Pufendorf

toc =Background= Samuel Pufendorf was born in 1632 in Dorfchemnitz, Germany.

He was a philosopher and jurist, building upon Grotius' work to create a comprehensive system of private, public, and international law. His distiction between a state and a system of states made him a pioneer theorist in the field of international relations and law.

He died in 1694 in Berlin, Germany.



=Summary of reading=

On the duties of man and citizen
Book 2 1. On men's natural state

The goal of this chapter is to see what duties 'men' should perform depending upon what state he is in. Men's state is either natural or adventitious. (Adventitious: 1) Associated with something by chance rather than as an integral part. 2) //botany;// appearing in an abnormal or unusual position or place, as a root. [|dictionary.com]) **(so what is the sense of adventitious in this passage? 1190260122)**

There are three ways to discuss the natural state. 1) In relation to God the creator. 2) In the relation of each individual man to himself. 3) In relation to other men.

The first point of view sees humans as different from animals and should live differently to animals. Humans should worship God and the works about him. The second is imagining what life would have been like had humans stayed seperate from one another. Pufendorf says that the **(this? 1190260122)** natural state is opposed to life improved by human industry. The third view is one where humans meet with one another but have no authority figure over them.

The natural state is one where men are joined together and only have in common the fact that they are human. Pufendorf says that this is the current condition between states **(? 1190260122)**. Humans realized the advantages of living together and so they joined into states or else were forced to join.

Pufendorf says, "The principal law of those who live in the natural state is to be subject only to God and answerable to none but Him." This is known as natural liberty. Every man is equal except where there is already an element of subjection. You are free to act as you choose however there are certain things that you must do. These are, that you must look after your body and your life and drive away people that aim to destroy you.

While the state of nature sounds nice in terms of liberty and freedom, it is a hard life. The problem is that you are protected only by your own strength. In civil society you have the strength of many. In the state of nature, disputes are harder to rectify because there is no common judge. However just because you have a dispute it does not mean that you can enter into a war with this person. Gentler steps are required first, such as, discussion.

Pufendorf goes on to describe the normal proceedings and expectations for a dispute that are present in courtrooms to this day. These are such things as the arbitrator being fair to both sides and only looking at the merits of the case. Witnesses are brought in when the arbitrator is unsure of the accuracy of the evidence. Witnesses should be free from bias.

In the state of nature, men that we do not know should be treated as friends that are not entirely reliable. We should do this because nature has intended men to behave in ways that are to the benefit of everyone.

16. On war and peace

War is justified when you need to protect your life and property, collect outstanding payments or to receive reparations. However once again, you should seek peaceful means before engaging in war.

While force and terror are the common tactics used in war, fraud and deceit are also acceptable 'provided one does not violate one's pledged faith.' (pg. 346) You are allowed to use as much force and power as possible so long as it neccessary.

There is declared and undeclared war. 'Declared war must be waged by the sovereigns on //both// sides and that it be preceded by a declaration.' (pg. 346) Undeclared war is when it is not formally announced, as mentioned above, or when it is initiated against private citizens.

An official may wage a war provided that he has the sovereign's authority to do so. Military forces are allowed to repel an enemy and are infact obliged to do so but, they may not enter into the enemy territory without 'grave cause.'

For the ruler of a state or the state as a whole to be justifiably attacked, there must have been certain actions that were commited by the head of state or its people. These include such things as, the ruler harbouring known criminals, if they knew that certain unjust actions were going to be undertaken. The only case where this is not just, is where a citizen has left a state and now plans hostilities against his former state.

The goods of private citizens may be removed to cover a debt.

You are allowed to wage war on someone elses behalf provided you have a just cause. There are times when you should definitely engage in the war, depending upon whether or not greater harm will be caused as a result of war. The most important people to protect are your own citizens, then allies, then friends and then kinship for the sake of it.

It is not recommended that you harm the enemy by either, 'using poison or bribing the citizens or soldiers of other rulers to assassinate them.' (pg. 347)

There is moveable and immovable property. [While Pufendorf does not explicity define what moveable and immovable property are. I take moveable property to be literally objects that are small such as paintings and pieces of gold and moveable by a single human. Immovable to include things such as land and buildings. Not able to be carried away by a single human.] Moveable property is yours once the enemy are far away enough. Immovable property requires that you are able to keep the enemy away from it. A common practice is to allow soldiers to keep certain moveable items.

To rule over a conquered state, the conquered people must swear obedience towards the conquerors.

