Anti-Nepotism
Philosophy, Philosophy, 2019
A 17th century Enlightenment philosopher named Thomas Hobbes sought out to define the relationship between the sovereign and the citizens of the state. Hobbes begins by investigating the state of nature, which is a state of society prior to the emergence of a sovereign. In such a state, individuals seek only to maximize their self-interest. Hobbes believed that this was a pathway to an inevitable state of war and destruction. Without a sovereign present to mediate between individuals, they could do as the please. Individuals could therefore commit acts of mere savagery in attempt to maximize resources and follow self-interests. The fundamental self-interest present in individuals is self-preservation. A state of nature becomes a circumstance of mere survival, where survival and propagation become of upmost priority. We may say that we have a natural right to follow our self-interests, however, this opens the pathway to an inevitable doom. Consider Person A, who has a self-interest to posses resources, however no sovereign is present to protect his rights. His rights may not be respect by fellow individuals whom may steal the resources he believes belong to him. Without the sovereign present, moral authority belongs at the level of the individual, leaving each individual to classify what they believe is morally right and wrong. Therefore, it is only with the emergence of a sovereign that society may progress from a state of chaos and instability to a state of order and security. The Hobbesian approach isn’t the only way of reasoning for the formation of a sovereign, in the next few paragraphs the necessity for a higher moral authority will be discussed.