Hobbes's Voluntarist Theory of Morals

Abstract

Two interpretations of Hobbes's theory of morals dominate the subject: the Egoistic Reading (ER) and the Naturalist Reading (NR). According to ER, all of Hobbes's moral concepts are self-interested at their core. According to NR, Hobbes's Laws of Nature set down genuine moral obligations/virtues both inside of the state of nature and out. This article rejects both of these interpretations in favor of a Voluntarist Reading (VR). On this reading, morality is an artifact of human endeavor, specifically covenanting. Unlike both ER and NR, VR takes seriously Hobbes's claim that there is “no obligation on any man which ariseth not from some act of his own”.

Beauty, Nature, and Society in Shaftesbury’s The Moralists

“…If values, like good and evil or beauty and ugliness, are relative to each man's subjective desire, an "interpersonal clash of substantive conceptions" is awaiting in the state of nature. 33 The Hobbesian institution of political society is expected to address these challenges by making man follow a "common axiological standard" established by the sovereign. 34 Thus, an artifcial normativity can be established.…”

“…33 The Hobbesian institution of political society is expected to address these challenges by making man follow a "common axiological standard" established by the sovereign. 34 Thus, an artifcial normativity can be established.…”

“…instrumentally desire membership in the civitas solely due" to self-preservation. 38 According to him, no man can be virtuous if "he abstains from executing his ill purpose, thro a fear of some impending Punishment, or thro the allurement of some expected Pleasure or Advantage" (Inquiry 52 [21]).…”

A Systematic Interpretation of Hobbes’s Practical Philosophy

“…He rightly says that " […] what Hobbes has done is recast the traditional understanding of moral virtue into a prudential, instrumentalist mold." 65 , and that "[…] the Laws of Nature require us to create a moral system that embodies objective claims of right." 66 Taking such a line of though seriously seems diffi cultly reconcilable with the claim that 'fair dealing' and 'propriety' in the traditional sense would be involved.…”

“…65 , and that "[…] the Laws of Nature require us to create a moral system that embodies objective claims of right." 66 Taking such a line of though seriously seems diffi cultly reconcilable with the claim that 'fair dealing' and 'propriety' in the traditional sense would be involved. 67 The unwarranted holding on to the traditional elements in this interpretation is clear in the following: "[…] we are rationally bound to abide by our moral obligations insofar as doing so leads to self-preservation, peace and the safe pursuit of felicity.…”