Before the social contract, people are in a state that Hobbes calls “a war of all against all.” These words are very often interpreted as if Hobbes were a simple evolutionist. Once upon a time, they say, there was a time when people fought and fought, got tired of fighting and began to unite. And when they united so as not to fight anymore, a state appeared. Hobbes supposedly argues this way.

Hobbes never reasoned like that. In his writings one can find direct indications that such reasoning would be absolutely wrong. Rather, everything looks completely different. It is not the war of all against all that is at the beginning of everything, but the social condition, the state of the people, is constantly fraught with war.

People, in principle, according to Hobbes, are quite hostile towards each other. Even in a peaceful, solidary state, when there is no war, when there is a state, people are such that they have to fear a neighbor, fear another person, rather than count on him being their friend. During war, as Hobbes says, “man is a wolf to man,” but in a state of peace man must be God to man. This, unfortunately, does not happen. We are afraid of another person, we lock the doors, we take weapons when leaving the house. When going on a trip, we stock up on security and so on. This wouldn't happen if we trusted another person.

Leviathan as a guarantor

leviathan philosophical hobbes scholasticism

This means that no normal life between people is possible as long as the contracts that they conclude among themselves are simply contracts based on trust, in the expectation that the other party will simply comply with the contract.

What is needed? Hobbes believes that we need a contract that cannot be broken. It is impossible to violate only such an agreement that has a guarantor. None of the parties to the agreement can be the guarantor of this agreement, because they are all the same, they are equally strong and equally weak. And since none of the participants can be a guarantor of the agreement, it means that this guarantor must appear from somewhere outside. But where will he get the strength, where will he get the rights to guarantee all other participants? How can it be? Only one way. They must agree that they give him a certain kind of rights during the contract and after that they cannot do anything to him.

Because he receives from them those rights that they no longer have, namely the right to death for violation of the contract.

And he combines in himself those powers that they are deprived of, combines in himself those rights that they alienate in his favor, and he becomes the one who says pacta sunt servanda, “treaties must be respected.” And from here everything else comes, all the other laws. This is how the sovereign appears.

And only the sovereign can make any law, only he can interpret any law, punish for breaking the law, appoint judges, appoint any executive power, all ministers, all officials, all controllers, absolutely everyone. Only the sovereign can determine which opinions are harmful in the state and which are useful. Only he can, with an authoritative decision, put an end to disputes that could end, say, in a civil war.

Through this, peace, quiet and security are established - the old formula of a police state. And although Hobbes does not talk about the police, he leads the conversation in that direction. He is a supporter of ensuring that peace, tranquility and order are established through a certain limitation of rights, freedoms and everything else. As for the rest, which does not threaten the existence of the state, people are absolutely free. They can engage in any type of activity, they can acquire property, they can enter into contracts among themselves, they can even profess any beliefs, but with one limitation: so that this does not harm the state.

This model is close to the model proposed by Hobbes. In his opinion, the source of the negative is nature (non-political social), and the carriers of the positive are institutions (political or civil society). For Hobbes, a person is a victim of passions that can be qualified as social to the extent that they are related to the relationships of people, although at the same time these passions are opposite to sociality, since people in their “natural state” are drawn into destructive super-conflict by passions. The state of nature is characterized primarily by the equality that reigns in it: all people are equal, because everyone, even the weakest, has enough strength to kill the strongest (by resorting to cunning or teaming up with others). But the equality of men in the state of nature also consists in the fact that they all, through experience, acquire caution and practical wisdom. This creates equality in skill and ability, as well as in the hope of achieving one's own goals.

From this follow three causes of war in human nature: rivalry, mistrust and love of glory; three types of aggressiveness associated with the desire for profit, security and fame.

Rivalry arises because people who want the same thing become enemies. In fact, if the aggressor has nothing to fear except the power of other people, if some plant, sow, build, live in convenient place It is likely that others, having united their forces, will try in every possible way not only to deprive them of their property and the fruits of their labor, but also to take away their life and freedom. Such an aggressor himself will become a likely victim of another aggression.

