COMMENTS ON CH3 (AUTHORITY & AUTONOMY):

[Abstract of the chapter: A 'Hobbesian' description is given of the severe dangers of anarchy, of the general denial of legitimate political authority.

A certain intrinsic limited value is placed on a mature, informed individual's autonomy; but a universal duty to 'follow your own conscience' is questioned; and the value is questioned of the 'autonomy' of childish, ignorant, conformist adults. (The history of the overvaluing of autonomy is seen as stemming from a blend of secularized Protestantism with the 'delusions of adequacy' of a democratic majority.)

A special case is sketched where the individual's conscience (following the traditional moral presumption that killing is wrong) clashes with a war-government's wish to have the citizen 'kill on command.']

HOBBES' CRITIQUE OF ANARCHY:

Thomas Hobbes lived after a long, terrible period of constant threats of civil war in England. Some conflicts were caused by noblemen, trying to seek glory and/or to vindicate their aristocratic honor. Other fights were caused by sectarian 'Ayatollahs' telling their followers that God required them to fight and kill 'for His Side'.

Hobbes feared that these two passions (aristocratic Pride, sectarian 'Conscience'), if not controlled, would lead to constant civil war and anarchy; people would live in fear and suspicion, hesitating to plant crops that someone might steal or destroy. Life would be 'poor and solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.' [Note: not just 'short'--Survival is not the only issue. The chaos of anarchy undermines civilization also.]

The remedy for Pride is rational fear for our lives--even the greatest fighter should know that two weaker men could conspire to fell him; in that sense, Hobbes felt, all men are equal. And all consciences must submit to one human Authority on Right & Wrong--God couldn't have intended the chaos that comes when each person decides these matters for himself, or interprets the Scriptures in his own way.

The only practical remedy is for us to pick some one agent (a king, preferably, or else an elected parliament) and to transfer to that agent all our natural rights to self-defense. (Of course we'll run or fight instinctively if the police come to our door; all that's necessary is that we each agree not to defend our neighbor from the police; that will guarantee the sovereign's absolute power, so we can have a subdued internal peace.)

Even if the 'king' should turn out vicious (a 'Leviathan', a monster)--even then he wouldn't kill as many people as would die in anarchic struggles. In a community of 'cannibalistic sheep' (as Hobbes seemed to view humans in his bleaker moments), the sheep are better off with a strong Shepherd to keep them from each other's throats, even if that Shepherd is sort of a wolf. (He'd only 'eat a few sheep a week', after all.)

The people of Yugoslavia seem to be worse off slaughtering each other `freely' than they were under Tito's harsh dictatorship. Hobbes might say, "The Great Powers should have figured out that the Serbs were the strongest party, and should have helped Serbia conquer all Yugoslavia. Serbian oppression wouldn't be as bad as year after year of civil war!"

Hobbes' argument need not postulate Man-as-mere-Machine. Neither does it need to lean on assumptions of the universal egoism or total depravity of humans. His argument could be based instead on the logic of pre-emptive strikes.

Imagine an island of 500 strangers--only 25 of them are actual villains, but no one knows for sure which are the villains. When I meet you at a crossroads, there's a small (but real) chance that you are one of the villains; (but this tiny chance hardly warrants my striking first `before you can get me'.)

However, I know that you're thinking the same way I am, so you might attack me even though you're not a villain, as a preemptive strike. That increases your danger to me, makes it more reasonable for me to strike first. Now I also know that you're thinking about how I'm thinking . . . and so on.

The probabilities of a first strike by one of us could spiral up, until it could seem quite reasonable for each to feel he must strike first, even if neither of us is in fact a villain!

(This is no mere abstract possibility--how many people in Denver have shot friends and relatives in their panicked suspicion at a midnight sound out in the yard? One study says that, for every intruder shot in an American home, 43 other people--friends, children, relatives--are shot, through accident, suicide, or murder.)

Therefore, on an island with only a few villains, says Hobbes, people should still realize they have good reason to prefer even absolute power for king or parliament, to avoid the only alternative, the threat of anarchy and the resulting savagery.

However, Hobbes underestimated the damage an absolute ruler can do. He thought a ruler's greed would be limited; but modern greed is insatiable. Some south American tyrants have drained a good part of the national capital into their foreign bank-accounts, so the people starved. Mr. Marcos seems to have done something like that to the Phillipines.

And Napoleon and Hitler raise this ugly possibility: you might accept an absolute ruler, to minimize domestic killing--and then find that the dictator orders you to invade some other country, involving two nations in awful, pointless slaughter!

So Hobbes' prescription for absolute power for a government seems wrong.

