 Well, okay, he's in he's certainly in a Christian milieu. Okay, he's in a country of Christians and that sort of thing as opposed to Jews or Muslims or Or something like that And he's writing for an audience that are Christians And but so these but Almighty God could easily be said by a Jew as much as by a Christian, right? same Same God actually, right? So do you see him saying anything about Jesus? No, that's what would yeah indicate real Christian belief, right? Okay, so But One interpretation of it is that he actually is an atheist and an irreligious person and he's against the power of churches because he wants supreme political authority to exist in a Political individual not in a church and that these expressions like Almighty God and so forth are a kind of audience control This is how you talk to other to people who actually have those beliefs Okay, so he doesn't want people just to reject the book because Some atheists wrote it and I don't read stuff atheists wrote So he has what we call plausible deniability about his atheism Okay But yes, he's he's in a he's in a very Christian contact with the Christian audience a Christian country Christian armies warring against each other of various kinds Okay, now what I want to do today is more carefully go through these last chapters of Human nature where we get the account of the laws of nature And I introduced those last time we met way back last week seems like years ago But we had to progress through it rather rapidly and how it is we Get derived these laws of nature and how these laws of nature result in a Body politic or a civil society or a political Society basically how we get from this state of nature which I'm using this piece of art to Characterize what it's like the war of all against all in which life is not only nasty British and short But also what else poor and solitary nasty British and short and We went through a lot of that but I want to I want to review what he says about natural right and Make sure everybody is keeping distinct in their minds the Ideas of natural right on the one hand and natural law on the other because they are not the same thing so if you remember What he says about natural right? in human nature Just read it to you It's not against reason that a man does all he can to preserve his own body and lives both from death and pain and that Which is not against reason men call right or just or blame this liberty of using our own natural power and ability What are our natural powers and abilities? Yes physical strength With Passions and reason are the four that he gets okay, so We have those by nature. We're born with those. Those are congenital Benefits that we have just by virtue of being the kind of things that we are by nature and so We by nature we can use these powers however we want Okay, so it's a right of nature that every man may preserve his own life and limbs with all the power he has every man by nature has a right to all things and By comparison, this is how it's put in Another political work of Hobbes de Keefe and then in Leviathan the first foundation of natural right He says in on the citizen de Keefe is this that every man as much as in him lies Endeavor to protect his life and members He must also be allowed a right to use all the means and do all the actions without which he cannot preserve himself nature is given to everyone a right to all and In Leviathan, he says the right of nature which writers commonly call use Not to rally which means natural justice really Is the liberty each man has to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature that is to say of his own life and Consequently of doing anything which in his own judgment and reason he shall consider conceived to be the actist or You know best means there unto Okay, so that's that's what we all have a natural right to Okay before there's any such thing as natural law Okay, even in the state of nature We have that natural rights Okay, now let's talk about Hobbes views on laws of nature now first of all I've told you that You know in a way the term law of nature natural law is a very confusing term. It's a it's a it's a con It seems like a contradictory term Okay, because laws are something created by humans and nature is something not created by humans So how can these two be brought together into a single? Notion it's like saying artificial nature or Natural machine or something it doesn't it it should sound Awkward we hear it so often that it doesn't sound awkward anymore, but it is an awkward notion and There are flawed concepts of laws of nature for example That what all nations consent to or the wisest in the most civil Nations and of course if you're English you think that's England And even if you're not English sometimes you think that's England if you're American You definitely think it's not England, but you think it's America that exceptional Country right and if you're Chinese you think it's Chinese is the is the wisest and most ancient and most civilized Country right and so the laws of those and if you're from India you think it's India right He says that can't natural law cannot whatever it is cannot be based on that because there's no agreement about who's wisest I Think the English are the most foolish people that have ever existed on the face of the planet So I don't agree that what they say is natural laws natural law Right, I think the Chinese have way better laws than they do So if I can we could never possibly reach agreement about that if we took as our standard what Is considered to be the best nation or what supposedly all nations agree in there is no agreement about that so that can't be what natural law is and And sometimes it said it's what all humans consent to or what all humans agree to One problem with that is there is no such thing there is nothing that all humans agree to and It's also a problem because if all humans did miraculously agree on something then that would just be Part of our nature itself and that would have something to do with natural right and we couldn't Violate it so it couldn't really be a law Okay, of course we can break