Political Philosophy (Modulo 1 e Modulo 2):

Political 
Philosophy 
Appunti di Sara Cincotti
Università Ca' Foscari Venezia
Facoltà: Filosofia e beni culturali
Corso di Laurea in Philosophy, International and Economic Studies
Esame: Political Philosophy I e II
Docente: Giulio Azzolini (Modulo I) e  Giorgio Cesarale (Modulo II)
A.A. 2022/2023
Tesi
online
A P P U N T I
Tesionline
Political Philosophy (Modulo 1 e Modulo 2)LESSON ONE: NORMATIVE, REALIST, EXISTENTIALIST POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 
What is political philosophy? Why do we have to study it today?  
What is “philosophy”? 
Strauss pointed out the relation between political philosophy and philosophy; the first is a branch of the latter.  
«Since political philosophy is a branch of philosophy, even the most provisional explanation of what political philosophy 
is, cannot dispense with an explanation, however provisional, of what philosophy is. Philosophy, as quest for wisdom, is 
quest for universal knowledge, for knowledge of the whole. The quest would not be necessary if such knowledge were 
immediately available».  
Philosophy is a quest for wisdom (Sophia), for universal knowledge.  
Philosophy is not like physics, not a codified form of knowledge. It is always a form of knowledge that must prove its 
origin and legitimacy, and there are many definitions of what it is or should be. It can be understood as a special type 
of discourse, characterized by a changing composition of a certain method and a given object.  
Basically, it is a discursive form using the method of rational, open and critical argumentation.  
One could reply that argumentative procedures are used in many fields of knowledge; so what is the particular feature 
of the philosophical discourse? Perhaps that feature is the fact that philosophy uses argumentative discourses as the 
privileged instrument. In fact, philosophy is understood by many theorists as a sort of endless dialogue, a permanent 
exchange of opinions and criticism.  
The essential feature of philosophy is the fact that arguments are accepted or refused not in the name of authority or 
convention/imagination or suggestion, but on the basis of a person’s reason. In fact, its arguments are based on 
persuasive reasoning.   
On the other hand, the object of philosophy is the quest of universal knowledge, which is pursued by answering 
normative and structural questions.  
Normative and structural questions 
The founding questions in philosophy are both normative and structural. 
o Normative questions are inevitable, never-ending questions concerning the human orientation in the world 
(and in our communities), questions that positive science cannot answer.  
Philosophy is considered the mother of sciences, for it does not have definitive answers, and when a philosophical 
question is answered, then it becomes a part of a specific science. Philosophy can’t accept definitive answers, because 
by doing so it would become science, while it is a critical formulation of problems.  
Bertrand Russel underlined that the answer which have no answer represent the true “Residue of Philosophy”. 
Positive science can teach you how things are, through research, facts and data; but it cannot tell us how things should 
be, it cannot answer normative philosophical questions.   
The topic of the human orientation in the world matters also to religion, but the peculiarity of philosophy is the 
combination of normative questions with structural questions.   
o Structural questions refer to the structure of reality (and nature of things) in its different areas, posed at the 
moment of evidence. Typical questions of this kind are Why (what is the cause, your role, your aim, etc.)? and 
What is that (what does it mean)? 
Political philosophy 
Thus, political philosophy (being a form of philosophy, not a kind of science) deals with normative issues (trying to 
build good arguments to respond to the dilemmas regarding our existence; build an ideal state of affairs) and 
structural issues (nature of society, power, reasons, characteristics, effects of political actions).  
«Political philosophy is the attempt truly to know both the nature of political things and the right, or the good, political 
order. All knowledge of political things implies assumptions concerning the nature of political things» 
1Strauss argues that all questions in political philosophy imply the existence of assumptions regarding the nature of 
political things/order (e.g., law, institutions). The typical gesture of the philosopher, called doxa, the critique of how 
things are.  
