Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), perhaps the greatest English political philosopher, argued that life in the state of nature would be, ‘solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short’. But what is the state of nature? Need it be so miserable? And why does this matter, anyway? In exploring these questions we come to see some important considerations - - both unsettling and comforting - - about the place of trust in human life.

Reflection upon the state of nature first took place in the context of a much broader debate, although one that may be lost to us now: what is the ultimate source of the authority of the state? For much of human history our rulers have claimed to have divine authority, and thus a god-given right to rule. The opposing view, of course, is that the source of authority is the people, and that political power rests not on the nature of things but on human convention. Accordingly, there may be more than one way in which we may devise such conventions, and, in principle, we have the freedom to determine the best form of rule for us. How are we to do this? The methodology adopted by Hobbes, and those influenced by him, was to imagine what life would be like with no political systems or rulers. This is the state of nature: no laws, no government. Within this thought experiment - and there need be no suggestion that human beings ever were in this situation - what forms of government, if any, would we establish? The answer to this question is the answer to the question: what is the ideal form of government for us?

Hobbes wanted to defend the absolute sovereign, a ruler who would have unlimited powers of rule and of punishment. Essentially Hobbes’ argument is that the miseries of life in the state of nature could only be remedied by a sovereign with such strength.

Famously, Hobbes identified three reasons why the state of nature would be a state of war of every person against every other person, by which he means not constant fighting but a constant readiness to fight. First, without government there would be little or no industry and so resources would be very scare. People must attack for gain in order to take whatever possessions others had managed to acquire. Second, individuals would try to pre-empt these attacks, and get their defence in first. This Hobbes calls ‘diffidence’. Third, people would realize the advantages of a reputation for strength and attack others simply for glory. In total this would lead to mutual hostility based on the deepest mistrust.

Are we really so untrustworthy ...