Philosophical Differences in Government
The philosophical differences between Thomas Hobbes and Richard Wasserstrom each focus on human nature and more importantly the state of war. Hobbes is often portrayed as an egotist in his belief in human self preservation and self interest. He posits the notion that warfare is a successful tool in furthering the general welfare of the state through the acquisition of more land and wealth of the conquered country. Wasserstrom states, “âÂ?¦there be no propriety, no dominion, no mine, thine, distinct, but only that to be every man’s, that he can get, and for so long, as he can keep it” (4). Human rights and morals of a nation’s citizens are not as important in comparison to the welfare of the state as a whole.
On the other hand, Wasserstrom is on the opposite other side of the spectrum. Rather than simply state his opinion, he plays devils advocate in his article before stating his ideology on the matter regarding warfare. He concludes that war is in fact immoral because it knowingly leads to the death of innocent people. He states, “The knowing killing of innocent is an evil that throws up the heaviest of justification burdens” (108). He believes that in an age in which nuclear weapons or other types of bombs and missiles are designed to cause as much destruction and devastation as possible, countries know that when they are in a war they will inevitable kill innocent people. This is the fundamental difference between the two philosophies. Contrary to Wasserstrom’s opinion, Hobbes believes that in a time of warfare no one is considered to be innocent. He states that every citizen of a country involved in warfare plays some kind of role in helping their country throughout the war. He uses the example of a factory worker in an ammunitions factory making weapons for soldiers or a tailor who sews clothing for the uniforms of soldiers. As weapons technology has advanced it has become clear according to Hobbes that weapons and warfare are too large to be limited only to a certain area like a military base but now whole towns or cities are being destroyed. It hardly matters anymore whether the people being killed are combatants. Wassertrom posits the idea that not only is war immoral but it neither helps nor preserves human self interests and desires.
I believe that Hobbes is correct in his viewpoint, no matter how selfish it may sound. War is used as a tool to benefit the state by preserving the general welfare and pursuing the interests of the nation. The Romans brought glory, fame and prosperity to the people and country by conquering large parts of Europe and having one of the largest empires in the world. Wasserstrom’s opinion is that war is immoral because of the killing of innocents. He gives the example of the United States’ use of the atomic bomb in World War Two to prove that thousands of innocent Japanese citizens were killed and therefore was is immoral. However, while it is unfortunate at innocent people must die in times of war; I don’t believe that it is immoral. War has become common in a country to help in certain areas such as human rights, terrorism, etc in addition to desire for more land and wealth. You can take the example of the war in Iraq currently going on. The purpose of the war was not for the U.S. to gain wealth or land; it was in fact to stop possible terrorism and nuclear weapons from destroying the world. On these grounds I don’t think that the war is immoral. I also agree with Hobbes’ view that the people killed in war who are not combatants are not all innocent in times of war. On page 4 Hobbes states, “To this war of every man, against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust.” By giving power to a sovereign or leader, the people have put their fate and decisions in his hand and therefore all of the people are guilty. Furthermore, their job occupation or actions during the war make most if not all of the people, combatants or guilty of playing some role, no matter how small in the war. Wasserstrom’s opinion might be right in an ideal perfect world but Hobbes’ is a more realistic philosophy.
