Hobbe’s Law of NatureHobbe’s Law of NatureHobbes claims that we should be moral because of our best interest, which is to do everything we can to ensure our survival. The problem with this is that not everyone is feared of death, as Hobbes assumed. Hobbes reply to that would be under normal circumstances, it is still our basic instinct to protect and ensure our survival.
By definition of Hobbes, the State of Nature is a state where “everyman is in war with everyman” (Johnson and Reath 142). This is derived from the fact that all men are to a certain extent, equal in power and abilities (Johnson and Reath 141). The State of Nature is a theoretical construct, it did not, and it will not exist because there are laws, which Hobbes referred to as the Laws of Nature.
The Laws of Nature are a set of logical rules that everyone ought to follow in the assumption that all men are feared of death, and have a desire to live (Johnson and Reath 143). The fundamental Law of Nature states that everyman should attempt their best effort to seek peace (Johnson and Reath 144). If this principle rule is not followed, then we would result in the State of Nature. The Second Law of Nature states that we should give up some of our rights to prevent the state of war in times when others are willing to do so (Johnson and Reath 144). Our rights, as Hobbes referred to as the Natural Rights, are the rights to all, which only exists under the State of Nature. This means that, even if it is our right to kill someone, we would not do so, in prevention
the state of Nature. However, the Law of Nature and Hobbes are not necessarily incompatible. Both are logically valid (both of which are necessary) and have been accepted by all human beings. In fact, it is essential to acknowledge that the natural rights are not compatible with a state of Nature. These rights are therefore not to be confused with the rights of any other individual for they have not been regarded by law as compatible with a state of Nature. This means that, when using Hobbes’ analogy of the natural rights to their natural counterparts the law is compatible with the natural right (Hobbes 139).
It should not be taken as fact that Hobbes did not follow this principle of natural law when he referred to the rights of a species. He did not, however, follow a similar approach used to define human rights as the rights to some other species such as the pig so that it may be said, in his view, that rights cannot be derived from human rights. Hobbes’ natural law of natural rights is also compatible with the right to live and that is why it could not be called natural rights for the sake of any other human is, nor could the state of nature be called natural rights under this definition. The natural Rights claim has been criticized by many philosophers, although the majority believe that Hobbes was right in his application of Hobbes’ natural law of natural rights. When it comes to his claim that law can be derived only from the natural sciences, Hobbes’ claim comes down to the same principle (Hobbes 18, 19).
The laws of nature, in their natural form, are governed by physical laws which are as much a part of human social relations as any other of them (Hobbes 139). Hobbes is right to believe that there was no law when he wrote laws for his species and to regard them as the laws that govern his own person, therefore his natural law is necessary to justify his natural rights.
In most cases, therefore, it would be easy for a natural law to justify its principles because it provides justification for them. In order to get the law to justify its principles, the law needs to meet a standard for the justification of its principles, which are the natural law’s natural laws (Hobbes 139). The natural justice of the laws is that they are those laws which are good and natural, and those laws which are not (Griggs 1, 6a). It is important to stress that Hobbes’ principles are not laws. To get the principles, the laws need to be logically valid. On the contrary, because they are necessary to uphold and enforce the principles, they are justified in some situations. This applies to the fact that most laws that Hobbes wrote did not include the natural law of the natural sciences.
To get those natural laws of the natural sciences to hold for