At 192 Lloyd claims that is it analytic that one may define humans to include a desire for self-preservation. Did Hobbes believe that? Why? It is plain that plenty of people do not desire self-preservation -- suicides come to mind, and there are plenty of others who lose interest in themselves. Are such creatures not human? As there is no biological difference sufficient to mark such folk as not human (whatever it is that gets one into the camp), I don't see what the meaning of 'analytic' is in this context. In general, human beings, like the other biological creatures, typically care for self-preservation, but I don't see how one gets anything stronger. And, to the extent Hobbes' political theory or his Laws of Nature, calls for something stronger, the theories are failures. Not just because the definition is so off mark -- it is not just the ill who give up life or fail to take meaningful steps toward self-preservation. One of the explanatory goals for a Hobbesian theory has to be how the subjects are induced to go off to war for the happy sovereign (or anyone else). The psychology of commitment to community (of some significant kind) is important to this sort of theory. (It is a theory that is supposed to be more or less deductive -- anyone thinking properly should follow to the proffered conclusions, which include a duty of ultimate self-sacrifice. Because it is a reasoned argument, can't make use of biology to get sacrifice for family (and thence some conflation of family with a wider group or transfer of loyalty, etc.).)
A bit earlier, in discussing the duty to resist an usurper 147 note 13), Lloyd misses a small argument -- the duty to resist cannot be complete (cannot require resistance to the end) because if that were so the usurper would always have an overwhelming incentive to extirpate the conquered. The duty to resist an usurper (or invader) has to be limited. At some point, there would be a duty to submit to the usurper, as that is the way to stay alive and to get back peace.
Recent Comments