laws you can obey laws you can break laws Okay, and there's no reason why natural laws should be thought any different so Hobbes distinguishes and says these aren't what natural laws are and his theory must Be something other than this than saying all countries end up agreeing with this or even all people end up agreeing with that so His theory of natural law Does not have to be something that all people or all countries agree on or even that any Country or any person agrees on Agrees with he derives his notion of natural law from reason one of the Four powers as he Summarizes it. Okay, so he points out that all humans carried away by passions or evil customs do things against laws of nature Okay, so laws of nature are frequently broken. In fact, maybe they're always broken. Everyone breaks law of nature You don't want to admit this too much, but you know, I broke the law of nature, you know, three or four times before breakfast and So and and the cause of that is different passions that we have that's what gives rise to different People so we treat other people badly or we break laws and so forth because For example, you want to drink you have a desire to drink alcohol, but you're not 21 So you that it's the passion is what's driving you to break the law the desire for that thing Right, or you're married, but you commit adultery. Why because you have a passion for This other person is the desire and the pleasure that you're going after and ignoring the law that forbids adultery But of course not only passion, but reason is equally part of human nature and Reason according to Hobbes is the same in all humans and it's a it's an equalizer of all humans so in Hobbes view reason is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a human and Unlike say Aristotle who thinks that some people naturally have better Reasoning faculties than other people Hobbes says that's wrong all human beings are the same on this scale And they're all equal and they all equally can use reason now if we were just rational beings Okay, like angels Okay, we didn't have bodies and we didn't have these These passions that flow from them then there would be no differences between Humans we'd all do the same Things we wouldn't need laws to govern what we would do because our reasoning would bring us to the same conclusions always Okay, yeah Okay, so we defined evil earlier How how can somebody remind us? Maybe we don't have the definition on the tip of our tongues, but how does he? explain evil It's odd. It's whatever is unpleasant to you. Okay, so he reduces evil to What's unpleasant and what's painful? Let's call it pain? Okay pain is what's evil and pleasure is what's good Okay, but it's pursuing pleasures and trying to avoid pains Thus pursuing and avoiding things in accordance with passions that cause us to behave differently and and So Those differences are always going to result in differences between countries between individuals and so forth And so they can't really be the basis of a natural law But reason can because again according to this claim, maybe he's wrong Maybe Aristotle was right and some people naturally have deficient forms of reason so deficient that they are Naturally slaves and other people are naturally masters and those Natural masters should by nature govern those natural slaves. That's Aristotle's view Take my course on Aristotle if you want to learn about that view like Phoenix is suffering through But you might just as well get rid of that argument and disagree with it because I think it's wrong and I think Hobbes is right That humans are all equal and they all have equal reasoning capabilities so He thinks that reason is going to be the basis for talking about these natural laws and that all humans Using their reason agree to be directed and governed in a certain way that Conduces to that which they desire to obtain their own good Now what that good is is different, but we all agree that We should be directed and governed in such a way that it's possible so again Phoenix might like vanilla ice cream and I might like chocolate ice cream But assuming we both get pleasure from ice cream. We both want that goal and could rationally set things like earning enough money in order to buy it and actually finding a place that sells it and that sort of thing and Even though there are differences in our passions our reason produces the same Result and we we also would both agree to be governed by a structure that makes it possible to have ice cream parlors that sell both Chocolate and vanilla ice cream and that we live in a society where we can earn adequate money in order to buy ice cream So that we can and that and that there aren't Marauders that are gonna or pirates that are gonna steal our money between here and getting to the ice cream Shop and so forth So even though we might disagree on exactly what it is. We want we agree that we want a Structure that makes it possible For us to obtain those things we consider good and avoid those things that we consider bad and again on his Extremely reductions picture that just amounts to what causes us pleasure and pain Okay, so here is his technical his best definition of Defining law of nature in general. I couldn't find a definition of law of nature in general Here in human nature. So if anybody else can find one Let me know But I did find in parallel sections in Leviathan and on the citizen General definitions a law of nature is a precept or general rule found out by reason by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his own life and The law of nature that I might define it is the dictate of right reason Conversant about those things which are either to be done or To be omitted for the constant preservation of life and members as much as lies in us Okay, so It's a law of nature that we want to do that Which that we want to protect our own life now that stems from our natural Rights that's related of course to our natural right that is to do whatever we need to maintain that okay, so Natural law is not disconnected from natural right. I'll explain how they how they can Different how they can be