Truces suspend acts of war. However when a truce runs out, the two or more states are automatically back into a state of war. Truces are either ones where both sets of soldiers stay on the battlefield or where the battlefields are empty.

'War is only definitively ended when peace is ratified by the sovereigns on both sides.' (pg. 348) However both sides must be in agreement to its outline. Outside parties may become involved to help and oversee that the terms are adhered to.

Online text: [|The Duties of Man and Citizen, Constitution.org edition].

=Study Questions= (Add, answer, and discuss study questions for this author and reading) Pufendorf initially provides three possible divisions of the state of nature and it is the third he settles upon. The first state of nature Pufendorf supplies comes from God and the divine. Human beings exist on earth as fundamentally different (and superior) creatures to animals, and thus must behave in an appropriate manner. What is appropriate is not elaborated on thoroughly by Pufendorf but includes a devout life and an appreciation of the world as a product of God.
 * How does Pufendorf view the state of nature? How does his view of the state of nature differ from Hobbes' view?

The second state exists "in the relation of each man to himself" (p. 341). Pufendorf asks the reader to imagine a world where humans had existed alone as individuals, without each other's help. He describes it as a misery, lower than that of animals. Given that he mentions the fact that human children are [uniquely] helpless in their infancy, he appears to be implying that this is an unsustainable state of nature; it would lead to our extinction. Pufendorf's individualist state of nature bears the closest resemblance to the Hobbesian conception of the state of nature. It too is an amoral mêlée of narrowly self-interested people living harsh and short lives. In fact it highlights a potential limitation in Hobbes' state of nature by demonstrating that without the help of willing parents, their infant children would perish, thus a Hobbesian state of nature is unsustainable beyond a single generation.

The third is an understanding of the state of nature as concerned with relationships between human beings. This is the state of nature that Pufendorf believes exists. The fact that human beings are alike gives them a tenuous connectedness, but their lack of a common authority above them, and their independent, solitary behaviour demonstrates the incompatibility of this state of nature and the "civil state" (p.342), Pufendorf's equivalent of the conditions of people living within Hobbes' //Leviathan//.

Pufendorf and Hobbes agree that human beings are committed to, and must concern themselves with, self preservation first and foremost. Hobbes sees the individual's self preservation in the state of nature as the only moral imperative, thus permitting any sort of behaviour in the pursuit of it. In contrast, Pufendorf emphasises that although human beings are in the state of nature their own and only rulers and should, as Hobbes says, pursue self preservation, they must still strive to conduct themselves by "the dictates of right reason and natural law" (p.343) in this pursuit. The mention of such dictates entails ontological ethical considerations beyond simple and amoral Hobbesian self-preservation, or at least that these //should// be considered in the process of self-preservation when possible.

In short, Hobbes' state of nature is one in which people //must// behave amorally, where Pufendorf's state of nature commits human beings to ethical considerations beyond their own lives.

Pufendorf's view is much more plausible given the fact that it makes more sense from a logical perspective. Even if one accepts Hobbes' ethical egoist perspective (the normative position that one must pursue one's own interests and self-preservation above anything else) as being appropriate for the state of nature, it still does not follow that people would behave in a //solely// self-interested way in this state of nature. Even the most hardline ethical egoists would still accept that in the interests of preserving onesself, one must occasionally do things which benefit others. This is because if a person gains a reputation for being utterly self-interested, they will soon be ostracised by others thus isolating them from some means of their survival (access to resources and necessities of life for example), or subject to retribution in other ways, such as becoming greater targets of violence. Thus behaving in the interests of others, or at least //appearing// to behave in their interests on occasion, is a critical part of being a successful self-interested individual (ie: one which actually survives).
 * Which view seems most plausible?

Pufendorf is therefore more accurate, because for the reasons given above, even the most staunchly self-interested individual will at least appear to behave according to ethical considerations beyond their own self-interest in order to survive. Anyone who is less self-interested than the aforementioned individual will be behaving at least in a small part based on the interests of others, thus acting in genuine, rather than just apparent accordance with Pufendorf's conception of the behavior of people in his state of nature. His view of the law of war does constrain states insofar as they can only wage war until their end has been achieved - they cannot go on fighting after they have regained what was taken from them, for example. They also cannot go to war without just reason or provocation. While they can go in to war to defend others (this could be likened to humanitarian intervention), they cannot go to war to increase their own power or wealth.
 * What similarities and differences are there between Pufendorf's view of justified war and the view of Aquinas or Vitoria?
 * Does Pufendorf's view of the law of war impose any meaningful restraints on the conduct of states?

=External Resources=