Precisely because it deals with problems of this kind, political philosophy is said to be a sort of ultimate philosophy 
(metaphysics is a primary one).  
What does the term “political” mean 
Political philosophy is a form of knowledge which tries to analyze not only human experience as such, but also to 
understand the interactions among human beings, their roots, and how much they are influenced by power.  
Political philosophy is the study of how human interactions are affected by power, and power relations in general. 
Power is a key term in this discipline. In order to understand politics, you need to reason about, and investigate, 
power. Power is the general assumption you need to have in mind when discussing politics.  
What does “power” mean? 
Bertrand Russel claimed that the fundamental concept in social science is power (like energy in physics). But it is much 
more the core concept of political philosophy; without such a notion, it would be impossible to distinguish among 
political and non-political concepts and phenomena.  
But how do we define power? There are different possible answers. 
1. Robert Dahl: Power as decision-making
Power is often defined as coercion; which is linked to the idea of power as potentiality, as I cannot coerce someone to 
do something if that person does not have a certain potentiality to do something.  
Robert Dahl, who theorized the purist model of democracy, also defined power: 
«My intuitive idea of power, then, is something like this: A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do 
something that B would not otherwise do». 
Basically, Dahl argues that power is the ability held by someone to determine or regulate the behavior of others. 
Power is conceived here as “power over someone”(rather than power to do something), the capacity to guide others in 
order to achieve certain personal outcomes.  
From this definition, we understand that Dahl argued that someone has power and exercises it exclusively; there is 
someone who does not have power and is only subject to it.  
The premises of Dahl’s definition are: 
o Power is a matter of effects (or consequences)
o Power is an attribute of individuals: I am powerful
o Power is a matter of agency and behavior, meaning that it is exercised in (human) relations with other
individuals.
o In order to recognize a situation of power there should be a clear conflict of interests (based on and expressed
by individual preferences) between the actors involved in the power relation. Power is coherent with personal
interests; because of A’s power, B not only modifies his behaviour, but he does so knowing that it goes against
his interests.
o Power is a zero-sum game, that is, there is a fixed sum of power. I gain power only to the extent that others
lose power.
The consequences of this conception of power are: 
o Power is an official decision-making process; and as such, State power can both be associated with authority
and dominance depending on the effective pursuit of either general or particular interest (general = authority;
personal = dominance).
o From this, we understand that power ultimately belongs to those who have an active role in the formal
decision-making arena; these people are truly powerful, as they can impose a decision on someone else.
o Power is visible, something you can see and identify, a transparent relation that can be more or less measured.
o Violence is also a possible aspect of Dahl’s definition, understood as unofficial power / legitimate violence.
2Dahl’s understanding of power is a:  
- One-dimensional view, focused on decision-making, which allows us to identify who has power. 
- Actor-centered view, as it focuses on power as an interpersonal and zero-sum game.  
Dahl’s conception has been criticized in a fervid debate, as many thought that power and authority was not simply a 
matter of decision-making, and it lacked attention on other important aspects of power.  
2. Power as influence - Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz: Two Faces of Power (1962) 
According to Bachrach and Baratz, power is not only reflected in concrete, visible decision-making; in fact, it has a 
second face, an undetected one. This means that power can also be seen in indirect influence on decisions and setting 
the general agenda that leads to those decisions. And they argue that the second face would be far more relevant 
than actual decisions. 
They believe the problem with Dahl is that, for him, power needs to be visibly expressed; but it does not. It is not only 
about direct decision making (a powerful individual does not necessarily act upon their agendas and chooses one 
outcome over the other), but rather power also comes from influence and preventing certain outcomes.  
In public authorities, power is not only directly expressed by elected officials, but also indirectly by bureaucrats, for 
instance: the “corridors of power” should be empirically analyzed.  
Basically, power is truly expressed and exercised not only in the official decision-making process, but also in what 
Bachrach, and Baratz label the “non-decision-making” process. 
