I normally refrain from talking about "politics", but obviously philosophy is closely related to the political sciences and theories, and most importantly this is a more than worthy cause. So, today's Special Edition blog about "Conflict and Bloodshed" will bear the Ukrainian flag and landscape proudly. Like once the French said, now about the Ukrainians: "Viva La Ukraine", and #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦.
I will proudly denounce the evil clowns and jubilantly announce: "Stop Putin, Stop War"!
War, Conflict and Bloodshed - Part I
Why is there always conflict? Ranging from our everyday conflicts, our inner battles, viz., our psychological battles; the superficialities, e.g. what clothes do I put on; to social, societal, and political issues, i.e. arguing with a friend, political debates on values, societal class struggles (aka Marx's revolution); it all eventually leading to an ultimate: war. But why does any of these have to lead to what is ultimately our demise, if that is what fate (or God) has got planned for us (Nietzsche, oh I wish, amor fati we could love right now). Why are there any conflicts at all in the first place? Can we not get along? Or is conflict something we crave, is the so-called bloodshed in our blood? Is War, Conflict and Bloodshed, the never-ending man-made fatality - or is it just simply human nature?
To arrive at a more precise conclusion that this important topic duly deserves, I have separated the blog into three parts. In Part I, I will arrive at the concept of War, Conflict and Bloodshed, from a Hobbesian standpoint, that is, it is in our nature. Mainly, conflict concerns something that is inbred in us, in our blood - and precisely it is just what human self-preservation is, our state of nature. (Meanwhile in Part II, a thorough analysis from Rousseau's perspective; there would be no universal war, yet greed has developed in Man, perhaps it all is a man-made creation, the conflict that is. And the most radical view of them all will be in Part III, where an inquiry will be made into three specific concepts; "Love conquers all", Kant's perpetual peace as a transcendental, and lastly Nietzsche's eternal resurrection as a potential reason for conflict.)
Hobbes writes in De Cive about the concept of "Bellum omnium contra omnes", and in Leviathan describes it as "the war of all against all". The concept is a thought experiment demonstrating that in a world without order, a Power, a "sovereign", who balances the state, all men would be in a constant state of war against each other, because our state of nature is self-preservation, that is, making sure whatever it takes that we individually survive, that we attain to what is individually and personally good.
Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called War; and such a war as is of every man against every man. [...] In such condition there is no place for Industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual Fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. ― Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
There come the shocking, devastating, and brutally honest words that would for long after Hobbes's lifetime describe human nature, that is, as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Luckily today we have generally a way more civilized life than back then. Mostly, Man is no longer solitary, if we do not desire so, we live nowadays in big cities, metro- and megapolis' - but whether or not we are solitary inside is a different question. Neither is our life short, compared to the previous centuries and decades. We live longer and longer. Neither is the world as poor as it once was. And we are no longer the brutish animals living in the woods. But if we are nasty or brutish is really a question of who you ask and in what kind of mood the answerer is in. The Russia-Ukrainian conflict (really Russian offensive) is one further example that we can be all that Hobbes describes - even without our state of nature, mainly even if we have a sovereign, and especially one which by Hobbes's description is nothing less than a despot. That brings us to the next point.
Hobbes further argued that the mere concept of accepting someone to rule over us, or more appropriately "defend" and "guarantee" would not be enough. We would need to create or go along a hypothetical "social contract". Something that fellow philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau would also touch upon, and later on the 20th-century philosopher John Rawls. Hobbes's social contract would mean that men would agree on ceding some of their natural rights, individual rights, and giving power to a sovereign who would rule and bring order, thus avoiding the war of all against all.
Hobbes attempts to prove that it would be convenient for all, or at least most men to participate in a commonwealth formed by the social contract to have a common power to rule over all, "to keep things in order", that is so that men are not in a condition of constant war. After all, the difference between a man, and another man is not that great. Mainly, Hobbes divides reasons into three categories: a man's mind cannot singlehandedly be greater and quicker than all others; no man is so strong that even the weakest cannot conspire to kill him; all men die. Therefore, it would seem that men are rather equal, in other words, almost equal. Further, we see ourselves at first hand, seems we are even closer to equal. And there is not anywhere a more equal distribution of anything, then in men being content with what they have.
In addition to the so-called social contract (which actually forms from the following), there is another thing men must agree on (according to Hobbes), that is, about the natural laws. Natural laws are common rules that all men would agree on with reason. In other words, it would be more than reasonable and favorable for every man to agree on them. Here are all the nineteen natural laws according to Hobbes (from Chapter 14 and 15 in Leviathan):
The first law of nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.
The second law of nature is that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth, as for peace, and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself.
The third law is that men perform their covenants made. In this law of nature consisteth the fountain and original of justice... when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust and the definition of injustice is no other than the not performance of covenant. And whatsoever is not unjust is just.
The fourth law is that a man which receiveth benefit from another of mere grace, endeavour that he which giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will. Breach of this law is called ingratitude.
The fifth law is complaisance: that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. The observers of this law may be called sociable; the contrary, stubborn, insociable, forward, intractable.
The sixth law is that upon caution of the future time, a man ought to pardon the offences past of them that repenting, desire it.
The seventh law is that in revenges, men look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow.
The eighth law is that no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another. The breach of which law is commonly called contumely.
The ninth law is that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride.
The tenth law is that at the entrance into the conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest. The breach of this precept is arrogance, and observers of the precept are called modest.
