After reflecting on our earlier discussion, I realized that even love is insufficient to overturn Hobbes' estimation of human selfishness. For if it were true that human nature had in it a propensity to love, or care for the needs of others, there is not one relationship that does not have some sort of benefit for the lover.
Starting at the least intense love, the love between friends, it is easy for Hobbes to say that there is no love at all; instead, the "love" of friendship is just a mutual enjoyment of protection. If we define friendship as between two equals, Hobbes has already ruled that out; those friends will quarrel over their shared object of desire. If we instead say that people who are unequal are friends, Hobbes has two ready objections. First, no two people are really very unequal in capabilities, so he could dismiss proposing that any two people are unequal in strength or wit in the first place. Second, those unequal in power will surely be incapable of loving each other. The feeble one only cares for the more powerful insomuch as some protection is provided. And the more powerful one would only care for the weaker one's willingness to do his bidding.
Even love in family is not pure. Hobbes could argue that a father only "loves" his son because he has ownership over him; having a son gives a father someone to have power over. A mother's love seems more difficult to overcome, but not impossible. Her child was actually part of her body; she does not love the son for his own sake, she loves him only because he once was a part of her.
So in the end, is there any way for relationships to be unselfish? If not, is that a problem, or does it just strike us as cold?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One wonders if Hobbes himself had a troubled family life or romantic history.
ReplyDeleteHobbes seems like he would be a really good dad to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree Mr. Price that it is hard to see a ground for genuine friendship and love, like virtue in Aristotle, because nothing is worth doing for its own sake except possibly survival/avoiding death. Everything is worth doing for the sake of survival, making it the sovereign passion in our lives. Our survival is always our own over others and thus we are, at bottom, selfish.
Another way to put this: for Socrates there is a life worse than death: slavery (or becoming a tyrant). For Hobbes there isn't. If there is a kind of life worse than death, then we would die for a life worth living or die to avoid an inhuman or unjust life. Thus we could choose love (which might make life worth living) over survival (which might lead to a base life). Maybe?
Confronted by Hobbes, one is, as Mr. Prince says, struck with a chilling feeling. He reduces us to survival machines. Our intuitions flare and we begin to reject him. But I think that putting the question as Mr. Davis has put it ( Would we choose love over survival?) calms our intuitions and allows us to approach the question rationally-- indifferently. At this point one may expect my answer to such a question. Unfortunately (to give what will be perceived as a base answer) I have not experience such a love that I would rather die than live without.
ReplyDeleteWhat about other life enriching things? I think (even if it serves no other purpose other than providing insight into the souls of the class) it would be interesting to hear from others on this.