Hobbes' Benefits of a State

Hobbes' ideal state:
Absolute Monarchy --> Religious and military power and control over everything with no limits.
- Intimidating
- Frightening

Why would it be beneficial?
It is the only way to achieve civil society and cooperation.
Actions can still be voluntary under fear.
Everyone will seek peace and this will hold the system together.
Fear may even provide legitimacy.

When is it rational to revolt?
When chance of survival is worse than the SoN:
- Death  - War (ww1/2)

Attacking Hobbes' account

Do I accept the premisses and problems?

1)

• Are we really selfish? It depends on the situation. We might trust each other in a life and death situation because we know it's the only effective way of staying alive. 
• We don't know how we would act because we haven't experienced it. 
• The Game Theory shows trust and selflessness in people. 

C: Our continued existence would be secure.

However:

• The Game Theory doesn't apply because the players aren't in a SoN so  won't act like they would in a life and death situation.  

But! 

Although it would be easier to trust no one, we need socialisation to be sane because we are social animals.

C: Continued existence would be secure because we wouldn't kill, there would be no one to socialise with and no sense of living if so.

2) 

• Would there be morals? Would it be that "Anything goes"? Some people may have morals and would choose to not kill.
• It depends on whether we were born in or just changed to a SoN and Hobbes hasn't focused on this.

3) 

• Even the strongest person can be killed by a lower sneaky person.
• The Fight for Glory may not protect you after all.
• Some do not want ultimate power.

4)

• Some may decide to assign jobs and have long-term projects to have food, maybe form a state.
• After all, this is what Britain and the whole world has done! Converted into a state.

I disagree with all of the premisses and problems. I don't think he has looked clearly enough at how people would act in the SoN. 

Is the conclusion right?
Solitary? - Humans are social animals and we naturally need socialisation and a sense of belonging.
No cooperation? - We formed a state.
Rousseau - No one has experienced the SoN. Hobbes: Countries with no government. (Somalia).

Hobbes' State of Nature

Hobbes was an English political philosopher who lived during the civil war.

He claimed that the State of Nature (SoN) would be a "war of all against all".

He said there are 4 premisses that would cause problems in the SoN.

1. Everyone is a rational egoist (reason effectively & be selfish) ---> Can't guarantee your continued existence as there is no trust of others.
2. Human desires are never ending ---> Everyone is equal to satisfy desires so the SoN is a state of equality in the concept of power/strength.
3. Humans desire power ---> This would cause a Fight For Glory where everyone would try and prove they are the strongest and scariest by killing and fighting everyone else.
4. Humans have a natural right to self-preservation ---> This would cause violence to be permissible  in life and death situations and scarcity so they won't starve.

His conclusion:

Human psychology + conditions of SoN = constant state of war

Life would be "..solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".

• Solitary - Isolated from not trusting anyone
• Poor - No jobs/long-term projects/industries/income without a state
• Nasty & brutish - Violent
• Short - Short lives (killing and illnesses)

The State of Nature

What is it?
Human life in the absence of a state and authority.

Positives

• Freedom of choice
• No punishment
• Equality 
• No taxes

Negatives

• Fear
• Killing
• No healthcare
• No education

Intro to Why Should I be Governed?

A state - Set of institutions that claim authority over a certain area.
It holds parliament, military, police, public schools, the civil service etc.


Different forms of government:
Monarchy - Rule of one
Theocracy - Rule of a religious person
Technocracy - Rule of the experts
Democracy - Rule of the people

Sapir-Whorf Thesis: Conceptual Scheme

Different humans have different CS's. There are 2 parts to our experiences:
1) Sense data
2) Interpretation


Language influences our perception of the world.
Certain languages cannot be translated. (Tiv into English).
Conceptual Relativism - Different cultures have different realities. (Tiv have less understanding of colour).


Whorf
Different cultures interpret sense data differently.

Sapir 
Language limits our experience ('1984' by George Orwell explores this as a government invents a new vocabulary called 'Newspeak' that prevents people having bad thoughts about the government.

Kant and Sapir-Whorf
Similarities: We are born with CS
                    We need sense data for experience
Differences: (Kant) We all have the same interpretations
                    (S-W) We have different interpretations

Criticisms..

• Language doesn't lead to different perceptions - we still have the same ideas of sound, sight, emotions, colour etc.
• Languages can be translated, no matter how hard it may be.
• Empiricists are right after all? - CS learnt from language and culture (experience).
• There are ideas without language - emotions are ideas that require no language.

Verifiable synthetic a priori claims

1) We have a conceptual scheme -- Synthetic as it gives information on the human mind and a priori because it is vital for experience.

2 and 3) Objects we experience are located in a place and time -- Synthetic as it gives information about objects and a priori because without knowing this, we can't experience them. <-- REALLY?

My view:

• Can't prove that we have a CS.
• We can experience objects without knowing they exist because this is how babies gain knowledge of substance.