----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
I think Sam Bostaph has phrased the Hobbes-Hume difference in an important 
and memorable way, but one that is slightly inaccurate on Hobbes. 
 
For Hobbes, by nature every man has a right to every thing, and we all have 
a right to defend our lives (Leviathan, ch. XIV).  So we do have natural 
rights in Hobbes.  To prevent the state of war, where the lives of men are 
poor, nasty, brutish, and short, (Lev, XIII), we must -- prisoners' dilemma 
style -- give up all our rights to the sovereign, who then provides order 
for the society and, by passing laws that are universal and public (because 
universal & public laws are the only way to keep order in a large society), 
establishes our freedoms, because we are free to do what the laws do not 
prohibit (Lev., XXI). 
 
But in Hobbes we always retain our right to defend ourselves -- that is the 
basic natural right, which we can and do never give up, even when we agree 
to join in civil society under a sovereign (Lev. XXI).  (And, of course, 
who is the judge of whether my life is threatened? I am.) 
 
If anything, I think that the above increases the distance between Hobbes 
and Hume, because it means that for Hobbes our always retaining our right 
to defend our lives means that even in civil society we must be concerned 
about defending our lives, from other citizens or from police undercover 
agents asking us for drugs.... 
 
Peter G. Stillman 
Vassar College 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]