The eleventh law is that if a man be trusted to judge between man and man, that he deal equally between them.
The twelfth law is that such things as cannot be divided, be enjoyed in common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the thing permit, without stint; otherwise proportionably to the number of them that have right.
The thirteenth law is the entire right, or else...the first possession (in the case of alternating use), of a thing that can neither be divided nor enjoyed in common should be determined by lottery.
The fourteenth law is that those things which cannot be enjoyed in common, nor divided, ought to be adjudged to the first possessor; and in some cases to the first born, as acquired by lot.
The fifteenth law is that all men that mediate peace be allowed safe conduct.
The sixteenth law is that they that are at controversie, submit their Right to the judgement of an Arbitrator.
The seventeenth law is that no man is a fit Arbitrator in his own cause.
The eighteenth law is that no man should serve as a judge in a case if greater profit, or honour, or pleasure apparently ariseth [for him] out of the victory of one party, than of the other.
The nineteenth law is that in a disagreement of fact, the judge should not give more weight to the testimony of one party than another, and absent other evidence, should give credit to the testimony of other witnesses.
The unfortunate truth, and disappointing for Hobbes, is his theories rely on the fact that we would willingly surrender some of our individual rights, and trust that every other man would also do so accordingly. Hobbes, therefore, seems to contradict himself when arguing about our unavoidable subjective perspective:
“For such is the nature of man, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; Yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves: For they see their own wit at hand, and other mens at a distance.” ― Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
It simply is the fact that we see our own feet and hands, and ultimately the world from our own perspective. Jakob sees himself as I, but he sees Simon as "him", "you", "it", and the list goes on. We are bound to see ourselves from our perspectives. Thus, we are at the center of our Thought. Therefore it may be true that we are as well bound to view ourselves as better, as smarter, as wiser, as more successful, and perhaps we are self-preserving creatures - but is the reason not then the unavoidable thought that we can only see the world from one pair of goggles. And thus would not every self-preserving and self-centered creature under the social contract seemingly scheme in devilish self-interested plans altogether.
Where shall the line be drawn between blindly obeying and attaining individual self-preservation?
Coming back to Hobbes's view on a sovereign that would guarantee so-called social order, we have after Hobbes's lifetime experienced multiple examples, in reality, contradicting the need for authoritative power. We had Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, the list goes on... and now as the prime example Russia's Putin. What followed by these men were Gulags, concentration camps, Holocaust, executions, and World War! Just as well are we at risk of conflict and war, if we gave power to others to rule over us. Thence why would we not desire rather ourselves to be in control of our fate?
In the western world where democracies have been well-established everything points to long-lasting peace, perhaps it is a naive way of seeing things, but it is closest to peace we have been. But still, something Hobbesian is quite true, we cannot live without at least conceding some power over. It further demonstrates that power can naturally turn even the most virtuous men towards war and vice. Therefore anarchy is not an option. Neither is self-rule over everything else. If you want, go, and live the hermit life, it will probably not be as happy as with other human beings. There is something Hobbes got wrong in saying "men have no pleasure in having company, when there is no power for them to able on ", at least on the first point, perhaps we may never know if everything that motivates us, even engaging with other people is grounded in self-interest.
They say "it takes two to tango", but is it really so? If the devil strikes us first, have we really sinned at all?
Are we naturally bound to carry arms? To fear, and therefore be in need to protect ourselves? And what about others? What about our brothers in arms?
We have now thoroughly looked from the Hobbesian perspective on the concept of War, Conflict and Bloodshed, and seem to understand the harsh reality that war may be in our blood. Horrifying, one could point out. A devastating truth. An almost inconceivable reality. Anguishing, but no good would do denying the possibility. But even if it was true [that war is in our blood], would it not be more reasonable to seek peace. By all accounts what is there favorable in war compared to peace? Nothing comes to mind. Merely self-preservation in principle if we are threatened. So, it seems that we should seek peace, it sounds wisest. (And didn't Hobbes argue that we have difficulty admitting others to be wiser than ourselves?!)
Yet there is still something bothering us and probably driving us back to the whirlwind of chaos and conflict. Namely, something, a concept, one called "fear of death". Hobbes describes it in Chapter 13 of Leviathan as "the passions that incline men to peace, are fear of death...", in proper definition, fear of death is the reason that man seeks peace, but in contradiction it is also the fear of death that hinders man from introducing peace, both within and outside, it is the reason we take arms; we want to live. Hobbes also suggests that by Reason men would be drawn to the Laws of Nature - (as well as the social contract). We would seek peace, in case it favored us. But if not in favor, fundamentally we would do everything to obtain it, including taking another man's life. It seems if peace is not at hand, Man would do whatever is necessary (according to Hobbes). Thus it would still seem so that it is in our blood. But then a question remains, can we rise above the so-called fear of death? Can we find naturally peace? Live peacefully with others? Can we find "universal peace" - or is it merely a hopeless dream?
At dawn, do we see the horizon accompanied with the beautiful rising Sun, or are we moreover blinded by the bloodshed of tomorrow - like it was, or like was it so before? And what about today? - O.K
Further reading:
‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-iii-already-there-00012340
And my blog, featuring Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke: Speak up your mind: don't act like the victim; don't blame others: "Blame It On Me!" https://www.nonestperfectus.org/post/speak-up-your-mind-don-t-act-like-the-victim-don-t-blame-others-blame-it-on-me
Peace, upon you all!
Comments