This is how the universal is born mistrust, for prudence requires proactive action to subjugate a sufficient number of people so that hostile forces are no longer in danger. However, in this way it is impossible to achieve a state of balance, since there are people who, in the pursuit of power, will be ready to cross the threshold of their own safety, and then others, in order to preserve themselves, must also increase their strength.

Finally, love of fame(pride) arises because in social life everyone wants others to respect him as much as he

PART I. Institute of Politics

respects himself; at the same time, in an effort to achieve recognition of his own importance, he may not stop before harming others.

Therefore, as long as people are not subject to a common power, they are naturally endowed with rights, but their natural rights come into many contradictions and because of this completely lose their effectiveness: everyone can appropriate to themselves what they want, but no one's property is guaranteed. In the absence of institutions that keep people in obedience, they are in a state of war of all against all (bellum omnium contra omnes), which impedes the development of technology, art, knowledge, and moreover, they find themselves in a position comparable to the position of American savages. And then “a person’s life is lonely, poor, hopeless, stupid and short-lived” (“Leviathan”, Chapter XIII). With the creation of civil society, commonwealth(single market), republics, states, people enter into an “agreement” among themselves, according to which everyone and everyone transfers part of their rights to different areas to the sovereign ruler (sovereign or assembly). Having limited themselves only to the necessary freedom, they renounce those of their rights that interfere with mutual peace, and then social life becomes politicized and, as a result, pacified. Institutionalized sovereignty (sovereignty not in the sense of a monarchy, but in the sense of the possession of supreme power) creates a political community: by mutual agreement it receives from the people the right to use the power and resources of all in the interests of peace and collective defense. A political “subject” emerges as a reasonable and rational person who uses these qualities to avoid a quasi-animal state and come to a full-fledged human life.

So, in contrast to Aristotle, Hobbes does not believe that man is a political animal, but believes that politics transforms an animal into a man: Rousseau asserts the same thing, believing, however, that the transition from a state of nature to a political state is a negative phenomenon, although it is inevitable and irreversible.

Let's see what the peculiarity of the next (after substantiating the equality) step of reasoning is. “From this equality of abilities arises an equality of hopes for achieving our ends. Therefore, if two people desire the same thing, which, however, they cannot both possess, they become enemies,” writes Hobbes. Consequently, thinkers of the 17th century. in fact, they were already conducting social research, conditioned by the logic of the problems they considered (problems of law, the relationship of people to each other, equality and freedom, human conflicts), in which socio-philosophical, socio-psychological and axiological considerations were actually intertwined. Although the philosophers of the 17th century, of course, did not have these terms, the methods of such research themselves already existed in embryo. It is no coincidence that the aspects of the doctrine of human nature under consideration were most carefully developed when they were included as an integral part in the philosophy of state and law. Creating a doctrine of the state and presenting it in the form of Leviathan, “artificial man,” Hobbes considered it necessary from the very beginning to consider “the material from which it is made, and its master, that is, man.” So, from the affirmation of natural equality, Hobbes moves on to the idea of ​​​​the ineradicability of the war of all against all. The harshness and, one might say, ruthlessness with which Hobbes formulated this thought repelled his contemporaries. But in fact, their agreement with Hobbes was profound: after all, all the major philosophers also believed that people “by nature” are more concerned about themselves than about the common good, they are more likely to enter into struggle than to refrain from conflict, and that orientation towards the good of other people it is necessary to specially educate the individual, resorting to the arguments of reason, to various government measures, etc.

For Hobbes, a state of peace and mutual assistance is unthinkable without a strong state. Locke, on the other hand, considers it permissible to conceive of a non-state and non-legal state of complete freedom and equality, nevertheless compatible with peace, good will, and mutual assistance of people. Hobbes's logic is determined by the reality of the history of society known to him, Locke's logic is determined by the desire for integrity and completeness of the ideal. Hobbes did not consider himself entitled to simply document the gap between the ideals of equality and freedom, supposedly corresponding to the “true” nature of man, and real life of people. He explored the problem more deeply, sharply, more radically than Locke. He understood the deviation of the ideal from reality as a fundamental and constant possibility arising from human nature itself. And in relation to the societies known to him, he did not sin against historical truth when he showed that people’s concern only for themselves was confirmed by their struggle with each other, the war of all against all.

