Thursday, February 25, 2010

Natural Law

In thinking about the question "Does natural law exist," I looked at what Hobbes had to say in the sections we've addressed so far about how to justify or prove to people that natural law does in fact exist. I have found myself unconvinced, at least as it relates to Hobbes, that it is the nature of humans to always protect their lives, as we discussed in class. From the impression I got, Hobbes seems to think that humans always act to best defend their basic existence. This cannot be true, because there are many times where people risk their lives. Does this nature of man to protect his life, instead, only work when humans are acting rationally? Humans do not necessarily always act rationally, for that matter. There are emotional connections occasionally unrelated to any sort of real rationality that cause us to make decisions. Hobbes says "all the voluntary actions of men tend to the benefit of themselves, and those actions are most reasonable that conduce most to their ends" (Ch. XV, Par 4). Do they always though? For example, if (hypothetically..) I drink to the point of drunkenness, I will most likely continue to consume alcohol, and will at this point take other actions that are not necessarily beneficial to me. This could be argued against, on the other hand, by someone saying that since I am in an altered state of mind, I am not what Hobbes means by "men." So is there natural law? In the sense that Hobbes discusses, I am yet unconvinced.

3 comments:

  1. In defense of Hobbes, I suspect it reasonable to say that most of the examples one finds of humans acting irrationally either happen in a commonwealth (when a man has reason to be he safe [or safer, anyway]) rather than in the natural state of man, or man is not using his reason, as in the drunkenness example.

    I wonder if a woman who stays in an abusive relationship at the risk of her life is a good example of one using reason, risking her life, and not appealing to the laws of the commonwealth. Maybe she too is in an altered state of mind. Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The woman who is truly at risk of losing her life and doesn't leave the relationship is not using reason, if she can reasonably escape. Hobbes says that reason is the figuring of outcomes, either from definitions or after applying science to actual events (Ch. 5). He also says that all people do what is best for preserving their life (Ch. 14 sec. 3). If the woman can leave and doesn't she is being irrational. If she will be killed when she leaves, it is rational for her to stay if her survival probability is better at home. This is assuming the man is completely irrational and ignores the laws of the common wealth.

    So it seems that Hobbes can account for this. Perhaps I have overlooked something though?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Mr. York. The woman is behaving irrationally if she can escape and chooses not to. If for some reason life outside the relationship would be detrimental to her then perhaps she is acting rationally. But, barring this situation, she should escape. I do believe that in most cases of abusive relationships the abused is under an illusion that they are being protected from some sort of harm. That is, they believe that they probably would be worse off outside the relationship. This illusion causes them to act irrationally, which is to say that if the woman were to become aware of such an illusion, she would then be able to act rationally and would accordingly choose to end the relationship. She would be acting in accordance with the natural law.

    ReplyDelete