3. Power as hegemony - Steven Lukes: Power, A Radical View (1974)  
He concerned both Dahl’s and the two authors’ notions as too behavioral and individualistic. He argues we should not 
focus on visible/invisible conflicts, what is important is the potential conflict (which may never be actualized) → if 
people were made aware of the exclusion of certain matters, of interest to them, and the agenda they would react in 
order to protect their rights.  
We need to analyze the context and the situation in order to understand power dynamics. We can understand power 
dynamics, in a society that accepts power, by analyzing the material basis of power and the interest of the subalterns.  
Delated conflict is based on a contradiction among interests of those in power and real interests of those subordinated 
to power. Just like Gramsci (who built the idea of hegemony), Luke’s argues that hegemony is actually a form of 
power, used to shape the preferences of subalterns and form a consensus.  
But hegemony, like Gramsci argued, must have a material basis, which consists in the capacity to coordinate the 
material interests of the dominant group (in power) and the subordinate group.  Thus power, in a way, also consists in 
influencing and shaping preferences of individuals. The contradiction here is that the subalterns actually desire to be 
ruled by the hegemonic group (e.g., fascism).  
From Lukes’ idea, it is clear that to understand power and the individual’s condition in society, influenced by 
hegemonic rule, and ideological critique is needed, in addition to Bachrach and Baratz’s empirical analysis, which is not 
sufficient. We cannot understand simply by studying the corridors of power; it’s much more complicated.  
Lukes proposed a three-dimensional notion of power as decision-making, influence (agenda-setting) and hegemony 
(or preference shaping).  Some theorists believed a fourth meaning was needed, based on the  assumption that power 
is something which could be analyzed in the public sphere as well as in the private sphere.  
4. Power as productive action (subject shaping) – Michael Foucault: Microphysics of Power (2003)  
The most traditional line in political philosophy deals with institutional forms of power expressed by laws, 
incorporated by institutions; this line ignores the influence of power in the social sphere 
Since the 1970s, new heterodox thinkers, like Michel Foucault, have been focusing on the social aspect of power, and 
power relations in the social sphere. They emphasized that the most fundamental relations of power are placed out 
the canonical public institutions; it follows that analysis of power cannot be related to the institutional sphere.  
In this sense, power is fourth-dimensional, consisting in the discipline of individual bodies and minds and in the control 
of populations and of single members of the community.  
In “Microphysics of Power”, we can find the specific approach in Foucault’s work about power relations (in Society 
must be defended, 1997). 
3Foucault argues that we should not start by analyzing the classical centers of powers (individuals, institutions). We 
should rather start by constructing Microphysics of Power (focus on families, customs, marginal institutions).  
Basically, we should analyze power relations from the bottom up, not from the top down. We need to understand the 
ways that power relations operate in different, but intersecting, networks.  
Power is not a resource that can be possessed by someone; it is everywhere, and comes from everywhere; in this 
sense, power is neither an agency nor a structure. It develops though the day-by-day interactions among people, and 
it functions like a network of relations. Power should be analyzed as something that circulates, something that is never 
localized and only functions as part of a chain. It can never be appropriated by anyone in the way that wealth can be.  
Power is something productive in social dynamics, it exists in action. It is the capacity to reshape individuals through 
governmental techniques, and it is not only a repressive action, but a productive action.  
Foucault is influenced by Marx, saying that power is not simply a political network. Marx argued that the fundamental 
power relations were placed in the sphere of production, as we know. But Marx has a conception of power too strictly 
related to class relations; Foucault instead focuses on individuals and aggregate of individuals.  
To sum up: Foucault defines power as the ability to control individuals and collectives and reshape them through 
governmental decisions (subjects shaping).  
In conclusion: power should be analyzed in its every aspect; not as only one of them. So power is not only decision-
making, control, violence, influence; it is a composite of all of them.  
What are the main approaches of political philosophy?  
