Lesson video

Welcome to this RE lesson on the state of nature and social contracts.

My name is Mrs. Rawbone, and we'll be looking at this today in the light of political philosophy and religion.

The outcome for today's lesson is, I can explain Thomas Hobbes' ideas about the state of nature, the social contract and the role of a sovereign.

In today's lesson, we'll be using the keywords, authority, freedom, the state of nature, sovereign and thought experiment.

Now, authority is the power to give orders, to make decisions, and to enforce obedience.

Freedom is the natural liberty to act as one wishes.

The state of nature is a concept that imagines life without society or government, with different philosophers seeing it as either peaceful or chaotic.

A sovereign is a supreme ruler, and a thought experiment is a philosophical tool to test ideas in hypothetical context, not real-world scenarios.

Today's lesson will form two parts.

We will be looking at the state of nature, and we will be looking at the social contract.

So let's get started, looking at the state of nature.

Philosophers are academics and thinkers who study ultimate questions about existence, knowledge, ethics, and reality, using logic to explore these topics.

Whether you have a religious or a non-religious worldview, you can use philosophy as a tool to understand the arguments that others use to support their views.

Thought experiments are tools that philosophers use to help them develop and test out their ideas.

So in this lesson, we will explore Hobbes' philosophical thought experiment on the concept of the state of nature.

A philosophical thought experiment is a mental exercise that asks you to consider some difficult concepts by thinking through a made-up scenario.

As a political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes was interested in how we should live together, and he famously used a thought experiment in his book, "Leviathan." He wrote, "Imagine men without civil society." So Hobbes is asking you to mentally picture a situation, hence the use of the word imagine.

And when he says civil society, Hobbes means things like laws and government that help people live and work together in an organised way.

So here he's setting up his thought experiment.

Let's check your understanding then.

True or false? Thought Experiments are meant to represent real events that philosophers believe to be true.

Decide whether you think the statement is true or false, and have a think about why.

Pause the video.

Come back when you are ready to check your answer.

Well done if you put false.

So it is not the case that thought experiments represent real events, but why? Let's have a look.

Thought experiments are hypothetical scenarios.

They're not real events.

They're used to explore ideas, to test theories, and to challenge assumptions without needing to be believed as true.

So well done if you recognise that the statement was false.

When Hobbes wrote, "Imagine men without civil society," he was asking us to imagine the state of nature, and that means the natural state of human beings.

This was a world where there were no governments, no laws, and no rules to guide people's behaviour.

Everyone would have complete freedom to do whatever they want.

What do you think would happen in a world like this? How would people behave? And how would you feel about living in such a world? Now, Hobbes had a very particular view on these questions, but I'd like you to take some time to think about what your opinion is.

Have a discussion with somebody nearby, if there's anyone around, how do you think people would behave? How would you feel about living in such a world? When you've had a chance to talk about it, if you're able, then come back and we will continue learning about Hobbes' thought experiment.

Aisha and Lucas have been engaging with Hobbes thought experiment, and here they are explaining what they think.

Aisha says, "Without laws, most people would fight for what they want.

It would be chaotic and unsafe." Lucas says, "I think most people would be kind.

They wouldn't fight, but they would share and cooperate." I don't know what you came up with earlier about you thought people would behave, but does your view align with either of theirs? Why? If you're able to talk to somebody nearby, take this time, pause if you need to, and then come back when you are ready to continue.

So here's a picture of Thomas Hobbes.

He believed that in the state of nature, people would think about themselves and would therefore be in constant conflict with each other.

He described the condition of man as a condition of war of everyone against everyone, and famously wrote that life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

So let's look in a little bit more depth at that famous quotation from Hobbes.

According to Hobbes, life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

It would be solitary, meaning people would be isolated.

It would be poor, there would be a lack of resources and security.

It would be nasty, full of conflict and violence.

Brutish, people would act selfishly.

And finally, short, dangerous and likely to be cut short.

So Hobbes paints quite a picture of what life would be like in the state of nature.

And I'd like you to think back to your ideas on this.

How is your view similar to or different from Hobbes? Take a moment.

If you can talk to someone nearby, then that's fantastic.

Have a conversation, make a note of what you think, and then come back when you're ready to join the lesson.

So let's check your understanding.

What are the missing words? According to Hobbes, in the state of.

life would be solitary, poor.

brutish and.

So I'm looking for three words.

Take some time to reflect on what he said about the human condition, what his thought experiment said.

Pause if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to check your answer.

So well done if you got that it was the state of nature and that Hobbes said life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

So for task A, we're gonna practise our understanding.

