In his classic book Leviathan named after the gigantic monster mentioned in the book of Genesis and which was his image of the all powerful state, Hobbes gave us his description of “man in the free state of nature”, that is, before humans banded together to set up social structures and institutions.

In a word, life was sheer hell in those times: man behaved unto man like a ferocious wild beast (homo homini lupus). Indeed that is why humans established the state: its primary aim was to prevent, by sheer superior brute force, humans from attacking each other, expropriating each others’ property and tearing each other to shreds.

The price each had to pay to attain this measure of peace and order was the sacrifice some of his freedom and his natural desire to possess everything for himself.

Like Epicurus, Hobbes was a hedonist: pleasure was the motivating principle for him too. It was the naturally human desire for pleasure (in the form of peace, harmony and a longer life) that led him to set up the state. The state, then, enacted various laws to make humans behave in accordance with the laws of nature.

Civil law would codify them in more precise and relevant forms proper to each nation. The state would need to be invested with all power and authority so that none would dare to challenge it. Then only would it be able to curb the natural urge of humans to rape, loot and tyrannize. Power is thus a necessary constituent of law.

In effect, for Hobbes, actions are bad because they are forbidden, not the other way round. The source of moral rightness or wrongness, the criterion of morality, is what is the law says, whether it be divine law or positive (civil) law.

The ethical teachings of Hobbes have been qualified in various ways. Some call it “Ethical Egoism” in as much as it is based on the allegedly natural and reasonable human urge to seek pleasure and self-preservation.

Others prefer to dub it “Social Utilitarianism” because it grounds law on the desire of humans to live in peace and harmony with each other.

A third view is that it is a kind of “Moral Positivism” because it posits divine power (or God’s will) as the ultimate ground of moral good, as the sole criterion of morality.