Three main approaches:  
1. Normative approach (Plato’s Republic, Hobbes’ Leviathan, Thomas Moore’s Utopia) 
Normative political philosophy, which mainly reflects an Anglo-Saxon tradition, studies the best possible forms of 
governments, States, society, or the foundations of legitimate political power.   
Normative political philosophy deals with, and aims at understanding, two profoundly interconnected issues:  
o The best form of government  
o The foundations of the political order, and consequent justification or denial of political obligations.   
This approach is, obviously, concerned with normative questions, directed at trying to define the “good politics”, 
namely the best values and laws for subjects. Examples of these questions might be: what are the characteristics that 
the political order should have to preserve the rights/interests of those who are subject? What should the 
characteristic of the political order be, to be classified as legitimate?  
Basically, normative political philosophers attempt to determine the best values and principles underlying the political 
sphere and power relations. Obviously, these ideas are mostly utopias.  
2. Realist political philosophy (Machiavelli, The Prince)  
On the other hand, the realistic approach, mainly seen in the Italian tradition, studies relations (and ethics) of power, 
focusing on structural issues of political philosophy. Political realism reflects on political action and power as they are 
(it does not imagine the State as it should be).  
In this perspective, the sphere of political action is made of actors, engaged in an endless struggle for power, taking 
place in the environment of political institutions. This does not mean that power must be considered an end in itself; 
power is the necessary mean in order to achieve your goals; without power, no agenda could ever be followed.   
Sometimes, political realism is associated with negative anthropology, conceiving human as too greedy with regards to 
power and wealth; it is also a negative proposition as it leaves space for tyranny (power used for personal interest).  
3. Existentialist political philosophy → power over and power to do something  
This approach is mainly present with the feminist tradition. Existentialists believe that power is a particular formal 
action through which everyone expresses their individuality the best. 
Furthermore, power can only be understood within a broader reflection on the human condition (which includes 
activities such as labour and political action). 
4The existentialist approach is a philosophical one, which consists in concrete, discursive reasoning about politics. It can 
be translated in the public discourse analysis, even though Hannah Aarendt also presents a normative dimension, 
similar to the Aristotelian tradition.  
Hannah Aarendt 
Aarendt deeply analyzed the existential dimension and the human condition. She individuated multiple dimensions:  
1. The dimension of labour 
Labour is the activity oriented to the reproduction of human life, in other words, the reproduction of the material 
condition for human life. Basically, labour is an animal activity, including any activity able to reproduce life.  
2. The dimension of work 
Work is an activity that differs from labour, as it depends on an artificial production of a commodity. It is included in an 
artificial environment that is different rom the natural one, where labour activity develops.  
Whilst the labor’s aim is the reproduction of life, the aim of the work dimension is the production of something 
material, of an artificial world; labour aims at surviving, work aims at living.  
3. The dimension of political action 
This dimension does not concern reproduction of production, but rather the relations and interactions between human 
beings, not in an artificial environment.  
Aspects of political action 
Aarendt argues that the fundamental aspects of political action are:  
o Plurality  
According to Aarendt, political action is able to reveal the value of plurality, which is:  
“The condition of human action because we are all the same, that is, human, in such a way that nobody is ever the same 
as anyone else who ever lived, lives or will live”  
Plurality is the paradoxical condition in which you have equality, but every individual comes as a unique human being. 
And political action is making discourse in an open public sphere; that sphere is where individuals can build their 
identity, because through political actions human beings are able to find their authentic self. Thus:  
Uniqueness + equality = PLURALITY 
Because each of us is unique, we always bring new ideas, views, values, which were not there before.  
o Natality  
This notion is symbolic, understood in terms of political values, ideologies; it is based on human coexistence, and is the 
result of complex, unique human beings interacting.  
Natality, as well, finds its most direct realization in the political sphere.  
