Lecture series: Tyranny and force-the two cardinal virtues to exercise law

The sixth lecture on modern philosophy and history discusses Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy.

ISLAMABAD: The sixth lecture on modern philosophy and history by Ashfaq Saleem Mirza discussed Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy on law, politics and nature of man.

Hobbes, an English philosopher during the 16th century, is best known for his social contract theory -- an intellectual device intended to explain appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.

The lecture was attended by 65 people, during which Mirza spoke at length about Hobbes’ premise that law can only be exercised by tyranny and force, the two “cardinal virtues”; these virtues are exercised by a single person or entity whom people, in their struggle for self-preservation, give their sovereignty to.

One may be surprised that Hobbes referred to tyranny and force as virtues, but he holds virtue as anything that the sovereign uses to uphold his sovereignty. Therefore, a king can enforce law by either force or tyranny, making them assets and virtues.

Much of the philosophies discussed were from Hobbes’ Treatise on Human Nature and Leviathan.

Man’s instincts for survival and his nature are at a constant struggle with the civilisation. For instance, in a state of nature, people are capable of heinous crimes against one another. But through a commonwealth condition, they become civilised and stray away from invading each other’s private space.

However, this commonwealth civilisation process rests on self-preservation as well, as it is based on the categorical imperative “do unto others how you want done on to you”.

Mirza gave the example of locking doors at night as an emblem of that very self-preservation and ever-present natural state in a civilised world. Furthermore, he compared the state of Karachi in the 1960s to that in the 1980s. There was the trusting muhalla (neighbourhood) mentality in the 1960s which led to unlocked doors. However, gates and guards were widely introduced in the 1980s, juxtaposing civilisation and state of nature.

The question is, did the gates get erected due to “state of nature” or did they remind citizens of their capacity of “natural behaviour”?

Mirza also spoke of social contracts within commonwealths that are unlike law in sovereignty and are much looser. Social contracts are made by men and women every day and sometimes need revision. He gave the example of Maya Khan’s breaching of social contract and law that has called for the revision of the current social contract on invading others’ private space.

Even though few participants were able to liken Hobbes’ philosophy to democracy, Mirza cautioned against such simplifications, saying that the evolution of democracy we see today is very gradual. Though such comparisons may be interesting, they should be mulled over with a grain of salt, he said.

The lecture took place at SAFMA office instead of the usual Friedrich Ebert Stiftung building, due to renovations. The proceeding lectures, however, will resume at FES building.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 4^th, 2012.