Alex Knepper on the Founders, Hobbes & Locke
He posted this
to Facebook.
Becky Chandler
posted something to the effect that our Founders, though devoted
Lockeans, were not influenced by Hobbes. This is false, because
Lockeanism is a variant of Hobbesianism, but this requires a
somewhat-lengthy explanation. This is most certainly a 'Straussian'
account, but I have yet to see a convincing rebuttal:
Thucydides
teaches us in the Melian Dialogue that legalistic justice originates
between competitors of approximately equal strength; that when there is
inequality between competing forces, there is only domination by the
strong and submission on the part of the weak. Greco-Roman politics was
defined by a relatively rigid -- though not ironclad -- social
hierarchy, held in place by an understanding that certain types of
people are by nature fit to rule over others. Democracy came into being
in Greece when the myth of the 'great chain of being' became
unbelievable -- the ancient parallel to the 'death of God' -- which
untethered 'eros' and eventually led to the dissolution of antiquity.
Modern philosophers, starting with Machiavelli, sought to conceive of a
new, more stable vision of justice -- one to replace the
chain-of-being/hierarchy myth -- based on that which is common to all
men. If we can conceive of a new vision and spin a 'rational mythology,'
then we can reboot Western civilization, 'liberate it from the
barbarians [Christians],' and avoid a repeat of the collapse of
antiquity and the tragic thousand-year-reign of Christendom, which
'turned Europe into another appendage of Asia.' Hobbes knew his
Thucydides -- as Nietzsche says: to be untimely is to know the Greeks --
and recognized that In order for there to be enduring justice among all
people, they must be convinced of their essential equality. Anything
else will result in another unstable hierarchy. In Hobbes we find the
rational mythology called for (to those who had ears to hear) by
Machiavelli -- the roots of materialism, egalitarianism, secularism, and
natural rights doctrines, based on what Hobbes insisted was a purely
technical account sufficient to cover the sweep of human experience.
These planks of the liberal doctrine are designed to neutralize that
which makes men distinct from one another -- especially religious
belief, but also physical (and yes, even mental) strength, and ancestry.
But most of all, what unites us is our common fear of death and our
craving for security and safety. If we are all equal, then none of us
stands any better chance than anyone else of surviving against the other
-- so let's agree to pursue justice together rather than attempt to
dominate one another. Hobbes was much-persecuted in his native Britain,
though, and had to cloak his brutal attack against Christendom as a
defense of monarchy.
When a little more time had passed and
attitudes toward the Church continued to soften, Locke came along:
Lockeanism is practical, humane Hobbesianism -- *democratic*
Hobbesianism. But Hobbes himself knew his face-value doctrine was
inhumane -- he simply had no choice but to cater to those in power if he
wanted to avoid persecution. Hobbes would have undoubtedly approved of
Locke -- and would have fully recognized himself in the Constitution and
the Declaration of Independence.
1 comment:
The problem with invoking the Straussians is that even if they're correct, that's not how the Founders understood Hobbes and Locke. Here Alexander Hamilton disparages the former and puts the latter solidly in the natural law camp [a subject on which he is equivocal if not self-contradictory].
The first thing that presents itself is a wish, that “I had, explicitly, declared to the public my ideas of the natural rights of mankind. Man, in a state of nature (you say) may be considered, as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, and, then, the weak must submit to the strong.”
I shall, henceforth, begin to make some allowance for that enmity, you have discovered to the natural rights of mankind. For, though ignorance of them in this enlightened age cannot be admitted, as a sufficient excuse for you; yet, it ought, in some measure, to extenuate your guilt. If you will follow my advice, there still may be hopes of your reformation. Apply yourself, without delay, to the study of the law of nature. I would recommend to your perusal, Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui. I might mention other excellent writers on this subject; but if you attend, diligently, to these, you will not require any others.
There is so strong a similitude between your political principles and those maintained by Mr. Hobb[e]s, that, in judging from them, a person might very easily mistake you for a disciple of his. His opinion was, exactly, coincident with yours, relative to man in a state of nature. He held, as you do, that he was, then, perfectly free from all restraint of law and government. Moral obligation, according to him, is derived from the introduction of civil society; and there is no virtue, but what is purely artificial, the mere contrivance of politicians, for the maintenance of social intercourse. But the reason he run into this absurd and impious doctrine, was, that he disbelieved the existence of an intelligent superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge of the universe.
Post a Comment