at variance in due course. Yeah so, okay, so he has he says like General rules come out from reason But like isn't it indicative of like the fact that there are no really general like there's a few general rules But for the most part people Disagree about the general even the general rules Okay, first of all, first of all, where are you getting the term general rule? From from the from the first one a law of nature is a precept or general rule found out by reason Okay Right, so we discover by reflection or we learn it by teaching Okay Which is just Experience at one step removed that That it's a it's a general rule that you don't do that which is destructive to your own life But people disagree on those right well do does anybody disagree so does anybody think no, I should do what's destructive for my own life That's that that I think is important for me to be able to destroy my own life Well, yes, so I guess I guess Hobbes doesn't He doesn't think it's possible. He doesn't think it's psychologically possible because we all have passions towards our ends that we want and pleasure and so forth and so this gets back into the problem about Whether masochism really exists that we talked about before can anybody is there any Pleasure which is at the same time of pain and so is there any Destruction of your life that is at the same time preservation of your way of life And he doesn't think those are coherent Concepts so again, you might have different ideas about what to do with your life and what makes a good life and Of course, we all probably have very different notions of what that is But Hobbes doesn't think that any of us have a notion that we shouldn't be protecting Whatever the way of life We think is good or that we should do something destructive of it, I Mean, I think another case besides masochism and a more important case is suicide Okay, isn't suicide destruction of life and certainly there are people who think that suicide is permissible I think suicide is provisible. No, I'm planning to kill myself at some point So So there doesn't appear to be general agreement So we need maybe we need an interpretation of destructive of his life and maybe life means not just mere Survival like functioning but way of life something so that so that You can you're actually continuing living could be destructive to your way of life Like if you're if you're forced to do unjust things or something in order to continue your life Then it might be justified to destroy Your literal life in order to preserve your way of life That would be one way of thinking about it. What we should do is actually look at what Hobbes says about civil laws against suicide and if he happens to say anything about permitting masochism But that would be a matter of civil of civil law But I you know I think that that possibly constitutes a counter example So I think I think that Hobbes probably thinks that that suicide is violates natural law now Of course, that's it's possible for people to violate natural law But maybe the reason we think suicide is a regrettable thing and we're all Against it and negative when we hear about it and sad and consoling people not congratulating them when we hear Oh, you're a son committed suicide great. He got out of this miserable horrible world. We live in that's that's just wonderful He was able to accomplish that. No, we don't think that we think something went wrong It was in fact it was could have even been a bad or immoral thing that that person did Right, so Hobbes seems to be on that side that there is no That it's against nature to destroy your own life Just like it would be against nature to pursue your own pain and To avoid your own pleasures Okay, it definitely happens, but But he might have to say that's against natural law, but I'm with you. I think there are That we'll see if this is general enough. Yeah Massacism and suicide Well, yeah, it seems that the analysis I have to give of that is like the one I gave about enriching this idea of preserving your life meaning way of life not just not just biological subsistence so if if If my country is being invaded and everybody is going to be enslaved and lose liberty then I might be willing to give up my my actual life in defense of this way of life that I that I want to Preserve and then that would be consistent with the law of nature But look if you if you if we allow that Okay, we start allowing that and start talking about as if life is an Equivocal notion here that doesn't just mean biological life, but could mean these other things Then we're actually going to really complicate and expand the matter of what is a law of nature So that's that's kind of a dangerous move and we have to figure out if it makes more sense for him to do that to allow That expansion and that and that Equivocation and vagueness on the concept of life or whether he should just stick with the Hardline biological concept of life and bite the bullet and say I don't care what you say suicide Massacism self-sacrifice are Against laws of nature Okay, but it I think that we get the answer to these questions in Civil laws that attempt to give us the specific precepts that are Based in laws of nature, so we may be able to revisit that issue But as it as it stands now this definition doesn't exist in human nature So it's so he's maybe not committed to this concept of of a law of nature and not in that work That's another possibility So let's let's look at Formulations of what he says is the fundamental law of nature and we can continue to Incarigate them along these lines that these questions have profitably raised. Okay, so here's the one that we get in 15 section one There can therefore be no other law of nature than reason nor No other precepts of natural law than those which declare us unto the ways of peace Where the same may be obtained and of defense when it may not Okay, so the fundamental law of nature is pursue peace You may not have realized from looking at this picture of him, but you know Hobbes is a pro-peace sort of hippie Right. That's why he has long hair and is wearing this this strange colored thing. Okay, because