Free Will: Augustine and Hobbes Compared

The philosophical debate surrounding free will and political liberty has been deeply influenced by two towering figures: Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Hobbes.

Introduction

These thinkers, though separated by centuries and divergent in their approaches, have significantly shaped our understanding of human freedom and authority. Augustine, with his theological inquiries into the existence of evil and suffering, and Hobbes, with his pragmatic examination of human nature and societal structures, offer contrasting yet illuminating perspectives on the nature of free will and its implications for political liberty.

This essay seeks to delve into their definitions and arguments, examining how each philosopher's ideas have contributed to modern perceptions of these complex concepts.

Augustine's Theology of Free Will

Augustine's exploration of free will is intricately linked to his quest to understand the presence of evil in the world and the role of divine providence. Drawing from his background in Manicheanism and Neoplatonism, Augustine posits that evil arises from human free will—a gift from God that allows individuals to choose their actions. In Augustine's framework, God permits humans to exercise free will, and the existence of evil is an inevitable byproduct of this freedom. Even natural disasters, diseases, and other misfortunes are indirectly attributed to human actions, as they are seen as consequences of humanity's interference in the natural order. Augustine later refines his position by suggesting that what humans perceive as evil may, in fact, be part of a larger divine plan aimed at shaping individuals toward a greater good.

Hobbes's Pragmatic Perspective on Liberty

In contrast, Thomas Hobbes presents a pragmatic and secular understanding of liberty, devoid of theological underpinnings. Hobbes does not distinguish between free and unfree actions through a process of deliberation. Instead, he defines liberty as "the absence of all the impediments to action that are not contained in the nature and intrinsical quality of the agent." For Hobbes, true freedom lies in the ability to act according to one's will, albeit within the constraints of nature and external impediments. Hobbes's conception of liberty acknowledges that human choices are limited by various factors, yet he emphasizes that freedom exists both before and after the deliberative process. This perspective highlights the inherent limitations of human freedom while recognizing the agency individuals possess within those boundaries.

Political Liberty and Authority

The relationship between free will and political liberty is further explored through Augustine's and Hobbes's views on authority and governance. Augustine, writing during the decline of the Roman Empire, contrasts the love of liberty with the desire for domination. In his work "De Civitate Dei," Augustine argues that political liberty can be a source of glory and virtue, allowing individuals to pursue what is materially and morally good. Yet, he also acknowledges that the absence of political liberty may lead to moral growth, as suffering can ultimately free individuals from the bondage of evil. Augustine's perspective places God as the ultimate authority, transcending political structures and emphasizing obedience to divine will.

Hobbes, on the other hand, approaches authority from a secular standpoint, viewing political structures as artificial constructs. He asserts that in their natural state, humans lack government, and authority emerges from social contracts designed to ensure peace and security. Hobbes challenges the notion of inherent authority, suggesting that governance is necessary to curb humanity's violent tendencies and safeguard self-preservation. He argues that rebellion against authority is justified when self-preservation is at stake, aligning with Augustine's justification for rebellion in the pursuit of free will and faith.

Human Nature and the Role of the State

Both Augustine and Hobbes share a skeptical view of the state, albeit for different reasons. Augustine perceives rulers as glory-seekers, emphasizing humility and virtue as prerequisites for true authority. He envisions the state's role as promoting virtuous living and love for God, rather than material prosperity. Augustine's conception of the state is functional and negative, focusing on maintaining social order through discipline and repression.

Hobbes, motivated by a desire to avoid the chaos of the state of nature, views the state as a necessary evil to ensure peace. He questions the legitimacy of governments established through force and fraud, arguing that their primary function is to maintain order and security. In Hobbes's framework, the state restricts individual rights only to the extent necessary for self-defense, emphasizing the importance of a strong sovereign to prevent societal collapse.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Augustine and Hobbes offer distinct yet complementary perspectives on free will and political liberty. Augustine's theological approach underscores the role of divine providence and the potential for moral growth through suffering, while Hobbes's pragmatic analysis highlights the need for governance to curb humanity's baser instincts. Despite their differences, both philosophers recognize the complexities of human nature and the challenges of achieving true freedom and justice in a world fraught with evil and authority. Their ideas continue to resonate in contemporary discussions of free will, authority, and the nature of political liberty.

Did you like this example?

1195

50