The Social Contract Research Podcast · Social Contract Research Network

Hobbes's Distinctive State of Nature, with Philip Pettit

·1 hr 22 min·5 clips

Hobbes argued that language, not animal instincts, drives humans into a zero-sum struggle for eminence.

This seminar features philosopher Philip Pettit analyzing Thomas Hobbes's unique conception of the social contract and the state of nature. The host, Chris, introduces Pettit as a renowned professor from Princeton and the Australian National University with extensive work on Hobbes. Pettit begins by situating Hobbes within the 17th-century context of the Thirty Years' War and the English Civil War, periods marked by severe religious and civil dissension. Hobbes's central problem was justifying a state strong enough to prevent civil war while being responsive to post-Reformation ideals of individual autonomy. Pettit explains that Hobbes employed two key premises: a theory of human nature and a theory of morality based on self-interest. Contrary to the common view, Hobbes did not see humans as beast-like; he argued animals live in relative peace, while language uniquely enables human reasoning and contracts. Pettit emphasizes that language also allows detrimental social comparison and a relentless struggle for "eminence" or positional goods. Hobbes's moral theory posits a fundamental natural law of self-preservation, where individuals are rationally required to prioritize their own safety and interests. From these premises, Hobbes deduces the state of nature would be a "war of all against all," making life "nasty, poor, brutish, solitary, and short." Pettit details that individuals in this condition, driven by distrust, cannot simply contract with each other for peace because such agreements would be unenforceable. Hobbes's ingenious solution is a contract where individuals unanimously authorize a sovereign as an independent enforcer of laws. This sovereign, established by the subjects' contract with each other, possesses absolute power to legislate and punish. Pettit notes a critical consolation: the sovereign's self-interest aligns with not being overly oppressive, as creating too many "outlaws" would undermine social order and their own power. A surprising insight is Pettit's claim that Hobbes's theory was called a "rebel's catechism" by a contemporary, Bishop Bramhall, because it permits resistance if the sovereign directly threatens a subject's life. Pettit argues Hobbes presents a third, distinct use of the social contract concept, different from historical or purely normative uses; for Hobbes, understanding the contract explains the essential "making" of a political society, akin to understanding a circle by knowing how to draw one. The host, Chris, later questions whether Hobbes viewed the state of nature as historical fact, a thought experiment, or something else, prompting Pettit's heterodox interpretation. The tone is academic and educational, structured as a formal seminar lecture followed by a Q&A. The style is expository, with Pettit carefully reconstructing Hobbes's logical arguments and historical context. This episode would deeply interest students of political philosophy, intellectual history, or social contract theory. Listeners seeking casual entertainment or a debate on modern politics might find it too specialized and dense.

As heard by us

Pettit's Hobbes seminar asks whether a sovereign can be bound by the limits it is meant to enforce.

This Social Contracts Research Network seminar starts with Philip Pettit on Hobbes and quickly settles into the old problem of the social contract and the state of nature.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

For Hobbes, sovereignty is the problem this seminar keeps turning over, not the part you can skip.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from The Social Contract Research Podcast