality is:

Every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it, and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. (Leviathan, CH. 14. Pg. 110).

In other words, we should be looking for peaceful means of survival but when and if there is no hope, anything and everything is permitted because there is no right or wrong in the state of nature. The second of the two laws that we are concerned with is:

That a man be willing, when others are so too, as far-forth as for peace and defense of himself 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 himself. (Leviathan, CH. 14. Pg. 110).

This second law means as long as the peace and personal security are concerned we should find it necessary to submit our right of nature, a right to all things, and content ourselves with a form of liberty where every man is equal. Therefore, as long as human beings have natural rights to everything there are no just or unjust actions because there is no judge of such things in the state of nature the natural state of war will continue determining their fate.

So, where possible, humans should exercise reason so to seek and protect peace. Hobbes continues, adding that in seeking peace as an end, each person should willingly relinquish their right to all things when others are willing to reciprocate. Everyone mutually renouncing their natural right to everything, to Hobbes, means the establishment of the social contract whereby nobody resists the commands of the person or group of people recognized as making up the sovereign, to whom the people grant absolute power with regard to social and political issues. Framing the issue is a large part of Hobbes social theory; we have a picture where the state of nature is dangerous because everyone can lay claim to everything, for the procurement of peace and safety of their person, which is dangerous because our judgments tend to be distorted by self-interest; we are guided by the pleasures and pains of the moment. Hobbes had little faith in human moral judgment; we may share the same desires/passions, but we all experience the world differently and we are all inclined to use our personal beliefs and feelings as measures of reality, as is exemplified in Hobbes statement that, men vehemently in love with their own new opinions, never absurd, and obstinately bent to maintain them, [give] their opinions also that reverenced name of conscience. (Leviathan, CH. 7. Pg. 63) Therefore, it is in everybodys best interest to find a way out of this situation right? Fear of violent death, as a result of irrational self-interest requires us to find a way to establish a moral order that relieves us from the brutish state of nature.

Hobbes frames the issue of moral obligation in terms of the social covenant/contract with the commonwealth but what becomes clear is Hobbes account of why and how we enter into the social contract is rational self-interest; in the desire for peace and safety, we find the basis for Hobbes theory of morality.

First consider Hobbes two laws of nature outlined above in the context of a moral framework; the laws of nature can at once understood as laws of reason; we must overcome the irrational impulse to self-preservation in the warlike state of nature by using these laws of reason to seek out peace, by each person giving up their right to everything in nature. These laws of reason are nothing more than a set of rules, establishing everybody under the sovereign as equal and according to which any rational person should choose to pursue his or her own advantage as long as he or she were able to overcome their irrational impulses. Second, the laws of nature/reason inform a rational construction of society. Finally, in connecting Hobbes account of the fear of violent death in the warlike state of nature to the longing for peace and security, we justify the laws of nature/reason as rational principles of social morality. Therefore, Hobbes account of fear is the root cause of the emergence of social morality; because we are untrustworthy in our ability to judge what is good for us we need moral precepts whose ends are directed at social and political peace and security to guide our actions and to keep us out of the darkness that is the state of nature.

Although their moral philosophies differ in just about every meaningful way, regarding the topic of human nature, Hobbes and Nietzsches tend towards the same view, both holding a pessimistic view of human nature. Also, Hobbes and Nietzsche would agree

that violence in the state of nature is inescapable and the resultant fear in that state of nature is the cause of conventional social morality. However, on the merits of morality, Nietzsche and Hobbes would not see eye to eye.

Bibliography Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Vintage, 1989), 115-117 Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan: Parts I and II. Trans. The Library of Liberal Arts. The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1958.