Sam, Lucas and Laura have been asked to explain Hobbes views on the state of nature.

And I want you to think about whose explanation is correct and why.

Lucas says, "Hobbes thought the state of nature was a peaceful place where people lived without fear or violence." Laura says, "Hobbes believed that in the state of nature, people would act outta self-interest, causing conflict and insecurity." And Sam says, "In the state of nature, Hobbes believed that people were naturally peaceful, but lack the rules to protect them." So only one of these is correct, and your job is to decide who's and to explain why.

So take some time to think about what you've learned in the lesson and write down your answer, making sure you explain as well.

And then come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said that Laura's explanation is correct.

She says, "Hobbes believe that in the state of nature, people would act out of self-interest, causing conflict and insecurity." Now, Laura's explanation is correct because Hobbes believe that in the state of nature, people act outta self preservation and desire for power.

Without a higher authority, this leads to competition and conflict, creating a constant state of fear and insecurity.

As Hobbes famously said, "Life in the state of nature would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Well done if you identified that Laura's explanation was the correct one.

And also if you remembered what Hobbes said about how people would behave in the state of nature and even better if you managed to reference that famous quotation.

So let's move on to the second part of our lesson.

We're going to be looking at the social contract.

Here's a photograph of a reenactment of a battle that took place during the Civil War in England.

Hobbes lived through the English Civil War, from 1642 to 1651, and this was a violent conflict between Royalists and Parliamentarians.

He saw the chaos and the disorder that results from the breakdown of authority.

As a Royalist, Hobbes actually fled.

He went to France, and there he wrote "Leviathan," which he published in 1651.

And he argued that a strong central authority was necessary to prevent a return to the state of nature and to maintain peace.

Izzy, Andeep and Sam have been asked by their teacher to think about what they would do if they were part of a group who had been shipwrecked on an island.

Izzy says, "Well, the first thing we should do is decide who would make a good leader." Andeep says, "Once we've agreed on who should lead us, we need to make sure we obey them." And Sam says, "If we follow the rules, when problems arise, we can trust the leader to solve them." I'd like you to have a think.

What are the costs and the benefits of these ideas? So what are the good things that would come out of them, and what are the not so good things that would result from them? If you're able to turn and talk to someone nearby, then please do so and come back when you've had a chance to think through what they've said.

In the "Leviathan," Hobbes explains the solution to the state of nature.

And Izzy, Andeep, and Sam's ideas all reflect his thinking on this.

Izzy said, "The first thing we should do is decide who would make a good leader." And this is exactly what Hobbes felt people should do in the state of nature.

According to him, people agree to form a society, and they transfer power to a sovereign, a strong, powerful leader.

Andeep said, "Well, once we've agreed on who should lead us, we need to make sure we obey them." And this is in line with Hobbes who said that the sovereign creates and enforces laws.

So laws are things that people should obey.

Sam says, "If we follow the rules, then when problems arise, we can trust the leader to solve them." And this links with what Hobbes said.

He argued that people give up their freedoms in return for order and security.

So we have lots of freedoms, lots of things that we can do freely in the state of nature, but we give some of them up in order to feel secure.

Although Hobbes didn't actually use the term social contract, this is what he was describing when he said people agree by covenant with another, to submit the judgement and authority of a sovereign.

So a covenant is a type of agreement.

So essentially he argued that people together agree with each other that they will together have someone in charge, someone who they submit to, so who they obey.

And it's become very common to use the word social contract to describe this sort of agreement.

And as I said, Hobbes did not come up with the word himself, but later writers attributed it back to him and his thinking.

So this is how the social contract works.

Firstly, people agree to form a society and to transfer their power to a sovereign.

This sovereign creates and enforces laws, and in response, people give up their freedoms. Finally, the outcome is that sovereign provides security and order.

So Hobbes' theory has been described as a social contract because it's an arrangement between two or more people or groups where each promises to do something for the other.

So when that happens, when people make a covenant or agreement, there's usually a cost and a benefit.

The cost here is absolute freedom.

In return for that, you get protection from harm.

So there's the security protection from the sovereign, but in return, you don't have absolute freedom.

So you obey the laws in return for peace.

Let's check your understanding.

What does Hobbes describe people agreeing by covenant with one another? Is it A, to form a democracy where everyone has equal power, B, to give up some freedoms to a ruler in return for security and order, C, to follow moral rules without a government, or D, to avoid paying taxes? So take some time to think about which is the correct answer.

Make sure you read them through again.