One empirical prediction of Hobbes' has been clearly disproved: he thought that any regime with a 'separation of powers' to limit each governmental agency's chance to tyrannize--that such a 'Lockean' constitution must degenerate into anarchy. But the American constitution has survived for over 200 years.

But we can learn from Hobbes the real possibility that experiencing near-anarchy (as in our inner cities today) might persuade people wrongly to accept a tyrant, a Man on a White Horse. When a mother realizes that the real danger now for her children lies not in marauding policemen, but in casual drive-by shootings, she's not going to resist vigorously a tyrant who promises to restore 'law & order'.

She'd be making a big mistake here; in some South American countries, the dictator has unofficial murder gangs roaming the streets and countryside. Eventually, a rebel group shows up; ordinary citizens get caught in the crossfire.

(I must confess that I underestimated Americans' tolerance for near-anarchy; I expected a serious move toward dictatorship long ago.)People who hate tyranny had better work hard to restore the effective rule of law in our society.

The more sophisticated the weaponry, the more dangerous is the 'State of Nature' (i.e., anarchy). On such an island, artillery will bring on the war-of-all-on-all faster than clubs would, and in a more deadly form. (On the other hand, if someone invented a 'second-strike weapon'--a weapon by which an aggressor will be killed 'even from the victim's grave'-- then there might be a way to avoid universal war without needing an absolute sovereign. If you feel sure that striking first won't work, because you'll die automatically afterward, then I know that you won't try to kill me, villain or not--assuming you're sane and sensible--so then I don't feel compelled to strike at you first.)

THE NUCLEAR STANDOFF:

It's clear that our former nuclear standoff with the Soviets of 'Mutual Assured Destruction' was based on Hobbesian thinking. So why did people worry?

Our nuclear submarines are an effective second-strike weapon--they could wipe out Russia 'even from our graves'. So why did thinkers worry? Because they felt deep doubts about the sensible sanity of world leaders.

1) Suppose the mysterious New York Blackout had happened right during the Cuba missile-crisis, transplanted (in fantasy) to the last nervous days of the distraught Nixon administration . .(when even the Secretary of Defense worried that Nixon would do something crazy..)

2) Russia and the U.S. both built far more missiles than would make sense if each were aiming only at a second-strike capacity. (For instance we had over 10,000 missiles for fewer than 500 significant Russian cities.)

3) Both superpowers were trying earnestly to neutralize the other's 2d-strike capacity (e.g., building sub-hunters to threaten each other's 'Trident-type' subs)--even though (according to M.A.D. theory) the U.S. was less safe if the Soviet lost its second-strike capacity--then the Soviet would be more tempted to move to a 'hair-trigger' first-strike policy, more tempted, in a crisis, to respond desperately by launching her missiles first--"to use 'em lest she lose 'em."

4) Each side already had the ultimate Doomsday Weapon (the weapon that destroys the whole world if 'we' were attacked). Many scientists say that even a (relatively) small salvo of H-bombs would destroy the ozone layer in the atmosphere, letting in destructive radiation to destroy all life on earth. (Carl Sagan once said, in a personal conversation, that an N-exchange would increase the worst UVB rays by 1000%. And the nuclear damage to the ozone layer would be added to the other human sources of damage to the ozone layer.) Neither side could launch a first-strike, then, without destroying itself--even if the other side never launched a second strike! So then we didn't need a second-strike, not if our only concern was to deter rational Soviets from a nuclear lst-strike--and it's not clear that 10,000 missiles would deter a crazy Soviet leader!

As noted elsewhere, both Russia and the U.S. have been on the verge of launching a nuclear counter-strike several times (as recently as 1995) when their computer-networks informed them erroneously that a first-strike was on the way from the foe. The world is not safe yet from global nuclear disaster.

In fact, we can now make a brief retrospective assessment of the morality of the nuclear arms-race. Imagine a U.S. arsenal of,say, 800 submarine missiles, just enough to deter rational Russian leaders from attacking us. To build more missiles than 800 would count as a presumptive violation of Americans' rights: extra taxes are exacted from many millions of unwilling and disapproving citizens; more youth are recruited to the degrading career of waiting in a silo somewhere for the orders to destroy Russian cities. These rights-violations could perhaps be justified, but only by proving with objective probability that the extra missiles are necessary and will work to avert disaster. Now if you're pessimistic enough to believe the extra missiles are necessary (because the Russ leaders are too crazy to be deterred by our 800 missiles plus the fear of Nuclear Winter)--then how could you be optimistic enough to assume that the extra 10,000 missiles will work to deter the mad Soviet leaders? To justify the extra buildup, you would have the burden of proof to show that Soviet leaders were just mad enough not to be deterred by our small n-armory (plus ozone-destruction), but sane enough to be deterred by N-winter plus ozone destruction plus 10,000 U.S. missiles--even though no sane person would lean on a distinction between [Ozone-destruction plus 800 opposing missiles] and [Ozone-destruction plus 10,000 missiles].

