Essay/Term paper: Thomas hobbes: what is the difference between obligations in foro interno and in foro externo, and when do we have such obligations?

Essay, term paper, research paper:  Philosophy Essays

Thomas Hobbes: What Is The Difference Between Obligations In foro interno and In
foro externo, and When Do We Have Such Obligations?


According to Thomas Hobbes, there are certain laws of nature which exist
in the absence of an organized government. These laws are extremely cut throat,
and place people in extremely dangerous situations where their lives are in
danger. Government is the answer to this dangerous situation, but it is here
that the question of obligation comes into question. Does one have an obligation
to take a chance and follow the laws set forth for them, or should they only
think of themselves, and follow the laws of nature? This is a vital question
which I will explore.
According to Hobbes, the overriding law of nature is kill or be killed.
Hobbes believed that, "every man has a right to everything, even to another
man's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to
everything endureth, there can be no security to any man(how strong or wise
soever he be) of living out the time which nature ordinarily allowith men to
live."
However he also believed, "that a man be willing, when others are so too
as far-forth as for peace and defense of himself that he shall think it
necessary to lay down this right to all things, and be contented with so much
liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself." The
question now is, when do we have an obligation to strive towards peace when it
means giving up our natural rights?
According to Hobbes, we always have an obligation to work towards peace,
and have an obligation in foro interno, but not always in foro externo. The
difference between there two are that in foro interno means inside you, or you
believing in something. In this case, it would mean that inside you, you would
want to strive for peace because it would mean an end to worrying about your
life. No longer would you have to walk around in a state of nature where any one
can come and take your life. Hobbes believed that a person always has an
obligation to strive towards peace in foro interno because every man wants one
thing more than any other, and that is to live.
However, Hobbes did not believe that you always had an obligation to
work towards peace in foro externo. The reason for this, simply put, you can not
trust other men to do the same unless you can be sure that they will not turn on
you and take your life. Hobbes felt that, "For he that should be modest and
tractable, and preform all he promises, in such time and place where no man else
should do, should be make himself prey to others, and procure his own certain
ruin, contrary to the ground of all laws of nature, which tend to nature's
preservation."3
Hobbes felt that one's obligation in foro externo ended when fulfilling
the obligation would endanger the life of the person. Every law of nature is
geared for the preservation of the life of the self, and therefore, every man
has the right to not do something should it mean that he would have to give up
his or her life. In the case of in foro externo obligation towards peace, you do
not always have to do it.
If you decide you are going to give up you right to everything, and do
so, but another person does not, they will most likely kill you. Therefore,
before one can oblige in foro externo, there must be some sort of safeguard or
higher power which will ensure that everyone will give up their right to
everything. That is where governments come in. Their job is to make sure that
when all men agree to a covenant, in which they give up their rights to
everything, that they do not decide to break that covenant and take what they
want when they want it.
To make sure this breaking of the covenant does not happen, governments
set up institutions such as the police to make sure everyone follows the rules
of the government. It is only then, when a person can be sure that they will be
protected from others, are they obliged in foro externo to strive towards peace
and give up their right to everything.
Personally, I agree with what Hobbes is saying in this matter, it makes
a lot of sense even though it was written so long ago. It still has much
relevance today. Take for example the U.S., where most people have obliged in
foro externo to strive for peace and give up their natural rights. This is only
possible because people are not afraid (for the most part) that others will take
advantage of the situation and take what they want. However in other countries
where this safety is not felt, there is many instances where people take what
they want, when they want it, and often at the expense of the people who have
given up their right to everything. So as you can see, what Hobbes said so long
ago, still has much merit today.