«. The public realm, the space within the world which men need in order to appear at all, is therefore more specifically 
“the work of man” than is the work of his hands or the labor of his body». 
o Mortality → in the political sphere, understood as the condition where politics is not practiced at its best 
Hannah Arendt understands “politics” as public debate by a community about meaningful aspects of their shared life 
together. For her, politics has also a symbolic dimension, essential in order to understand the identity of the political 
community.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
5LESSON TWO: NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL POLITICS? ARISTOTLE AND HOBBES 
Aristotelian and Hobbesian models: why are they significant? 
The Aristotelian Paradigm 
Before the modern age and the contractarian tradition, the Aristotelian paradigm was translated by many authors, 
and it was a very stable intellectual experience.  
In his Politics Aristotle explains that the State has three different associations that eventually lead to the city-state. 
 
Aristotle builds the basis for his politics stating that political activities are natural phenomena, so the argument used 
begins with a linear account of all the developments from simple to more complex communities. Aristotle believed 
that, like the formation of a community within a polis and reproduction, political debate and interaction are also an 
innate human behavior. 
1. The family is the first kind of association, with the purpose of reproduction, the satisfaction of the daily needs 
Human beings combined achieve a goal, not intentionally chosen but desired: reproduction. They join together in 
order to survive, and they create different types of partnership: master and slave needs one another in order to 
survive, as females and males do.  
Family is constituted by two partnerships constituted by necessity; and it is thus the first natural association. 
2. The villages are composed by many families or households, and have the purpose of production 
3. The final, and perfect, association is the polis (city-state), constituted by many villages, which has the purpose 
of the good life. Being the sum of many villages, the polis is self-sufficient. 
What is the perfect polis?  
The perfect polis is the one that guarantees the good life, not only guarantees animal or artificial needs, but also things 
like culture or values. 
It can guarantee the good life thanks to the fact that humans have logos, the reason. Political animals can build 
political concepts like justice, the greatest value for the Greeks and modern world. 
 Reached the height of full self-sufficiency  
 It exists for the sake of a good life.  
The main features of the Aristotelian model 
o Origin of the State: the State is conceived in historical terms, analysis starts with a very specific type of 
association, which is the family. 
o Nature of the State: the Polis is the natural outcome of the process; a place where men can flourish as such.  
o Structure of the State: organicist structure. The State is conceived in organic terms, individuals are considered 
as members of community, it is like a sum of big families. 
o Environment: the hierarchical society. Every relation (association) has a hierarchical condition: members of 
the family, master-slave; also between citizens. 
o Legitimation of political power: based on tradition and tradition. There foundation and legitimation of 
political power is not based on a rational argument, but on a naturalistic element.  
The Aristotelian model through the years 
1. Marsilio Of Padua  
He was one of the most revolutionary political figures of his time, as he was one of the few who dared question the 
Church’s agenda. His approach to the political community is very influenced by the Aristotelian life: combination of 
couple, villages and political community as such. 
2. Jean Bodin 
The second approach was one of the French jurist Jean Bodin. In the first chapter of the first book of “The six books of 
Ccommonwealth” (1576) he writes that:  
6«The commonwealth is the rightly ordered government of a number of families and of those things which are their 
common concern, by a sovereign power» 
He, as well, underlines the importance of the family; following the Aristotelian reasoning, he argued that families are 
the first element of the state. The State derives naturally from families, and thus the family is the origin of the 
commonwealth. 
He also criticized some ideas of Aristotle such as the idea of the medium point, the village. He stated that sovereignty 
is the absolute and perpetual power of a commonwealth, and that a commonwealth is mainly a just government with 
sovereign power.  
The Hobbesian/Contractarian Paradigm 
The Contractarians (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) and Kant conceived the origin of the state in rationalistic terms. Before 
the existence of a social contract, there was the so-called State of Nature. Contractarians have one basic idea in 
common: the contract.  