It was said that De Gaulle wanted only enough n-armed missiles to 'tear the arm off' an opponent, which would be enough to deter any rational attack on France.

I'd suggest that this brief argument shows that our former maxi-MAD policy was obviously immoral --and the immorality of the corresponding Soviet policy doesn't lessen at all the immorality of our policy.

It costs billions in taxes to keep up our present huge arsenal; and extra youths are degraded by being recruited into the odious career of silo-bound missile-launcher. (This career would be odious even if necessary; what sensible father would choose that career for his son?) So the decision to keep our present maxi-MAD arsenal is not morally different from the decision (discussed above) to build up to that level originally.

In fact both sides wanted the luxury of nuclear bluster to back up their 'superpower' pretensions; and they wanted this luxury badly enough to risk Doomsday. (We noted earlier that humans find it difficult to evaluate high-stake, low-probability situations.) The first imperative of our leaders was National Ego, Pride, Glory, and especially the avoidance of Humiliation. We had to be Number One. These obsessions dwarfed our concern for mere survival. (Actually, Taiwan is becoming Number One economically--their average income now tops or approaches ours; Russia and the U.S. seem to be turning into second-rate powers who are good only at killing.)

Fans of Ronald Reagan say that his defense buildup scared the Soviets into backing down. In some sense, this is true. But imagine a situation where `Ron and Mike' are playing 'chicken' with their cars (with their wives and children in the cars). Each guy is counting on the other guy to be sane enough to back down. Then Mike suddenly perceives that Ron is really crazy.⁽¹⁾ Mike wakes up, shakes himself, and bows out of the game. I submit that observers would credit Mike, not Ron, for the end of the impasse. And indeed, Mr. Gorbachev is hailed all over the world for ending the nuclear stalemate.

Were Hobbes alive today, he might see the only ultimate solution in an absolute World-Government, no matter how terrifying a tyranny that might become. (Our duty to preserve Humanity comes first.) Perhaps America should have forced herself on the world as World Governor after WW II, when only the U.S. was left 'standing'. But that's no help now; and neither superpower is now likely to give up power to a World Court. (So Hobbes might endorse a mini-mad 2d-strike capacity--300 submarine missiles--as the least-mad option available.)

[For more on Hobbes, read his brief DE CIVE, or read Leo Strauss:

THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF HOBBES.]

***************************

AFTERTHOUGHT: One new problem in social life is the impotence of any governments in the face of corporate power: investors can evade any regulations simply by moving their money to a different country. So we are in a STATE OF ANARCHIC NATURE economically as well as militarily. Even the corporations will suffer: each will be pressured into activities which will harm them all, collectively.

NON-AUTOMONOUS CULT-MEMBERS:

Catholic monks and nuns take a vow of 'absolute' obedience; but they are told this can never bind them to do moral wrong. Since Catholics think it morally wrong to harm yourself grievously and pointlessly, no monk could, presumably, be bound to obey a command to destroy, or cripple, himself.

CHILDISH `AUTONOMY': Some thinkers define autonomy to include `guiding my actions by my own life-plan', not just `guiding it by my own principles'.

But in cases of childish, whimsical behavior, there is no consistent life-plan involved, any more than principle.

Also: we needn't hesitate to tax a rich, whimsical person to help the poor, from respect for his autonomy--not if we know the money will be likely spent on consumer luxuries, not on life-plan projects. And imagine a person with a really goofy life-plan: he sacrifices luxuries and even some necessities to finance his collection of outdated credit cards. Why should his autonomy be much respected?

THE STATE VS. CONSCIENCE:

During the Vietnam War, some people said we shouldn't approve of individuals who put their (anti-war) conscience ahead of the government's (& the majority's) position..because we wouldn't like it if individuals appealed to their private conscience to justify killings forbidden by the government.

However, the person who refuses to kill is resting not just on his private conscience but on a moral presumption accepted by a long Western tradition, the presumption that killing is wrong.So the decision not to kill (when the government orders you to kill) is not at all on a par with choosing an illegal killing!

1. It should be said that some recent 'insider' memoirs give Pres. Reagan personal credit for trying to negotiate a solution to the nuclear impasse. But he certainly never had the radical idea of just dropping out of the race, as Gorbachev did. In the 'chicken' analogy, 'Ron' stands here for the whole American military establishment. Return to contents