The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 05 (of 11)
Thomas Hobbes · en
(_b_) “First he erreth in this, to think that actions proceeding from
fear are properly compulsory actions; which in truth are not only
voluntary, but free actions.” I never said nor doubted, but such actions
were both voluntary and free; for he that doth any thing for fear,
though he say truly he was compelled to it, yet we deny not that he had
election to do or not to do, and consequently that he was a voluntary
and free agent. But this hinders not, but that the terror might be a
necessary cause of his election of that which otherwise he would not
have elected, unless some other potent cause made it necessary he should
elect the contrary. And therefore, in the same ship, in the same storm,
one man may be necessitated to throw his goods overboard, and another
man to keep them within the ship; and the same man in a like storm be
otherwise advised, if all the causes be not like. But that the same
individual man, as the Bishop says, that chose to throw his goods
overboard, might chose not to throw his goods overboard, I cannot
conceive; unless a man can choose to throw overboard and not to throw
overboard, or be so advised and otherwise advised, all at once.
(_c_) “Secondly, T. H. errs in this also, where he saith, that ‘a man is
then only said to be compelled, when fear makes him willing to an
action.’ As if force were not more prevalent with a man than fear,” &c.
When I said _fear_, I think no man can doubt but the fear of force was
understood. I cannot see therefore what quarrel he could justly take, at
saying that a man is compelled by fear only; unless he think it may be
called compulsion when a man by force, seizing on another man’s limbs,
moveth them as himself, not as the other man pleaseth. But this is not
the meaning of compulsion: neither is the action so done, the action of
him that suffereth, but of him that useth the force. But this, as if it
were a question of the propriety of the English tongue, the Bishop
denies; and says when a man is moved by fear, it is _improperly_ said he
is compelled. But when a man is moved by an external cause, the will
resisting as much as it can, then he says, he is _properly_ said to be
compelled; as in a rape, or when a Christian is drawn or carried by
violence to the idol’s temple. Insomuch as by this distinction it were
very proper English to say, that a stone were compelled when it is
thrown, or a man when he is carried in a cart. For my part, I understand
compulsion to be used rightly of living creatures only, which are moved
only by their own animal motion, in such manner as they would not be
moved without the fear. But of this dispute the English and well-bred
reader is the proper judge.