The main features of the Hobbesian model 
o Origin of the State: the State is conceived in rationalistic terms. Human beings are not naturally political, they 
inhabit the State of nature, which is an anti-political condition. Politics is not natural for Hobbes. 
o Nature of the State: the State is the antithesis of the natural condition, and not the outcome of a progress 
from family to polis. Contractarians view the civil State as the opposite of the natural state, since it is 
artificially created in order to correct people’s behavior. Thus, the civil state is a correction of the deficiencies 
of the State of Nature.  
o Structure of the State: individualistic/atomistic structure. The State is conceived in individualistic terms. 
Human beings are naturally isolated, but they are sociable. They make society; the civil state is an artificial 
aggregation of individuals, not an organic system or the result of progress.   
o Environment: the egalitarian non-society. The modern mentality is based on the notion of equality; the 
premise is that individuals are free and equal.  
o Legitimation of political power: based on consent. It is explained in conventional/contractual terms. The 
passage from State of Nature to civil State is not driven by necessity but happens thanks to a conventional 
agreement (contract), an act implemented by equal and free individuals. Thus, political power is legitimized 
through consent, making the State an artificial entity. 
How is the Hobbesian model different? 
There is a clear transition between the Aristotelian and Hobbesian conceptions of the Civil State, emerging from the 
capitalist tradition. The way of interpreting the transformation of society throughout the years changed: the modern 
paradigms indicates in some ways the dissolution of the family, not the subject of excellence of economics— which 
became the individual.  
At a more theoretical level, a society of free individuals replaced a community based on associations. The state’s 
environment would ideally be an egalitarian non-society, opposing the hierarchical society proposed by the 
Aristotelian model — for modern political thought, freedom and equality are the most essential values. 
The realist paradigm 
There would be another paradigm to be proposed: the realist one, brought forward by Machiavelli. Whilst other 
paradigms share the same goal (to obtain consensus and concord, whether natural or artificial), the realist one only 
focuses on political association based on oppression or remembrance of conflict, not on the contrast of spontaneous 
and artificial associations. 
Whilst the Contractualists’ political thought was based on the rejection of the naturalist social order, the realist 
paradigm offers a third solution. 
For Machiavelli, freedom of a political community is based on a regulated yet present social conflict within the city. 
What’s important is not finding an agreement, but rather finding a form of association which reproduces in a good way 
the conflict. In this sense, he created a sort of conflictual paradigm.  
7The clashes between social groups and people are part of the normality of the state, they are not something 
pathological, an element that should be eradicated; in fact, that conflict helps to build a community which guarantees 
to its members freedom and liberty.  
Thus, with Machiavelli we find the idea that conflict is not a source of weakness, but a virtue. Internal disunion can 
actually be a source of strength. In Rome, the disunion of the roman senate made the republic free.   
The shift from the Aristotelian to the Hobbesian model 
The transition to the Aristotelian to the Hobbesian model reflects the transition from an agricultural to capitalist 
society. This transition, however, was also based on three other factors:  
1. The discovery of Americas → the Europeans saw the Native Americans as barbarians, and thus the “white 
man’s burden” was to enslave and civilize them (civilization = Christianization) 
2. Civil war of religions → these wars produced a new world (and gave birth to the collapse of religions and the 
Lutheran reform) crowded by what we can call “absolute enemies” (a dehumanized view of political 
opponents).  
A polarization was created: protestants, on one hand, thought it was necessary to struggle against Catholic 
immorality; on the other hand, Catholics thought that it was necessary to fight against protestants. 
3. Scientific revolution → it was a vast movement of ideas that started with Copernicus’ discoveries proving the 
existence of a heliocentric system in the 17th century (and continued with Bacon, Descartes, Galilei).  
This catapult into a rational worldview can be seen in Hobbes’ image of the world: a mechanical clock. Europe moved 
to the universe of precision, and all things that couldn’t be subjected to exact measurement were excluded.  
Political power started to be looked at through the lenses of these novel discoveries.  