Hobbes wanted to unambiguously connect the image of the war of all against all not so much with the past, but with the actual manifestations of social life and the behavior of individuals in his era. "Perhaps someone will think that such a time and such a war as those I have depicted never existed; and I do not think that they ever existed as a general rule throughout the world, but there are many places where people they live like this even now,” Hobbes writes and refers, for example, to the life of some tribes in America. But the rapprochement of the natural state and, consequently, the properties of human nature with the behavior of people during civil war and with the “continuous envy” in which “kings and persons vested with supreme power” remain towards each other.

Hobbes uses exaggerated " natural state"for a kind of humanistic-moral warning; he seems to be telling people: think about the consequences that would be inevitable if the only rule was for an individual to follow his own motives, if he did not take into account the welfare and interests of other people at all, if if social order, norms, restrictions did not exist at all. As a result, it turns out that this is a kind of “proof by contradiction” of the thesis of necessity. public association, a social contract, primarily for the individual, for his benefit. At the same time, Hobbes drew attention to another fact: despite the constant desire for the redistribution of property and power, people are forced to live in the same state, one way or another subject to state order and a variety of social relativity. Hobbes was interested in the natural causal logic of such a social world, albeit temporary and relative.

Man's desire for peace, i.e. to a harmonious, orderly life with other people, requires from him serious sacrifices and restrictions, which at times may seem overwhelming and impracticable. But the essence of the matter for Hobbes is the proclamation of the principle according to which the individual must renounce unlimited claims, because this makes a coordinated life of people impossible. From here he derives a law, a prescription of reason: Hobbes considers it necessary and reasonable, in the name of peace, to renounce even the primordial rights of human nature - from unconditional and absolute equality, from unlimited freedom. The main pathos of Hobbes's concept is to proclaim the necessity of peace (i.e., agreed life together people), rooted in human nature, both in his passions and in the dictates of his reason. The hypothetical and at the same time realistic image of the war of all against all also partly serves this purpose. Hobbes was often reproached for being a supporter of too tough and decisive state power. But we must not forget that he defended only the strong power of the state, based on law and reason.

"War of all against all" (“Bellum omnium contra omnes”). Used in moral philosophy since the time of the ancient sophists, the idea of ​​a state of society in which there is general permanent enmity and incessant mutual violence. In a softened form, the idea of ​​V.V.P.V. includes an uncontrolled increase in aggressiveness in society, leading to constant interhuman conflicts. At its core, V.V.P.V. is an ideal model of destructiveness and selfishness taken to the extreme, which, when projected onto reality, serves as the basis for historical interpretations, forecasts, moralistic reasoning and warnings. Its significance for ethical thought is determined by the purposes for which the impressive and very visual picture of the universal conflict is used.

The first paradigm of its use can be characterized as an attempt to deduce from the insoluble internal contradictions of the state of general war the origin, content and binding nature of moral (or moral-legal) norms. A similar attempt is made both in some theories of the social contract (including the concepts of an unspoken but instantaneous convention) and in evolutionary-genetic theories of the origin of morality. At the same time, theories that derive morality from any variant of V.V.P.V. can be divided into concepts that assume that such a state is the original state, and concepts for which V.V.P.V. is a negative result of development that requires compensation through the emergence of a moral and legal (or traditional moral) system.

