politics- the state of nature

Explain and illustrate the advantages of cooperation in the state of nature.

David Hume argues that, in the state of nature, there should be an emphasis on cooperation - this is because, humans are unique in how much they need, but how little is naturally available to them. He argued that we can lack power, ability and fortune to gain what we want or need, thus it is harder to survive. However, Hume says that by grouping together, these problems can be resolved; firstly, we can gain power through numbers of people working together, secondly, we can gain ability to gain what we want/need by creating a division of labour to exchange goods, and lastly, through mutual support, we are less vulnerable to misfortune. Thus, Hume argues, cooperation is a more effective means of ensuring survival.

However, it is then realised that, no matter how much we as people cooperate, there is always the risk of temptation to commit unjust acts (and vice-versa) out of self-interest; it is easier and faster to attack and rob someone of their food for short-term gain than it is to, say, grow crops. Therefore, there needs to be an incentive of some kind put in place to protect people from temptation.

Hume argues that the laws of justice can enforce punishment against those who commit unjust act, therefore, with this in place, people are less likely to commit crimes if they know they will be punished. Furthermore, introducing these laws will overall reduce injustices, thus increasing peace and stability. Because it is in our long-term interests to live peacefully and stably, it is rational to obey the laws which can make this more likely, rather than focusing on short-term gains of which are likely to decrease peace and stability, thus, it is far more rational to obey the law.

Compare Hobbes and Locke on the type of state we should submit to.

Both Hobbes and Locke agree that submitting to a state is rational, because it provides us with protection we need to co-exist peacefully, however, Hobbes believed that it is logical to submit to an 'absolute sovereign'. This means giving up our wills and judgement to the state, but it is necessary to do so for us to be protected adequately, because if we didn't then conflict would still arise through disagreements and decisions about justice. Therefore, the most effective means of providing protection to ensure self-preservation is if the state has total power and control over the law.

Locke would disagree and ultimately believes that the right type of state that we should submit to would be some form of democracy. This is because, unlike Hobbes who believed that conflict would arise through the state if not controlled, he believed that the Law of Nature and our moral equality would place constraints on the state, and thus prevent this from happening. For Locke, obeying the state means that we give up our right to punish where we see fit, but this is outweighed by gaining an objective justice system of punishment whereby conflict is avoided. Therefore, submitting to the state is not risky, because there will still be some form of control over the justice system, also the benefits outweigh the loses.

Assess the claim that any state is better than no state at all.

Hobbes argues that

Explain and assess two reasons why we should submit to authority.

Firstly, submitting to authority solves the problem of cooperation - the fact that, through working together, we can secure more effective means of gaining what we need to live our lives as individuals. Through obeying an authority, we agree to a set number of rules (laws), this avoids conflict, through disagreement etc, and this encourages togetherness.

Secondly, submitting provides us with a type of moral 'short-cut' - often, we are aware of what is wrong (such as driving whilst drunk), and laws aren't necessary for us to see that and thus avoid making bad decisions. However, other times, certain acts aren't as clear to us in knowing their degree of risk, therefore, it is good that we obey the law often just because it's the law as humans can often be short-sighted.

However, anarchists would argue that obeying the law just because it is the law does more harm than good - they argue that submitting undermines moral judgement, because people end up not thinking for themselves and, instead, are being told what to think. It is argued that this can have negative repercussions - firstly, it replaces moral thinking with self-interested thinking, which means a person may act moral for selfish reasons, rather than wanting to contribute to the greater-good of humanity, thus they aren't being moral in the first place. Furthermore, it can result in people submitting to an authority in a way that is morally wrong, simply because they are told to. An example of this is Milgram's electric shock experiment whereby participants were told by an authority figure to deliver electric shocks to a number of stooges and proceeded to do so - this is evidence that moral judgement can diminish in submitting to authority, thus having detrimental effects.

Furthermore, some philosophers argue that submitting to authority deprives the individual of their autonomy (individuals acting on rules they set for themselves). This, in turn, deprives the individual of their freedom, as they are handing their judgement over to someone else. It is argued that this is not only wrong, but irrational. John Stuart Mill argues that the only justification for the existence of the law is to prevent harm to others, thus the law should not get involved in the views of citizens. It is argued that autonomy is protected through, firstly, respecting individuals' views by taking them into account, for example, through elections. Secondly, it is argued that individuals should give their consent to authority on specific, individual basis' - this will ensure that individuals are making their own moral judgements depending on the situation, thus ensuring autonomy.