Thomas Hobbes investigates, in his work Leviathan, human nature and what individuals ought to do in certain situations. At a point in this investigation, Hobbes theorizes that every individual has reason to keep their covenants, even in the State of Nature. However, I believe this to be incorrect. In this essay, I will try to prove that it is irrational for individuals to keep all of their covenants in the State of Nature. Moreover, I will try to provide an alternate theory in order to compensate for the flaws that Hobbes’s theory possesses.

            First of all, it is reasonable to claim that there are two different kinds of covenants. One kind of covenant requires that the two parties perform an action simultaneously, while the other requires one of the parties to go first. This means that if the covenant requires simultaneous action, then even in the State of Nature it is irrational to break the covenant because the consequences of the covenant are desired by both parties and they each depend on one another to carry out the covenant. However, if the covenant requires one of the parties to go first, then there is room for the second party to break the covenant. Nevertheless, this according to Hobbes is also irrational.

In order to explain, Hobbes begins with the claim that it is illogical for individuals to perform actions that lead to their own destruction (xv.91). Building on this, he maintains that an individual needs “the help of confederates” to survive in the State of Nature, since without them any two or more individuals can overcome him (xv.91). Now breaking a covenant with individuals who have already kept their part of the covenant would lead to a reputation of a covenant-breaker. Now, no one would rationally form a covenant with a covenant-breaker since there are chances of getting deceived (xv.92). Hence, the covenant-breakers can expect not to have any “confederates” in the State of Nature, and make themselves susceptible to harm from others in groups of two or more. This clearly means that, as Hobbes claimed, breaking a covenant is completely irrational in the State of Nature.

            Nevertheless, Hobbes’s view seems flawed when looked upon from another perspective. For example, suppose two individuals agree to guard some gold together, and one of the individuals breaks the covenant by injuring the other individual and stealing the gold away. In this instance, the injured individual will now be unable to perform numerous physical activities that healthy individuals can perform, making him more or less useless. Hence it is unlikely that any other rational person will make a covenant with this useless individual. Now upon comparing the two individuals, it seems that the deceiver is much better off than the deceived. This is because people would be reluctant to form covenants with either of these individuals, and the covenant-breaker has the gold and is healthy, while the covenant-keeper is now poor, and is injured. This scenario can be applied to numerous different situations, where the deceived individual can becomes helpless in a variety of different ways. As a matter of fact, the covenant-keeping individual may even be looked upon as someone who is quiet easily deceived and hence not a good choice as a partner for any covenant. As it can be seen, in the covenant involving two parties, the better and more rational choice is made by the party that actually breaks the covenant, rather than the one that keeps it.

            Nevertheless, this problematic situation can be resolved by making a few alterations to Hobbes’s original statement (that it is irrational to break a covenant with your partner). Hobbes maintains in Leviathan that each person requires “the help of confederates” to survive effectively in the State of Nature (xv.91). The main point to notice here is that there is no exact amount of confederates that an individual must choose. Moreover, it is clear that having just one confederate leads to the problematic situation, where breaking the covenant becomes more rational than keeping it. However, having more than just two individuals in a covenant has a more interesting and desired effect. Hobbes himself claims that every individual has a characteristic fear of death (xiii.77). Moreover, every individual is more or less equal in ability (xiii.74). Since every individual is equal in ability, two individuals would have more power than a single individual. This means that these two individuals have the ability to inflict more harm on the single individual, and having the characteristic fear of death, this single individual will try to avoid his harm from occurring. In this sense, if individuals would make covenants in groups of three or more, it would be irrational for any single individual to break the covenant since he can receive much more harm from other individuals in doing so. As a result, it can be derived that it is irrational for any single individual to break a covenant, if he/she holds it with two or more rational people. The same applies to a small group of individuals that hold a covenant with a large body of rational people.

Nevertheless, there is a challenge that one might propose to my claim. Suppose that there are three individuals in a covenant with each other. Since there are more than two individuals in an agreement, no single individual can dare to break the covenant since it would be completely irrational in virtue to the fact that two people are stronger than one. However what about a scenario where an individual possibly deceives another individual into supporting him/herself? For example, suppose that there are three individuals involved in a covenant, and one of the individuals wishes to gain an unfair advantage over the other two by breaking this covenant. Let’s further suppose that this individual manages to persuade one of the parties of the covenant into helping him take down the third individual. Now these two individuals would be able to overcome the third individual. After overcoming the third individual, the original individual that wanted to break the covenant is now free to rationally break his agreement with the second individual and gain all of his benefits. If this scenario is studied, it is seen that really it is only one person that manages to succeed in the long run and that too by breaking the covenant he had with the other two parties involved This means that although requiring further covenants and plans, in the long run it is possible for a single individual to overcome two other individuals and gain the benefits of breaking an agreement, and hence making it rational for a single person to break a covenant involving two or more individuals.

However, this challenge to my claim requires irrational assumptions. It is not necessary that the individual wanting to break a covenant would get any support from any other parties involved with the covenant. In fact, suppose that such a situation arises where there are three individuals involved in a covenant, and one of the individual wants to break the covenant for his own advantage. Then first of all, it would be irrational for this individual to even ask one of his partners to help him overcome the third individual involved in the covenant. This is because doing so can cause him to look like an agreement-breaker (and rightly so). Moreover, even if he does make an irrational decision and confront one of his partners by ask for his assistance in overcoming the third individual, it would be completely irrational for the partner to not look at this individual as an agreement-breaker and hence avoid him completely, as well as informing the victim the plans of this individual. This means that assuming that the individual manages to first of all persuade one of his partners is completely unreasonable. The only time where the individual may succeed in persuading is the case where his partners are both irrational individuals and this goes completely against my claim (that it is irrational for any single individual to break a covenant, if he/she holds it with two or more rational people).

Dear Spouses! Please take a good dose of the above potions to stay healthy in your marriage life. Trust me it’s difficult but not impossible. All the best!