Game Theory In Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

In Leviathan, Hobbes makes a very convincing case for the conditions in the sate of nature, so much so that in the literature a multitude of academics on the topic of Hobbes start by seeking to discredit his theory of the state of nature and the conditions within it, but ultimately conclude that the conditions of the state of nature are actually quite convincing. They are usually persuaded by the application of game theory to modern society. The conditions, which are being referred to primarily relate to the state of ‘war of all against all’, which underpins perhaps Hobbes’ most famous quote in which he says mans life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Whilst the idea of war of all against all is the primary

This demonstrates the idea that Hobbes espouses in the state of nature, that humans are inherently cautious of one another, and to risk being altruistic is to risk ones self preservation as there is no guarantee the debt will be repaid. Axelrod’s use of game theory explains the conditions of the state of nature in line with Hobbes’ laws of nature. Axelrod invited professors and experts in game theory to submit programs that embodied the best strategy they could think of to win the prisoners dilemma. He in essence held a game theory tournament. The victorious program was named TIT FOR TAT. The program starts of altruistic but does not hesitate to retaliate as it copies the move of its last opponent, so if the last opponent defects then tit for tat will defect against its next opponent. This is an analogy for Hobbes’ first Natural Law, “That every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as far as he can hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps and advantages of War.” And also in some sense the second natural law “the sum of the Right of Nature; which is, By all means we can, to defend our selves.” If we apply Hobbes to the programme tit for tat, it represents a man in the state of nature acting under natural laws, at first he seeks peace but at the presence of danger he defends him self from loss. Axelrod

Hobbes is at his most convincing when Natural Laws are taken into consideration. The explanation that Hobbes provides of natural laws provides the framework that allows for cooperation, similar to that involved in cooperating in the prisoners dilemma. With such pessimism embedded into the state of nature it is easily forgotten that there is room for cooperation albeit sceptical, it still remains the point that these exact qualities are seen in the prisoner dilemma game, and in a sense it may be one of the closest simulations of interactions in the state of nature. Axelrod’s computer programs demonstrated not only how people would act in the state of nature but also how they would react to issues that they would face in it. Again this computer generated prisoners dilemma game makes Hobbes’ account of the conditions in the sate of nature very convincing. Even within the literature it seems that there is a general consensus albeit with varying confidence that Hobbs’ account is