Hobbes and Kant Philosophy

According to Rawls we currently live in a condition of reasonable pluralism, which means that there are many different comprehensive doctrines (those which explain the meaning of life, how life should be lived etc) subscribed to within the societies. Rawls argues that this means in order to have a theory of the state and law that fits this model, it must be neutral so all the citizens would agree with it regardless of what doctrine they subscribe to.

The quote indicates that Hobbes’s and Kant’s theories of state and law do not do this and are therefore not suitable for these pluralistic conditions. I will consider both Hobbes’s and Kant’s theories in order to assess whether this is the case, but I will also consider the account given by Rawls to see if he manages to develop a theory that is more suited to contemporary conditions. Hobbes’s theory begins with the foundational assumption that we are all reasonable and rational beings and are empirically free and equal.

For Hobbes freedom is a negative freedom as it means freedom from external constraints e. . the law and equal in the sense that neither would be guaranteed to win in a battle due to equality of strength or cleverness which balances itself out. He suggests that if left to our own devices we would regress into a state of nature due to quarrels regarding competition, diffidence and reputation. The state of nature is a war of all men against all men as everyone has a right to everything. There are many laws of nature, three of the main ones being that we seek peace, we want to enjoy things and that agreements we make are kept.

According to Hobbes as rational people we would see that it is reasonable to exit the state of nature and enter a civil condition in order to avoid attack and be able to live without the fear, so to do this and follow the laws of nature we would make agreements with each other to follow the sovereign who would enforce the agreements. For Hobbes laws are the commands of the sovereign. For Rawls there needs to be a neutral base for political arrangements in order for the state and law to be stable in the future, but it may be argued that Hobbes does not fulfil this requirement as he assumes we are free and equal.

However, Hobbes’s freedom and equality are not moral or tied to any particular doctrine, but are instead empirical observations, which do not seem to affect the neutrality of his theory. On the other hand it may be suggested that Hobbes’s laws of nature do affect the neutrality of his theory as Hobbes is assuming that these exist and are somewhat inherent in the world, which all doctrines may not agree with, yet again it may be argued that these are empirical observations made by Hobbes when looking at how the state of nature would develop into the civil condition and why.

Another issue that may be apparent in Hobbes’s theory in relation to suitability for contemporary conditions is that of the almost limitless power of the sovereign. I may be suggested that in modern societies there is generally a democratic system in which people have a say, even if indirect, in what the state and the law is, which does not fit into Hobbes’s theory. Although, Hobbes does suggest that the sovereign can be put into the position of power through acquisition or through the institution (i. e. being elected).

It may seem that the idea of gaining power through acquisition is an old fashioned and medieval practice, but the theory could still fit in with the modern societies by looking more towards election. But, a major issue with this is that once the sovereign is in power there are very few limits on what it can do, which again may not seem to fit in with the modern reasonably pluralistic societies; it may not be agreeable by all that the sovereign ought to be powerful and can never be unjust as it determines what justice is.

Jean Hampton argues that just because the sovereign determines what is just, does not mean it cannot be unjust, we just cannot use the word in that way, but it can commit an inequity. Overall, it seems that Hobbes theory does remain quite neutral in the foundational assumptions as they seem to be empirical observations, rather than attached to any specific doctrine and therefore likely to fit in conditions of reasonable pluralism.

The main issue for Hobbes seems to come in the determination of the law and what is just coming solely from the sovereign, as not everyone would agree that this is what justice is or requires, but it is instead just a dictatorship. This idea of a ‘Leviathan’ also fails to account empirically for the large amount of democracies we currently live in, but instead seems to focus on the idea of a dictatorship, which in many situations are rebelled against or overturned.

Kant’s theory again suggests that as human beings we have the capacity for pure reason. In relation to what is right for political arrangements, if we reasoned, we would come to the Universal Principle of Right, which grants innate rights of liberty and to not be used as a means to another’s end.

However, Kant indicates that this is not enough as it does not show us how to live in a community with others, therefore there is also the private right, which suggests to us that we should not interfere in the rights of others e. . in the rights of property etc. Yet, again this is still not enough as there is no guarantee of enforcement of the private right, so Kant suggests that the private right is developed in which the law and the state are required to ensure the citizens maintain the private right. Therefore the law creates an equal sized sphere for each individual and polices the boundaries to ensure the different spheres do not interfere with each other, this allows for what Pogge terms as co-ordination, determinacy and assurance.

Essentially the state and law allow our natural rights of freedom and equality to be realised, as they could not be put into practice in the state of nature. Rawls would suggest that Kant’s theory is inappropriate for conditions of reasonable pluralism as there a subjective element to any idea of morality, and Kant bases his theory on the idea that we are innately and morally free and equal. For Rawls this leads to instability for the theory in the future as not all doctrines subscribed to would agree with it.

However, it may be argued that in modern society there are ideas of human rights e. g. in the European Convention of Human Rights which seems to indicate that as human we do have these rights and the state and laws are being used to recognise them, even though we live in a reasonable pluralistic society.

On the other hand, these human rights are within the content of the law, not within the foundations of the establishment f the state, so are not what Rawls is concerned with; Rawls is instead concerned with the neutrality of the actual oundations of the state and its stability in the future. Another problem for Kant may be in the way he deals with the rights of the citizens, for Kant citizens have a right to vote, but he limits the idea of citizens to males who own property. It may be argued that this does not fit in with the modern society as discrimination is not tolerated to this extent. However, this may be a sign of the times in which Kant was writing and would not be applicable if the theory was being considered today, as it could be easily modernised.

Overall, it seems that Kant’s theory does lack neutrality, so according to Rawls would fail to be suitable for contemporary societies as not every doctrine would agree that we are innately free and equal and may also suggest that the reason for the establishment of the state and law is to protect these rights. Rawls suggests overall that unless the theory of the state and law is neutral that there will not be a stable society as not all citizens would accept the theory and there will therefore be tension.

Rawls theory is based on the premise of the original position, in which the people within it are behind a veil of ignorance in which they know the general nature of human beings and the thin notion of the good, but do not know their status or position in society. Through this, Rawls suggests, they would come to two principles the liberty principle (to all have equal liberties) and the difference principle (any inequalities must not make the worst off worse off and there must be equality of opportunity).

This theory applies to already established democracies and why the foundations of the state and law ought to be in order to have justice in society. However, although Rawls criticises Hobbes’s and Kant’s theories o the state and law by suggesting that they would not be appropriate for conditions of reasonable pluralism, mainly due to their lack of neutrality, it may be argued that Rawls himself does not create these neutral foundations either. It may be suggested that in the original position there is no neutrality as there is a thin theory of the good, which indicates to the people behind the eil of ignorance that money, liberty etc is all part o the good. But this is a very materialistic conception of the good, which would not be accepted by all doctrines.

Overall it does seem that if Rawl’s conception of what is required from a theory in order to be suitable for contemporary conditions is taken on board then Hobbes and Kant do fail to be appropriate, as the ideas of the sovereign’s commands as justice and the idea of innate moral rights of freedom and equality respectively are not neutral and will therefore not be acceptable by all comprehensive doctrines present in the conditions of reasonable pluralism.

However, I do not think that Rawls himself manages to stay completely neutral either in due to the conditions of the original position being materialistic, and therefore his theory may not manage to be completely appropriate for the modern contemporary society either.