he's a peacenik He thinks everything we do has to be For the point that the most fundamental basis of all laws and of all society is that We should pursue peace Again, the first and fundamental law of nature is that peace is to be sought after Where it may be found and we're not there to provide ourselves for helps of war Okay, that's our natural right. So where we can't find peace We are in a state of nature and the only thing governing any of us is our natural right and our natural right is to do whatever we need to do to preserve our life and limb and This is the this is what he says in Leviathan It is a precept or general rule of reason that every man ought to endeavor Peace Okay, and endeavor was a technical notion that he that he defined in Relation to passions and so forth. We ought to pursue Peace as far as he has hope of obtaining it and when he cannot obtain it that he may seek and use all Helps and advantages of war The first branch of which rule contains the first and fundamental law of nature Which is to seek peace and follow it The second the sum of the right of nature, which is by all means we can to defend ourselves Now by the way in human nature Day kiwé are on the citizen and Leviathan. There are three Different enumerations of the laws of nature and there are actually a different total number of laws And it they seem to grow as as he goes on he thinks oh I Forgotten eighth law of nature that I should have added in there and so there's 20 or something in Leviathan where there's only 14 or whatever listed and numbered Here but that's not that's not all that important although somebody could easily look at Why did he add this other one in the Leviathan or why did he add this other one in day kiwé that? He then drops in Leviathan, but he added it Versus human nature So he's working out exactly how the theory goes, but there seems to be agreement on what the fundamental law is Okay, that we need to pursue peace. Yes You can use war in order to pursue peace Well, okay, first of all you can't use War to it's it's not that simple of you can use war to pursue peace It's where you cannot obtain peace there. You are permitted to engage in war But still it seems like this could run into lots of problems when people have a wrong idea of what peace means Well, that's true And we'll get to that, but I just want to make sure we're not Creating a false problem here that he's saying we that that war is instrumentally Justifiable for the sake of peace Yes, then then yes exactly okay, so that's actually a much different claim than that You can use war in order to achieve peace. Okay, so fine Yes Yeah, even with where you can all achieve peace, right so so this this seems this seems Void for vagueness so so vague that I mean after all we killed Sulamani with the drone attack because we're pursuing peace Yes, and he Planted roadside bombs in Iraq because he was pursuing peace Okay, and so both of us in going to warfare there are pursuing peace, right? So there's nothing wrong with that that can't possibly that's that's that's that's internally contradictory so So it must be wrong to describe One or both of those acts as pursuing peace and we need a more substantial Substantial indication of what it means to pursue peace if he if the book ended there in chapter 15 He said so everybody pursue peace and he really was just a hippie that That was wearing a peace symbol or or making a peace sign and saying yes We should all pursue peace that would be lame and would go nowhere and would have exactly the problems You're talking about okay, so that's why he gets very specific and specified as you know 14 or 18 Specific laws of nature that follow from this fundamental law that indicate exactly what he's Talking about by pursuing peace so he has very specific notion of what it means to pursue Peace and it's going to be very different from a lot of other people's notion of what it is to pursue Peace okay, so pursuing peace means for him Supporting essentially a monarchical authority All right now, you know, I'm an anarchist I don't think that any there shouldn't be any government. There shouldn't be any kings There shouldn't be any any legislatures or anything So I disagree with him I think I think all those Organizing all those things end up causing war and if you want to get rid of war you need to get rid of governments and government authority Okay, so then I have a very If so if that's really Monty Johnson's view that I have a fundamental disagreement with Hobbes Non-fundamental laws of nature although I would be agreeing with him about the fundamental law of nature that I think we should all pursue peace But I think you pursue peace by dismantling authority structures instead of building them up like he he thinks Okay, so he is he is committed to a specification Extremely specific set of arguments that derive from this fundamental law and not Just the general statement about peace which again would be late minute is lame when it's just made like that Okay While you're endeavoring in peace since you don't have peace that you're then in the state of war Yes This is an interesting question because we can ask at what point you're no longer you're no longer at war and so you are Required to do the things consistent with peace consistent with these other natural laws Which will which we'll get to and what is what is the actual moment where we can say that it's happening? We'll raise that as a problem as we go through these other ones He tries to avoid that by a sort of step-by-step process of exactly how you know when you're out of the law of nature It will where you're out of the state of nature But the thing is the state of nature never actually goes away And we can be out of the state of nature in this classroom because we all agree to a common authority Monty Johnson the God of this classroom the sovereign and God of this classroom We all agree I have authority what I say goes and so forth. And so we have a nice peaceful Situation in here, but when we get out into that crazy world out there where people ride bicycles in a chaos of people Okay, you