This last element is particularly important for it contains the key to redeem the disorder from which the modern world 
was born. This disorder given by economic, geographical, religious disruption must be replaced with an artificial order, 
as the scientific revolution taught. 
LESSON THREE: WHAT IS ARBITRARY POWER? THE STATE OF NATURE   
The State of Nature and arbitrary power 
The state of nature is a fictional concept, used to imagine what life would be without a state or political power. For this 
reason, the SON needs to be historicized in order to be fully understood.  
Nonetheless, a world without a legitimate political order/authority is not a world without power as such. The State of 
nature is, in fact, a world full of arbitrary powers which claim to be obeyed. What is arbitrary power? 
Arbitrary power can be defined as power which is not regulated by laws, controlled by institutions or limited by 
customs and constitutional rules. In some way, imagining the State of Nature allows us to understand how a State 
could be justified, what the best form of State would be.  
Aristotle believed we would not be humans if we lived in a society without a political order; we would be pure animals. 
We are destined to live in a political nature. And we take for granted the existence of political institutions that 
distribute and administer legitimate political power.  
The Contractualists proposed three different way of describing life in the State of Nature and its dynamics.  
Hobbes: the absolutist view 
Thomas Hobbes’ political and anthropological views were shaped by the era he lived in, reflected in all three versions 
of his philosophy (1640, The Element of Law; 1642/47, On the Citizen; 1651, Leviathan).  
Hobbes was born in 1588 (died in 1679), and lived in a time full of political turmoil the 30-years-war, the English Civil 
War, the substitution of the monarchy with the Commonwealth, the restoration of the Stuart dynasty. All of this 
shaped his political and anthropological views. 
Hobbes was especially worried by the English Civil War, as he saw his country falling into a state of nature. In Leviathan 
(1651) he drew a picture of how unpleasant this would be, hoping to persuade his readers of the advantages of 
government. 
8 
The State of Nature 
So, for Hobbes, the greatest issue within a state is the possibility of a civil war. The purpose of his political philosophy 
was to figure out how to reach and maintain the unity of the State, undermined by the threat of anarchy, its opposite.  
The dissolution of public authority, caused by the chaos deriving from the freedom of disagreeing on what is just and 
unjust, is the greatest challenge there is. This is precisely why Hobbes despises political parties and political conflicts, 
and considers anarchy as humankind’s return to the State of Nature. 
Hobbes argued that nothing would be worse than living without the protection of a State, which is the main defense 
against the risk of insecurity (of one’s life, liberty, material goods). The evil within humanity is not caused by 
oppression (an excess of public authority) but insecurity (a lack of public authority).  
The State of Nature as a State of War: materialism 
For this reason, a unified, strong state is necessary to make sure that society does not collapse into war of all against 
all, “Homo homini lupus”. He understood this state of permanent war not in the sense of effective war, but a perennial 
and continuous state of risk and fear, of danger of violent death.  
According to Hobbes, political philosophy has to be based on the scientific study of human nature (anthropology); he 
can be defined as a materialist, and also focused on the analysis of the human body, and of motion. And 
understanding materialism means understanding why the State of Nature is violent.  
Human anthropology is based on the search for happiness, therefore, on the power to obtain it. He based this view on 
the theory of conservation of motion:  
- Human beings always search for (and move towards) something: they never rest.  
- In Chapter 6 of Leviathan, Hobbes argues that life is motion, and can never be without desire, or fear.  
- He also describes felicity as the success in achieving the object of desire (and fulfilling human nature). 
The search for felicity, according to him, would lead eventually to a war between men. How is that? The thesis that the 
State of Nature is a State of War is based on three basic assumptions:  
1) Felicity  
Felicity is the achievement of the Hobbesian desire: Continual success in obtaining those things which a man, from 
time to time, desireth, that is to say, continual prospering, is that men call felicity 
From this definition, we understand that:  
o In order to obtain something, you have to get power, thus →  
o The search for felicity consists in the search for the power to achieve the object of their desire →  
o All individuals will try to increase their power of satisfying their needs in the search of felicity.  
