Hobbes and Kant Philosophy Essay Example
‘Both Hobbes’s & Kant’s theories of the state and its law are unsuitable in contemporary conditions of reasonable pluralism.’ Discuss.
(Timed Essay in exam conditions – 1 hour)
According to Rawls we currently live in a condition of reasonable pluralism, which means that there are many different comprehensive doctrines (those which explain the meaning of life, how life should be lived etc) subscribed to within the societies. Rawls argues that this means in order to have a theory of the state and law that fits this model, it must be neutral so all the citizens would agree with it regardless of what doctrine they subscribe to. The quote indicates that Hobbes’s and Kant’s theories of state and law do not do this and are therefore not suitable for these pluralistic conditions. I will consider both Hobbes’s and Kant’s theories in order to assess whether this is the case, but I will also consider the account given by Rawls to see if he manages to develop a theory that is more suited to contemporary conditions.
Hobbes’s theory begins with the foundational assumption that we are all reasonable and rational beings and are empirically free and equal. For Hobbes freedom is a negative freedom as it means freedom from external constraints e.g. the law and equal in the sense that neither would be guaranteed to win in a battle due to equality of strength or cleverness which balances itself out. He suggests that if left to our own devices we would regress into a state of nature due to quarrels regarding competition, diffidence and reputation. The state of nature is a war of all men against all men as everyone has a right to everything. There are many laws of nature, three of the main ones being that we seek peace, we want to enjoy things and that agreements we make are kept. According to Hobbes as rational people we would see that it is reasonable to exit the state of nature and enter a civil condition in order to avoid attack and be able to live without the fear, so to
(Timed Essay in exam conditions – 1 hour)
According to Rawls we currently live in a condition of reasonable pluralism, which means that there are many different comprehensive doctrines (those which explain the meaning of life, how life should be lived etc) subscribed to within the societies. Rawls argues that this means in order to have a theory of the state and law that fits this model, it must be neutral so all the citizens would agree with it regardless of what doctrine they subscribe to. The quote indicates that Hobbes’s and Kant’s theories of state and law do not do this and are therefore not suitable for these pluralistic conditions. I will consider both Hobbes’s and Kant’s theories in order to assess whether this is the case, but I will also consider the account given by Rawls to see if he manages to develop a theory that is more suited to contemporary conditions.
Hobbes’s theory begins with the foundational assumption that we are all reasonable and rational beings and are empirically free and equal. For Hobbes freedom is a negative freedom as it means freedom from external constraints e.g. the law and equal in the sense that neither would be guaranteed to win in a battle due to equality of strength or cleverness which balances itself out. He suggests that if left to our own devices we would regress into a state of nature due to quarrels regarding competition, diffidence and reputation. The state of nature is a war of all men against all men as everyone has a right to everything. There are many laws of nature, three of the main ones being that we seek peace, we want to enjoy things and that agreements we make are kept. According to Hobbes as rational people we would see that it is reasonable to exit the state of nature and enter a civil condition in order to avoid attack and be able to live without the fear, so to