step right into the into a state of nature out there where people are breaking all these Rules and you have to do what it takes to defend yourself like the other day I almost drove a bike into me and so I had to push him out of the way I don't normally push people on bikes, but it was either him or me Okay, and and maybe in this country, you know in theory we have a civil society here I think it's sort of collapsing very quickly, but we've got a civil Society here, but what about our relationship to other civil societies? What about our relationship to? Iran, okay, so that pop says is a state of nature the relationship of one commonwealth to another is just a state of nature You can do whatever it whatever you think you need to do to preserve yourself Thus we can assassinate their people they can bomb our troops that are occupying some other country and We we're not required to pursue we're not We're not we're not by and we're not Beholding to any particular authority there because there is no common power or measure that we all have to agree to Okay, so it's not like the state of nature just goes away and now we have world peace All of a sudden the only way that could happen on Hobbes theory I think world peace would be world government That's why I saying the other day the extension of this theory seems to be to require that we have a world government If we really want to get over and I think you know It's even more important now because the threat of violence from nuclear war and destruction from Climate change and everything is way more serious than just the problems you have walking out here And whether somebody's gonna rob you or something we're talking about species extinction now So it might it might be the case that if we're gonna deal with that problem We have to submit we have to take away sovereignty from countries and subject them to some common authority Whether they like it or not. We may have to sign up for something like that Okay, you had a question Yeah, I think I think later on he does get to kind of know you need right now He's not putting limitations or kind of you know restrictions on war You know, he's just seek any means any helps any manages he does later on Okay in 19 Section 2 I think it is he says what about laws of war? Okay, and I I link this section. It's very dense and What he says there is there's not much to say okay because there's this Latin expression with strangely gas Can doesn't translate and I think it's inter inter-arma silent leg is if memory serves and that means in war Laws have no effect or laws are not even listened to not even heard. Okay And he says but there is an exception to that actually Cruelty Nobody thinks that cruelty in War is a good thing. No one thinks you should not just destroy Your opponent, but you know torture him very slowly and so forth and Even pirates and he tells this wonderful story about pirates that yes, they go and raid and steal and Steal everybody's crops or whatever from this Coastal area that they invade but they leave them with the means to produce more They don't destroy everything. Absolutely. It's not like total war it's You just take what you need to survive so even raping okay, which means, you know Seizing by violence even in that case everybody Reason agrees that we should avoid But he says there's nothing You can't I mean that's all you can say about it Basically now people want to say more and my colleagues of a bizarre gun wants to come up with a whole theory about We could have just wars and we could have all kinds of laws and constraints and what we're doing in war and so forth To me that's much more of a pipe dream than what Hobbes is talking about Okay, because when we're in a state of war Violence and fraud and wronging other people are virtues and they're great things That's what great heroes destroy and kill and maim the the enemy and so forth and that's exactly what we had to avoid When if we're actually pursuing peace and so it doesn't seem that we can combine these two into one Into one state as it were and have a nice happy state where we're all at war with each other But that's what it would be to have you know laws of war or something So That is a doubtful notion now Let's just Rapidly proceed through some of the other laws to see how specific he gets and how he tries to get from this general and admittedly vague notion of peace to where he wants to go so What what what he treats next is the second law of nature and human nature is Divestment of natural right Okay, so a precept of the law of nature is that every man divest himself of the right He has to all things by nature So yes, I have this natural right that just stems from my natural powers and abilities to do To do whatever I want whatever. I'm strong enough to live to ever. I'm strong enough to attack or exert my will over But if I'm pursuing peace the first thing I have to do is say I'm not gonna do that I'm gonna give up that right to do whatever I want So the fundamental law of nature is to pursue peace but an immediate implication of that is Divest yourself of this natural right that you have Okay, towards Contributing as we'll see to a civil society now you never You you can never ultimately give up that Natural right you just divest yourself of it if it's in your if in You can pursue peace and reasonably get it then but if your society collapses and every if all authority Collapses here and it's every man for himself in a war of all against all Then your natural rights are still intact you can still do whatever you have to in order to survive and where There isn't a civil society you travel to some other Place like Texas or something where they don't they don't they just solve more orders and pirates wandering around Then you have your natural right to protect yourself if somebody is attacking you when you're walking to your car after class Okay, and so peace has been violated you still have your natural right to To defend yourself and attack that person prevent it from happening Don't be cruel because we all agree that's wrong But you still maintain that natural right, but in pursuit