Equality in Hobbes and its dual nature: factually grounded, relatively fictional
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.361522Keywords:
equality, Hobbes, mortality, fictionAbstract
This paper presents a discussion between two interpretations of Hobbes' postulate of natural equality: the classical position, according to which equality is based on a factual statement, namely the equal capacity for mutual violent destruction among human beings, and the normative-fictionalist position, which indicates that natural equality does not point to a factual description of how men are, but rather is a fictional assumption that we must assume if we want to survive and live in peace. I will argue in favor of the classical position by evaluating some of the objections raised against it from the normative-fictionalist side, but I will also defend the idea that certain concessions must be made to the latter interpretation.
Downloads
References
Albrecht, Y. K. (2020). Fiktionen en Recht. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Bermudo, J. M. (1998). Libertad, igualdad y justicia en Hobbes. Ideas y Valores, 47(108), 56 -74.
Bobbio, N. (1991). Thomas Hobbes. Ediciones Paradigma.
Bouriau, C. (2016). Hans Vaihingers Die Philosophie des Als-Ob: Pragmatismus oder Fiktionalismus? Philosophia Scientiæ, 20(1), 77-93. https://doi.org/10.4000/philosophiascientiae.1156
Dyzenhaus, D. (2011). Austin, Hobbes, and Dicey. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 24(2), 411-430. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0841820900005245
Fraga, F. A. (2003). Hobbes y la epistemología de la ciencia política: ¿Es posible la sociedad? Revista Portuguesa de Filosofía, 59(1), 69-88. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40337881
Hampton, J. (1986). Hobbes and the social contract tradition. Cambridge University Press.
Hobbes, T. (1999). Tratado sobre el ciudadano. Editorial Trotta.
Hobbes, T. (2005). Elementos de Derecho Natural y Político. Alianza Editorial.
Hobbes, T. (2010). Leviatán. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Hoekstra, K. (2013). Hobbesian equality. En S. A. Lloyd (Ed.), Hobbes today: Insights for the 21st century (pp. 76-112). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139047388.007
Kant, I. (2006). Crítica de la razón pura. Taurus
Kidder, J. (1983). Acknowledgements of equals: Hobbes’s ninth law of nature. The Philosophical Quarterly, 33(131), 133-146. https://doi.org/10.2307/2218740
Lukac, M. (1999). El fundamento antropológico de la filosofía política y moral en Thomas Hobbes. Universitas.
Micieli, C. (2002). El pesimismo antropológico y la fundamentación de la teoría del Estado en Hobbes y Schmitt. Tópicos, 10, 93-120. https://doi.org/10.14409/topicos.v0i10.7427
Nerney, G. (1986). The Hobbesian argument for human equality. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 24(4), 561-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1986.tb01590.x
Oakeshott, M. (2000). Introducción a Leviatán y la vida moral en la obra de Thomas Hobbes. En M. Oakeshott, El racionalismo en la política y otros ensayos (pp. 221-300). Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Parra, A. F. (2014). Hobbes y la paradoja del derecho. Ciencia Política, 9(17), 189-215. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/cienciapol/article/view/50149
Ryan, A. (1970). The philosophy of the social sciences. Macmillan.
Salomon, M. (1919). Die Rechtswissenschaft und die Philosophie des Als Ob. Archiv für Rechts- und Wirtschaftsphilosophie, 13(2), 227-233. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23683558
Schmitt, C. (1968). La dictadura. Revista de Occidente.
Slomp, G. (1994). Hobbes and the equality of women. Political Studies, 42(3), 441-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1994.tb01687.x
Strauss, L. (2006). La filosofía política de Hobbes. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Venezia, L. (2008). El contractualismo de Thomas Hobbes: obligación moral y razones para actuar. En M. Lukac (Comp.), Perspectivas latinoamericanas sobre Hobbes (pp. 195-211). Educa.
Vaihinger, H. (1922). Die Philosophie des Als-Ob. System der theoretischen, praktischen und religiösen Fiktionen der Menschheit auf Grund eines idealistischen Positivismus. Felix Meiner Verlag.
Ward, L. (2020). Equity and political economy in Thomas Hobbes. American Journal of Political Science, 64(4), 823-835. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12507
Warrender, H. (1957). The political philosophy of Hobbes: His theory of obligation. Oxford University Press.
Watkins, J. W. N. (1965). Hobbes’s system of ideas: A study in the political significance of philosophical theories. Hutchinson University Library.
Zarka, Y. Ch. (1997). Hobbes y el Pensamiento Político Moderno. Herder.
Zícari, J. N. (2017). ¿Igualdad natural, desigualdad artificial? Hobbes, el problema del igualitarismo y las ficciones del ‘como si’. Revista Pilquen, 20(2), 68-78.
Zícari, J. N. (2022). La vía antigua y la moderna para justificar lo peor: Los argumentos de Aristóteles y de Hobbes a favor de la esclavitud. Pensamiento. Revista de Investigación e Información Filosófica, 79(303), 387-408. https://doi.org/10.14422/pen.v79.i303.y2023.006
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jenny Carolina Burgos Casas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term "Work" shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher a nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoCommercia-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions: (a) Attribution: Other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;(b) Noncommercial: Other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal;
5. Authors are permitted, and Estudios de Filosofía promotes, to post online the preprint manuscript of the Work in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work is expected be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Estudios de Filosofía's assigned URL to the Article and its final published version in Estudios de Filosofía.