Hobbes distinguishes between three types of desire which drive people:  
 Desire for safety 
 Desire for material gain/benefit 
 Desire for reputation/glory 
And in this State of Nature, in the search for felicity, to attack someone else is rational. This is how we come so close 
to the idea of war, where we attack one another to defend ourselves and our desires.  
2) Equality 
Hobbes is the first egalitarian thinker, as he believed that individuals in the SON are free and equal. But what does 
“natural equality for humans” mean?  
For him, the assumption of equality translates in the fact everyone possesses roughly the same level of strength/skills: 
everyone has the same strength to kill another → “The weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest” 
Hobbes does not refer to judicial equality, but material/physical/objective equality.  
3) Scarcity of goods  
9Hobbes assumed that in the SON there is a permanent condition of scarcity. If two people desire the same thing, 
oftentimes they will have to fight for it.  
Therefore the idea that the State of Nature would be a State of War follows from these assumption: if we analyze our 
anthropology then we must agree on the fact that the State of Nature would be a battlefield.  
In this picture of the State of Nature as a state of War, we can see Hobbes’ anthropological pessimism: the State of 
nature would be so violent and desperate because of human nature, which would inevitably cause conflict without the 
guidance of a government.  
So: is there justice in the Hobbesian State of Nature? 
The answer is ambivalent:  
 No: nothing can be unjust 
There isn’t justice because, according to Hobbes, injustice is intended as “the violation of the law”. Being no common 
legitimate authority entitled to enforce law in the State of Nature, it follows that a violation of (nonexistent) laws is 
not possible.  
Thus, from the assumption that the State of Nature is a State of war, we understand the nothing can be just, or unjust.  
 Yes: natural rights and laws of nature 
On the other hand, in order to qualify this condition and the State of Nature, Hobbes uses the juridical notion of 
natural right, the right of nature: the liberty of each man to use his power for the preservation of his life.  
Every individual has the right to do anything in the SON, if they believe it will serve their survival. Killing others is or can 
be, in this situation, the most rational form of preservation, in accordance with natural rights (which guarantee one’s 
own safety).  
Laws of nature 
There are also laws of nature according to Hobbes. The right of nature is liberty to do something; the law of nature 
prescribes a necessity to do something, it is a form of moral obligation. Laws of nature are a sort of moral guide, or 
code, described by Hobbes as theorems or conclusions of reason (we seek peace, and the other laws are consequences 
as theorems of reasons).  
The fundamentals natural laws are three:   
o Pax est quaerenda → we must seek peace 
o Ius in omnia est retinendum → we must renounce the right to everything 
o Pacts servanda sunt → we must respect the pact 
Natural laws, within the State of Nature, have a conditional validity. In fact, Hobbes argues that they bind only in the 
internal forum (the soul), not in the external forum (actual behavior). We have moral duty to obey them, but this duty 
can only be realized under one particular condition: when we know that others around us will obey them too. 
Otherwise, we run the risk that our obedience would be exploited by others.  
The problem, in the State of Nature, is that trying to respect these laws is irrational. The point isn’t that moral notions 
have no application at all the SON, but that in a condition of perpetual war the level of mutual fear is so high that we 
are not incentivized to respect the laws. Thus, the state of nature is a condition where human morality expressed by 
natural laws cannot flourish.  
Collective and individual rationality  
Natural rights and laws of nature express two different kinds of rationality:  
o Individual rationality → natural rights  
o Collective rationality → laws of nature  
Laws of nature tell us that the State of War is not the permanent situation of human life. The usefulness of these laws 
is to demonstrate how it is possible to exit the State of Nature and build a civil society, where the respect of these laws 
would be civil and rational (if you do not respect them, you will be punished, thanks to the monopolization of 
legitimate violence). The purpose of the civil state is to create the condition where obeying laws is rational.  
 
10