Pause and come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put B, people do agree to give up some freedoms, but in return they get that benefit of security and order.

Hobbes describes the role of the sovereign in "Leviathan." The sovereign must have absolute and unquestionable authority.

The sovereign regulates all aspects of life, including behaviour, commerce, and religion.

Individuals must obey the sovereign's laws to maintain peace and order, and the sovereign prevents society from returning to chaos, which is the state of nature.

Andeep and Izzy are thinking about society today and discussing what freedoms people give up in order to give the sovereign absolute authority.

Andeep says, "People have to follow speed limits and give up the freedom to drive however they want." Izzy says, "Another example is privacy.

Like at the airport, people let security check their bags and scan them." What do you think would happen if the sovereign or state did not have the power to enforce speed limits or security measures at airports? Take some time, if you can talk to somebody nearby, even better.

Have a think about your answer.

And then when you are ready to join the lesson, come back.

Hobbes thought that if the sovereign did not have absolute power, their authority would be weakened, which would lead to disorder and chaos.

And maybe you said something similar.

So let's check your understanding.

What are the missing words? According to Hobbes, in order to prevent society from returning to the state of nature, the.

must have.

authority.

So we're looking for two words here.

Pause the video, reread, put those words down, and then come back to see if you got them right.

So the missing words were sovereign and absolute.

Well done if you got those two correct.

So for our task B, part one, I'd like you to decide whether each of the statements in the table are true or false and to explain why.

The first statement says, "According to Hobbes, people enter into a social contract to gain freedom." The second, "Hobbes argued that in a social contract, the sovereign must have absolute authority." And the third, "Hobbes thought that religion should be separate from the sovereign." So decide whether they are true or false and have a think about why, making sure that you put that down as an explanation.

So let's have a look at what you should have said.

For the first one, according to Hobbes, people enter into a social contract to gain freedom, that's actually false, because Hobbes believed that when people enter into a social contract, they actually willingly give up some freedoms. The second, Hobbes argued that in a social contract, the sovereign must have absolute authority is true.

Hobbes believed the sovereign must have absolute authority in order to maintain the peace.

And the third, Hobbes thought religion should be separate from the sovereign, that's false because Hobbes argued that the sovereign should control religion to avoid conflict.

So well done if you correctly identified whether they were true or false and if you managed to put down some of the reasons too.

So for task two in part B, what you have learned in this lesson on the state of nature, you're going to be using that to write a paragraph which will contribute to an essay on our unit question, religion and politics in the Enlightenment, how were they aligned? And here are some sentence starters that you could use some or all of to help you.

Hobbes political philosophy was influenced by living during the.

His thought experiment on the state of nature helps us understand.

According to Hobbes, in the state of nature, life would be.

To avoid the chaos of the state of nature.

Hobbes believe the sovereign rather than the church must have.

And Hobbes' ideas align religion and politics by.

So think carefully about what we've done today and use those to try and explain how Hobbes linked or aligned religion and politics.

Pause the video, give yourself time to do that, and then come back when you want to see what you could have written.

So let's have a look at what you could have written.

Hobbes political philosophy was influenced by living during the English Civil War, a period of conflict and religious division.

His thought experiment on the state of nature helps us understand what life might be like without government or laws.

According to Hobbes, in the state of nature, life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

To avoid the chaos of the state of nature, people would agree to form a social contract, giving up some freedoms to a sovereign in exchange for order and security.

Hobbes believe the sovereign rather than the church must have absolute authority to prevent society from descending into disorder.

Hobbes ideas align religion and politics by placing religious authority under the control of the sovereign to maintain peace and order.

So well done if you remembered about him living during that period of conflict, about life without governmental laws and what that would be, and about what he said about forming a contract and the cost and benefits of that.

Finally, it's really important that you've mentioned the sovereign maintaining that order.

Well done if you included any of those points.

So in today's lesson, we have done a lot.

We have learned that thought experiments explore philosophical ideas through hypothetical scenarios.

We've thought about Hobbes' thought experiment, which imagine life in a state of nature.

We've learned that according to Hobbes, without government, the state of nature would be chaotic, unsafe, and solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

We've learned that Hobbes described what later became known as a social contract where people agree to form a society and transfer power to a sovereign for order and security.

We've learned that the sovereign enforces laws, provides protection and prevents chaos.

We've also learned that people give up some freedoms in exchange for safety and societal order.

And finally, we've learned that the sovereign needs absolute authority to govern effectively.

We've done a lot today, so thank you for working with me on this challenging lesson.

Well done.