Hobbes Parity

Thomas Hobbes argues in Leviathan that humans living outside of government construct – in a state of nature – would live in a tumultuous state of constant conflict due to their self-interested natures. To rectify this constant conflict, this war of all against all, then, humans as rational beings would have no choice but to submit to a coercive force, a sovereign, that could rule them and remove the element of parity in ability that naturally occurs amongst humans – identified by Hobbes as a driving force causing this war of all against all. As removing this parity is key to both ending the state of nature and avoiding relapsing back into the state of nature, the most powerful form of government, an absolute one, would best serve to save humans

A fair analysis of Hobbes’ work must begin in earnest with his interpretation of the state of nature, a state which he characterizes as, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” (60). This conclusion is derived in part as a result of his stance on natural equality and, likely, in part due to the historical context of his life – it stands to reason that living through the English Civil War may have imbued Hobbes with some degree of cynicism concerning human nature. Although not necessarily equal in strength of body nor in strength of mind individually, Hobbes asserts that the whole of a man – mind, body and the like – is roughly equal to that of every other man in the state of nature (58). This leads to an inherent parity of strength amongst individuals in the state of nature. However, this assertion – even with an assumption of truth at present – does not necessarily lend itself to the rather grim state of nature that Hobbes describes; relatively universal equality amongst individuals could just as easily lead to an ideal egalitarian society as to the state of total war that Hobbes posits. Yet, Hobbes concludes that this parity must lead to, rather than a peaceful egalitarian society, his

To do so he relies heavily on the premises that parity causes an element of insecurity which serves as a mechanism for quarrel, manifested in competition, diffidence and glory (60). As men are all approximately equal in their ability to acquire resources – both from nature and each other – there is no security in the possession of resources, because a man’s neighbor has the same ability to take his resources as the man has to take them for himself in the first. This is the manifestation of competition through the mechanism of parity in the state of nature. With regards to diffidence, the element of parity extends to ability to both do and prevent harm. As, again, there is an element of equality in actions concerned with harm and, Hobbes asserts, a general lack of trust amongst men in the state of nature, men in that state would constantly be fighting in – likely futile – attempts to assure their safety. Finally, with respect to glory, Hobbes makes the claim that men would seek to improve their own reputations in this state of lawlessness, suggesting that men in the state of nature would quarrel for glory in order to improve their respective standings amongst, “their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name,” (60).