The concept of T. Hobbes, who for the first time in the history of philosophical thought used the very formulation “V.V.P.V.” (analogue – “everyone’s war against their neighbors”), proceeds from the fact that this state is original (i.e. natural) for a person. This conclusion is made on the basis of a theoretical analysis of the passions and an empirical study of the shortcomings of the civil state. The formal condition for war is the equality of individuals’ abilities and natural law (“the right of all to everything”), and driving forces: rivalry - in attacks for profit, distrust - in preventive attacks, thirst for glory - in attacks for reasons of honor. V.V.F.W., according to Hobbes, is not a constant battle, but a series of episodes of struggle, interspersed with painful anticipation of blows from neighbors. Along with the strictly atomized picture of V.V.F.V. (the most ahistorical), Hobbes contains a description of the war of small families or hierarchically built alliances for mutual assistance. This somewhat changes the idea of ​​the enemy: he is not just everyone, but everyone whom I do not obey or whom I do not command. The theoretical significance of the concept of V.V.P.V. is that it is precisely its inconveniences that make a contractual decision on the creation of a Sovereign inevitable, and therefore the emergence of morality (or rather, a moral-legal system). After all, without fear-inspiring state power, morality, according to Hobbes, cannot exist at the normative level, and morality cannot exist in the form of some reality.

A similar model for using the image of V.V.F.V. exists in the Freudian concept of “moral progress” during the transition from the patriarchal horde to the fraternal clan, although only male, sexually mature individuals are participants in the war, and the subject of contention is limited to the area of ​​sexuality. Already in the horde the offensive of the local V.V.F.V. barely restrained by the strength of the leader and it inevitably arises in the event of his weakening or death. However, the greatest theoretical significance for interpreting the emergence of morality, according to Freud, is the situation after collective ancestral murder, when “in the struggle of all against all” a “new (fraternal) organization could perish.” The system of initial moral prohibitions (on incest and on the murder of one’s brother), based on some semblance of a social contract, becomes the only way escape mutual destruction.

The contractual model of the emergence of morality, which arises as a way of returning the fundamental features of the life system that preceded V.V.P.V., is present in J. J. Rousseau. A state of general war, which threatens the destruction of the human race, is important point in the contradictory process of replacing “instinct with justice.” V.V.P.V. Rousseau does not have a consequence of an absolutely separated state of individuals; on the contrary, it occurs with the emergence of a universal need for joint public life. Its cause is not natural equality, but the development of a system of social (property) stratification. The leading force of the “most terrible war” and the obstacle to the creation of defensive associations is envy of other people’s wealth, drowning out “natural (instinctive) compassion and the still weak voice of justice.”

Some modern evolutionary genetic concepts structurally reproduce the Rousseauian model. This applies to those theories that interpret morality as a mechanism for compensating for the weakening of biological (instinctive) regulatory levers mutual relations in groups (or within species) during the transition from animal to human. Thus, K. Lorenz describes the initial position of man as a creature devoid of a mechanism for inhibiting intraspecific aggression, excitable, with uncontrollable outbursts of rage, but suddenly receiving powerful tools attacks (weapons). In such a situation, intraspecific selection automatically turns into a softened expression of V.V.P.V., which is subsequently somewhat limited to the most simple forms"responsible morality". In a similar way, in the concept of Yu.M. Borodai, an “anthropogenetic impasse” is understood, generated by the aggravation of “tension of intra-herd relations” (up to the danger of mutual extermination of males) and resolved in the refusal of the direct implementation of egocentric instincts through the identification of oneself with another. A different reproduction of the same structure is present in concepts where morality in its universal and absolute form is the result of compensation for the isolation that arises during the collapse of tribal unity and leads to “the trampling of the norms of communication developed in an archaic society” (R.G. Apresyan) - a direct, albeit extremely relaxed parallel to V.V.P.V.

In the second paradigm, the idea of ​​V.V.P.V. are part of a morally oriented argument against revolutionary political movements that require a holistic rational restructuring of the system public institutions, based on considerations of fairness. The state of general war here becomes an inevitable moral correlate of radical socio-political transformations. Already Hobbes notes that any major uprising against the authorities automatically turns the people into a mass (multitudo), which leads to “chaos and V.V.P.V.” Therefore, the greatest excesses of oppression are “barely sensitive in comparison ... with the unbridled state of anarchy.” European conservatives con. XVIII century sharpen Hobbes's thought, believing that any violation of the organic, traditional public order leads to manifestations of V.V.P.V.: “asocial and anti-civil chaos”, the transition “into the antagonistic world of madness, vice, discord and senseless grief” (E. Burke) and even “a bloody mess” (J. de Maistre ). In later philosophical criticism of revolutions the same approach is retained.

