Comparing Hobbes's Gratitude and Aristotle's Magnanimity
Hobbes's natural law of gratitude needs to be brought back into perspective when reading his political works. Often when reading Hobbes, many use his depiction of human nature and natural rights to demonstrate the innate propensity toward unsociability. However, contrary to this presumption, Hobbes presents a collectivist dimension to his argument even within the state of nature. The natural law of gratitude demonstrates the importance of preserving sociability and collectivity. In both On the Citizen and Leviathan, gratitude creates and sustains sociability with utility-based friendships. Gratitude is preserved best in a monarchy, because it secures covenants that rely on gratitude; it secures voluntary action; and is rooted in natural equality. Hobbes's natural law of gratitude was influenced by Aristotle's virtue of magnanimity and friendships that accompany virtue in the Nicomachean Ethics. However, Hobbes would problematize Aristotle’s magnanimous person (or the great-souled man) because they reject gratitude for their benefactions on the account that nothing seems great to them. Furthermore, the great-souled man worries that they may be perceived as a member of the inferior class which lowers their self-esteem that allows for their great benefactions. It will be argued that gratitude is needed to form the collective, and it is best preserved in Hobbes’s monarchy. For monarchy is rooted in natural equality, while timocracy is rooted in inequality.
Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations
Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Regina