Hobbes, Business Ethics, and the Nature of Self-Interest

Introduction

In The Misery of the Natural Condition of Mankind, Thomas Hobbes begins by arguing that equality exists among men in spite of physical and intellectual differences. He states that even the weakest can conspire to kill the strongest, so that the same threat exists for both. It is from this innate equality, Hobbes contends, that "ariseth equality of hope of our ends" (Hobbes, p. 12). The problem, as Hobbes sees it, is that two men who desire the same thing cannot both enjoy it, and therefore they are doomed to become enemies. There is a high degree of presumption in this view, and it is unfettered by any religious assumptions — such as the view that some desire heaven and believe that all can obtain it — but Hobbes appears to be speaking strictly of physical objects that men desire. He represents life as a zero-sum game in which there can be only one winner when all participants are vying for the same prize. In fact, the whole of Hobbes' thinking is characterized by this zero-sum mentality. This paper provides a reflection on Hobbes' writing and relates it to business ethics.

According to Hobbes, men are concerned with power — with having power over one another — and this concern occupies a great deal of their time and energy. Competition, diffidence, and glory are the main factors that cause quarrels among men. When men compete, they do so to gain what only one of them can have. When diffidence is the factor, they quarrel over matters of safety and security. When they quarrel over matters of pride or personal honor, the issue is one of glory. This is how Hobbes defines the nature of man's situation on earth. It is somewhat narrow, however, in that it does not consider that men might also quarrel over matters of truth — over what they perceive to be true and over what they believe to be right.

What Hobbes Says

For instance, when Gandhi was assassinated in India, it was not by a Muslim but by a Hindu nationalist who believed that Gandhi was betraying India into the hands of Islam by recommending that the newly independent state be led by a non-Hindu. This was a matter of belief about what was right; it had nothing to do with competition, diffidence, or glory — it was, instead, very much a matter of religious perspective. Religious perspective is very often a major reason people fight. Malcolm X was assassinated for speaking out against the prophet Elijah Mohammad. Martin Luther King, Jr. was thrown into prison for putting his religious beliefs into practice on the streets of the South. Hobbes has a view, however, that is much more focused on Enlightenment ideals — equality, liberty, and fraternity — as though these were the prime motivators of human experience. They were the prime motivators according to Enlightenment philosophers, but they were largely novel at the time and have not aged well in light of the twentieth and now twenty-first centuries. It appears that Orwell had a better understanding of human motivation in terms of the individual's relationship to the state.

But what does Hobbes say of peace? He says passion is what inclines men toward peace. Yet if it is passion that inclines men to war, how is it also passion that inclines men to peace? It seems contradictory. He lists fear as one passion that inclines men to peace — fear of death — yet should not such a passion just as easily incline one to war, since concern for safety is already one reason Hobbes says men fight? Hobbes does not seem to be following a consistent logic. He lists another passion as desire — desire for commodious living — but this could easily become a passion that leads to quarreling; and so it goes with the passion of hopeful industry as well. Hobbes is not really writing in a classical philosophical character but rather in a fanciful manner, similar to other Romantic Enlightenment philosophers, from Nietzsche to Rousseau. They are all alike in writing a poetic prose style while giving little concern for whether what they say is logical. One can clearly contrast Hobbes's writing with Aristotle's, which precedes it and is much more lucid, precise, and logic-minded — and far less poetically styled.

How, then, are these ideas to be applied to business? In business ethics, one must be mindful of what one owes to one's stakeholders, and if one is a leader or in a stewardship position, one must act on behalf of others' interests. If one is an agent acting for a principal, the same obligation holds (Eisenhardt, 1989; Jensen & Meckling, 1976).

Applying Hobbes to Business Ethics

In business, one has an ethical duty to be mindful of others' interests so that all involved can be successful — such is the crux of agency theory. The idea that resonates in Hobbes, however, is that men generally act for the common interest only when moved by some passion such as fear of death, desire for gain, or hope to put their industry to good use in order to achieve that gain. Men appear to be ruled, in other words, by dark passions that are ultimately self-interested. How does this square with business ethics?

The fact is that it cannot easily square with business ethics, because in business one must avoid dark passions lest one stumble onto the dark side of leadership. The dark side of leadership is where unrestrained self-interest is most clearly manifested; it is where virtues tend to be absent, and it is where one will engage in any manner of actions — from deception and dishonesty to hostility and authoritarianism — to obtain what one wants. On the dark side of leadership, a person may be out for personal glory, may be in competition with others, and may be motivated by personal honor. Of the three, personal honor is really the only one that aligns him with business ethics.

Conclusion

Hobbes' writing does not offer much in the way of supporting business ethics, other than when it comes to how competitive the world can be, how people tend to be self-interested, and how personal honor can be a motivator for quarreling. However, one has agency theory and ethical perspectives such as virtue ethics and duty ethics to help provide context for analyzing what Hobbes is saying. Hobbes is writing out of the Enlightenment era, but for classical ethical theory there is much more logic to be found in Aristotle, and more relevant business writings to be applied in ethics from the standpoint of stewardship and authenticity.