The third paradigm for using the painting V.V.F.V. built into the general logic of criticism of the social order, focused on the embodiment of moral values. In this case, war, based on hedonistic or perfectionistic considerations, is understood as a more acceptable state for the individual than a moral restriction. Thus, in “Philosophy in the Boudoir” A.D.F. de Sade's state V.V.P.V. appears as one of the most desirable consequences of the desire for political freedom from a hedonistic point of view. The future of the French Republic, as described by de Sade, is similar to Hobbes's society, which finally realized the destructiveness of Leviathan and, enriched by the knowledge of the illusory nature of its promises associated with the fulfillment of the moral law, returned to the state of nature with its dangers and pleasures. F. Nietzsche, in contrast to de Sade, has a perfectionist perspective in mind when he characterizes the desire for universal peace, that is, a time “when there is nothing more to fear,” as an imperative of “herd cowardice” and a sign of the extreme degree of “fall and decay.” . Therefore, the call to war from “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” (section “On War and Warriors”) pursues a two-sided goal: it is both the overthrow of “present-day man” and the creation of that crucible in which a renewed man will be born (“across a thousand bridges and paths they strive to the future and let there be more war and inequality between them: this is what my great love"). General war, the search for the enemy and hatred of him acquire the status of self-sufficient values ​​for Nietzsche (“the good of war sanctifies every goal”).

A.V.Prokofiev

Literature:

• Burke E. Reflections on the revolution in France. M.: Rudomino, 1993.
• Boroday Yu.M. Erotica – death – taboo: the tragedy of human consciousness. M.: Gnosis. 1996 (second essay).
• Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the church and civil state // Ibid. T. 2.
• Hobbes T. About the citizen // Hobbes T. Op. in 2 volumes. M.: Mysl, 1991. T. 1.
• Lorenz K. Aggression (so-called evil). M.: Progress. 1994.
• Marquis de Sade. Philosophy in the boudoir. M.: MP Prominformo, 1992.
• Nietzsche F. On the other side of good and evil // Nietzsche F. Works in 2 volumes. M.: Thought. T. 1.
• Nietzsche F. Thus spoke Zarathustra // Ibid.
• Prokofiev A.V.“War of all against all // Ethics: encyclopedic Dictionary. M.: Gardariki, 2001.
• Rousseau J.J. On the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Law //

Most important in the learning process political and legal doctrines T. Hobbes has his socio-political views, which are contained in the works “On the Citizen”, “Leviathan”. T. Hobbes bases his philosophical system on a certain idea of ​​the nature of the individual. The starting point of his reasoning about the social order and the state is the “natural state of people.” This natural state is characterized by him “by the natural tendency of people to harm themselves mutually, which they derive from their passions, but most importantly, from the vanity of self-love, the right of everyone to everything.”

The philosopher believes that although initially all people are created equal in terms of physical and mental abilities, and each of them has the same “right to everything” as others, man is also a deeply selfish creature, overwhelmed by greed, fear and ambition. He is surrounded only by envious people, rivals, and enemies. “Man is a wolf to man.”

Therefore, the philosopher believes that in the very nature of people there are reasons for rivalry, mistrust and fear, which lead to hostile clashes and violent actions aimed at destroying or conquering others. Added to this is the desire for fame and differences of opinion, which also force people to resort to violence. Hence the fatal inevitability in society of “... a war of all against all, when everyone is controlled by his own mind and there is nothing that he cannot use as a means of salvation from his enemies”

To have the “right to everything” in the conditions of such a war means “... to have the right to everything, even to the life of every other person.” In this war, according to Hobbes, there can be no winners; it expresses a situation in which everyone is threatened by everyone - “... while the right of everyone to everything remains, not a single person (no matter how strong or wise he may be) can be sure that that he can live all the time that nature usually provides for human life.” During such a war, people use sophisticated violence to subjugate others or in self-defense.