of this law to always promote peace we Need to divest ourselves of this right to do whatever is in our power to do, okay? And that is Reiterated I've given you the parallel passages in on the citizen and Leviathan He makes Distinctions and gives definitions distinguishing between a gift a contract and a covenant and The reason this is important is because the third law of nature is that you should perform all covenants that you've made So what is a covenant? It's not a Free gift like when I just give you two tokens to use in this class And I just out of out of my own generosity give you that Currency not expecting any reciprocal benefit, and it's not a contract when a Contract is when I'm doing this for mutual benefit. We're both we were both thinking we get some benefit out of the agreement But it's a special kind of contract in all contracts where there's trust the promise of him that's trusted is called a covenant and This though it be a promise and of the time to come yet Does it transfer the right when that time comes no less than an actual donation? So a covenant is an agreement based on trust not based on the immediate reciprocal benefit okay, and the third law of nature in human nature is that One should always perform and abide by these covenants or agreements that are made on trust So he says the law of nature that every man should divest himself of the right to do whatever he wants in accordance with his natural Right would be utterly vain Empty that means and of no effect if this were also not a law of nature That every man is obliged to stand for and perform those covenants Which he makes for what benefit is it to a man that anything be promised or given unto him if he That gives or promises doesn't perform that and retain still the right of taking back whatever he's given Okay, so performing Covenants abiding by contracts and keeping trust is a law of nature Okay, one that we routinely violate But it's a law of nature that we ought to keep those Contracts if you ever are wondering why you should keep contracts. There's a lot of prudential reasons to do it But there's also a moral reason to do it You're going to war if you don't abide by your contracts Right another law of nature that drives mutual aid It's also a law of nature that every man Do help and endeavor to accommodate each other as far as maybe without danger To their persons and loss of their means to maintain and defend themselves Okay otherwise If you aren't helping as he says Forseeing the causes of war and desolation Proceed from those passions by which we strive to accommodate ourselves and to leave others as far as we can behind us It follows that passion that that passion by which we strive mutually to accommodate each other must be the cause of peace So if the reason we go to war is because we have differing passions Okay, or we have the same passion for some thing that is limited and can't be divided Then if that's the cause of war and there's a natural law the fundamental natural law Which says to pursue peace then it must follow that We should be helping each other and not hurting each other. Yeah Not Well that He hasn't said anything about a perfect society or really anything about a society at all yet Okay, so let's leave that for later. We're still Rising ourself up out of the state of nature and there are a lot of different ways that societies can be organized monarchies democracies oligarchies and so forth and That the point all of that analysis of those societies and which one's better than the other I don't know if he believes in an ideal society in fact I'm pretty sure he doesn't because I think that Phoenix was just talking to me about a research project He wants to do in this class about Hobbes criticism of ideal societies like playhose so So I don't the question seems to be based on an idea that he has an idea about ideal society I think he rejects that I Don't I don't see how that follows at all in fact his view is that there must be hierarchies We must submit to some authority that's going to enforce these Peace and if we don't have such an authority, we won't have peace will be in a state of war of all against all so I think The assumption behind the question is flawed and the direction you're expecting the answer to go that he's Eliminating hierarchies is exactly Backwards he's building hierarchies. He's explaining a natural basis for Building an artificial hierarchy of humans Okay, but but still it's still in in pursuit of building that hierarchy It's still true that we should all become useful to each other's another law of nature that follows From that is that we all treat each other's as equal To make a long story short. It's the not treating other people as equal that is a cause of war another law of nature is that We should distribute Things equally and things things that can be divided. We should distribute equally or give everybody equal access to them If they can't be divided like a piece of land that we can't divide For everyone then we should allow common use and if not everybody can use it at the same time We should have some method of rotating who gets to use it or a lottery system that decides who gets to use it But in order to make it as equally as possible and that follows from what he said about Equality's Now another an absolutely key law of nature that we will conclude today on is arbitration so If there's controversies about how things are distributed and who gets to access the park at a certain time or whatever We ought to mutually agree upon some arbiter who we both trust and we mutually contract or covenant to To agree to implement whatever they say Okay, so we submit to the judgment of an arbiter now That is but one step away from the final step needs to complete the idea that We should all Submit to some authority who is capable of maintaining peace among ourselves and peace with respect to external invaders of our Community Okay, so that's what we will discuss next time in addition to the beginnings of civil society and the and the artificial Body politics and we'll have concluded his account of human nature and the human