Murphy on Hobbes

Question 1

Murphy’s argument about short-sightedness in Hobbes’s Leviathan connects to the lecture content on the contrast between Aristotle and Hobbes

Answer 1

• Aristotle believed that humans are naturally social creatures who strive for eudaimonia, a state of flourishing that involves developing virtue, particularly through intellectual pursuits.
• Hobbes, in contrast, present a more atomistic view of human nature. Individuals are driven by a “perpetual and restless desire of Power after power” to achieve felicity, which is simply the satisfaction of their desires. This pursuit of power, coupled with short-sightedness, leads to conflict.

Question 2

Murphy’s argument adds another layer to this contrast:

Answer 2

• He suggests that Hobbesian individuals, even if they understand the rational benefits of cooperation, are often driven by their immediate appetites and desires.
• This impulsiveness, stemming from the power of present sensations over imagination, makes them short-sighted and prone to acting in ways that undermine their long-term self-interest

Question 3

Connecting to the Prisoner’s Dilemma:

Answer 3

Both the lecture and Murphy use the iterated prisoner’s dilemma to illustrate how short-sightedness can lead to conflict.

Even though cooperation would be the most rational strategy in the long run, the fear of being betrayed and the temptation of immediate gains can lead individuals to defect, resulting in a worse outcome for everyone

Question 4

The Role of the Sovereign:

Answer 4

The lecture emphasizes that Hobbes sees a strong sovereign as the solution to the problem of short-sightedness.

The sovereign’s power to enforce laws and punish those who break them acts as a deterrent, forcing individuals to consider the long-term consequences of their actions.

Murphy agrees with this point, arguing that the fear of punishment can overcome people’s natural impulsiveness, leading them to make more rational choices

Question 5

Murphys disagrees with?

Answer 5

The Rationality Account of Conflict: Murphy disagrees with interpretations that suggest Hobbes believed conflict in the state of nature arises solely from rational self-interest. He argues that this interpretation undermines the validity of Hobbes’s laws of nature, particularly those regarding laying down rights and keeping covenants. If it were always rational to attack preemptively and break agreements, these laws would have no persuasive power.

The Passions Account of Conflict: Murphy also rejects interpretations that attribute the state of war solely to strong, irrational passions. He argues that if such passions were widespread and powerful enough to override self-preservation, then the foundation of Hobbes’s argument for the laws of nature – the primacy of self-preservation – would crumble.
○
Example: If the desire for glory or revenge consistently led individuals to act against their own safety, there would be no rational basis for seeking peace or establishing a sovereign.

Question 6

Murphy Agrees with?

Answer 6

• The Shortsightedness Account of Conflict: Murphy agrees with the idea that shortsightedness plays a crucial role in generating conflict in the state of nature. He argues that even if individuals understand the long-term benefits of cooperation, they are often driven by their immediate appetites and desires, making them prone to acting in ways that are ultimately self-destructive.
  ○
  Example: Murphy draws a parallel with Hume’s account of shortsightedness, where the immediacy of present desires overwhelms the consideration of future consequences. He then demonstrates how this same logic is present in Hobbes’s own theory of action, where the power of imagination, driven by present sensations, can lead to impulsive behavior.
• The Necessity of a Sovereign: Murphy agrees with Hobbes’s central argument that an absolute sovereign is necessary to overcome shortsightedness and establish a stable society. The sovereign’s power to enforce laws and punish transgressions serves as a deterrent, forcing individuals to consider the long-term consequences of their actions.