One way or another, but “... people are naturally susceptible to greed, fear, anger and other animal passions,” they seek “honor and benefits,” act “for the sake of benefit or glory, i.e. for the sake of love for oneself, and not for others,” therefore everyone is the enemy of everyone, relying in life only on own strength and dexterity, resourcefulness and ingenuity. Thus, egoism is declared to be the main stimulus of human activity.

But Hobbes does not condemn people for their selfish tendencies, nor does he believe that they are evil by nature. After all, it is not the desires of people themselves that are evil, the philosopher points out, but only the results of actions arising from these desires. And even then only when these actions cause harm to other people. In addition, it must be taken into account that people “by nature are deprived of education and are not trained to obey reason.”

It is about the state of general war and confrontation that Hobbes writes as “the natural state of the human race” and interprets it as the absence of civil society, i.e. government organization, state legal regulation of people's lives. In a word, in a society where there is no state organization and management, arbitrariness and lawlessness reign, “and a person’s life is lonely, poor, hopeless, stupid and short-lived.”

However, in the nature of people, according to Hobbes, there are not only forces that plunge individuals into the abyss of a “war of all against all,” people long to get out of this pathetic state, strive to create guarantees of peace and security. After all, man inherently has properties of a completely different plane; they are such as to induce individuals to find a way out of such a disastrous state of nature. First of all, it is the fear of death and the instinct of self-preservation, which dominates other passions “... the desire for things necessary for a good life, and the hope of acquiring them through hard work.” Together with them comes natural reason, or natural law, i.e. everyone's ability to reason sensibly about positive and negative consequences

of your actions. Natural law is a prescription of human reason. According to Hobbes, natural laws come from human nature itself and are divine only in the sense that reason is “given to every man by God as the standard of his actions,” and moral institutions Holy Scripture

Therefore, the first part of the basic natural law deduced by the philosopher says: one should seek peace and follow it. The second part is the content of natural law, which boils down to the right to defend oneself by all possible means. From the fundamental law, Hobbes deduces the remaining natural laws. The most important among them is the renunciation of everyone’s rights to the extent required by the interests of peace and self-defense (the second natural law), and the renunciation of the right to resist violence and attempts to deprive them of freedom. The renunciation of a right is accomplished according to Hobbes, either by simple renunciation of it, or by transferring it to another person. But not all human rights can be alienated - a person cannot give up the right to defend his life and resist those who attack him. You cannot demand to be sent to prison, etc. The mutual transfer of rights is carried out by people in the form of an agreement - “A contract is the action of two or many persons transferring their rights to each other.” When a contract is made regarding something that relates to the future, it is called an agreement. Agreements can be concluded by people, both under the influence of fear and voluntarily.

The third law follows from the second natural law: people are obliged to fulfill the agreements they make, otherwise the latter will have no meaning. The third natural law contains the source and beginning of justice.

In Leviathan, Hobbes, in addition to the three indicated, indicated 16 more natural (unchangeable and eternal) laws. Most of them are in the nature of requirements or prohibitions: to be fair, merciful, compliant, unforgiving, impartial and at the same time not to be cruel, vindictive, arrogant, treacherous, etc.

Thus, we can draw the following conclusion. T. Hobbes based his teaching on the study of nature and human passions. Hobbes's opinion about these passions and nature is extremely pessimistic: people are characterized by rivalry, mistrust (the desire for security), and a love of glory. These passions make people enemies. Therefore, in the state of nature, people are in a state of war of all against all. But this natural state can be overcome thanks to the presence of natural reason, a natural law that makes you think about the consequences of your actions and regulate your behavior. Hobbes reduces all natural laws to one general rule, subsequently voiced in the categorical imperative of I. Kant, which consists of refusing to do to other people what you do not want to be done to you.