The state of nature described in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651) is that of violent conflict, a w... more The state of nature described in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651) is that of violent conflict, a war of every man against every man. Hobbes gives three causes to the war in the state of nature, which are competition, diffidence, and glory. In this paper I argue that the three causes of conflict in the state of nature are connected to every individual’s rational pursuit of self-preservation. Some of Hobbes’ contemporary critics attempted to refute Hobbes’ description of the state of nature as a state of war by demonstrating that the state of nature wasn’t lacking resources, whereby violent competition was unnecessary for the self-preservation of individuals living in the state of nature. The contemporary critique of the state of nature reveals that the actions of the individuals in the state of nature varies according to the level of security they have for their lives. Due to the actions individuals make in the state of nature to protect themselves and secure their self- preservation, I argue that the Prisoner’s Dilemma model used to describe the state of nature fails at two accounts: i) The Prisoner’s Dilemma model cannot model the actions of rational individuals, whom are the main type of individual in the state of nature. ii) The Prisoner’s Dilemma model cannot model actions of individuals who enjoy some security for their lives in the state of nature. Due to the shortcomings of the Prisoner’s Dilemma model I argue that the state of nature in Leviathan is best translated into game theory by the Assurance Game model.
The state of nature described in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651) is that of violent conflict, a w... more The state of nature described in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651) is that of violent conflict, a war of every man against every man. Hobbes gives three causes to the war in the state of nature, which are competition, diffidence, and glory. In this paper I argue that the three causes of conflict in the state of nature are connected to every individual’s rational pursuit of self-preservation. Some of Hobbes’ contemporary critics attempted to refute Hobbes’ description of the state of nature as a state of war by demonstrating that the state of nature wasn’t lacking resources, whereby violent competition was unnecessary for the self-preservation of individuals living in the state of nature. The contemporary critique of the state of nature reveals that the actions of the individuals in the state of nature varies according to the level of security they have for their lives. Due to the actions individuals make in the state of nature to protect themselves and secure their self- preservation, I argue that the Prisoner’s Dilemma model used to describe the state of nature fails at two accounts: i) The Prisoner’s Dilemma model cannot model the actions of rational individuals, whom are the main type of individual in the state of nature. ii) The Prisoner’s Dilemma model cannot model actions of individuals who enjoy some security for their lives in the state of nature. Due to the shortcomings of the Prisoner’s Dilemma model I argue that the state of nature in Leviathan is best translated into game theory by the Assurance Game model.
Uploads
Hobbes gives three causes to the war in the state of nature, which are competition, diffidence, and glory. In this paper I argue that the three causes of conflict in the state of nature are connected to every individual’s rational pursuit of self-preservation.
Some of Hobbes’ contemporary critics attempted to refute Hobbes’ description of the state of nature as a state of war by demonstrating that the state of nature wasn’t lacking resources, whereby violent competition was unnecessary for the self-preservation of individuals living in the state of nature. The contemporary critique of the state of nature reveals that the actions of the individuals in the state of nature varies according to the level of security they have for their lives.
Due to the actions individuals make in the state of nature to protect themselves and secure their self- preservation, I argue that the Prisoner’s Dilemma model used to describe the state of nature fails at two accounts:
i) The Prisoner’s Dilemma model cannot model the actions of rational individuals, whom are the
main type of individual in the state of nature.
ii) The Prisoner’s Dilemma model cannot model actions of individuals who enjoy some security for
their lives in the state of nature.
Due to the shortcomings of the Prisoner’s Dilemma model I argue that the state of nature in Leviathan is best translated into game theory by the Assurance Game model.
Hobbes gives three causes to the war in the state of nature, which are competition, diffidence, and glory. In this paper I argue that the three causes of conflict in the state of nature are connected to every individual’s rational pursuit of self-preservation.
Some of Hobbes’ contemporary critics attempted to refute Hobbes’ description of the state of nature as a state of war by demonstrating that the state of nature wasn’t lacking resources, whereby violent competition was unnecessary for the self-preservation of individuals living in the state of nature. The contemporary critique of the state of nature reveals that the actions of the individuals in the state of nature varies according to the level of security they have for their lives.
Due to the actions individuals make in the state of nature to protect themselves and secure their self- preservation, I argue that the Prisoner’s Dilemma model used to describe the state of nature fails at two accounts:
i) The Prisoner’s Dilemma model cannot model the actions of rational individuals, whom are the
main type of individual in the state of nature.
ii) The Prisoner’s Dilemma model cannot model actions of individuals who enjoy some security for
their lives in the state of nature.
Due to the shortcomings of the Prisoner’s Dilemma model I argue that the state of nature in Leviathan is best translated into game theory by the Assurance Game model.