Abstract

My principal claim is that Hobbes neither argues for, nor is committed to, psychological egoism. I construct a reading on which a non-egoistic theory of character supports his political theory; his mechanistic psychology and account of self-preservation are neutral with respect to the character of men in civil life. I deny there are compelling reasons to treat Hobbesian individuals as predisposed to egoism, and conclude Hobbes has ample room within his psychology for civic virtues. ;Contrary to Gauthier, who argues Hobbes is committed to psychological egoism by details of his mechanistic psychology, I contend the mechanistic basis is what disallows any ascription of egoism. But I follow neither McNeilly, who believes Hobbes' materialism irrelevant, nor Gert, who believes the materialism destructive of any motivational theory. Disagreeing with all three, I argue for a positive and constructive relation between Hobbes' materialism and his psychology. In particular, I claim one aspect of his materialism--the account of endeavour or conatus--constitutes a general theory of dispositions, one implication of which is that human dispositions are not fixed in any way necessary to creating egoists. So Hobbes' materialism actually provides the best reason for thinking Hobbesian individuals are not egoists. ;There are more accessible reasons for the same conclusion, deriving from Hobbes' descriptions of the best kind of men. I conclude Hobbes was impressed by older chivalric and martial virtues, despite being a strong proponent of a more civilian code. ;My method here assumes a particular, historical, point of view; I consider what Hobbes says about character in the social context of the Jacobean and Caroline Aristocracy. I argue he discusses traits for which there is no obvious egoistic interpretation, and consider why he was so exercised by the social impact of motives connected with power, honour, and worth. Unlike Macpherson, I do not think Hobbes' analysis unwittingly suffused with details from early English capitalism. Following Keith Thomas, I suggest his conception of pitfalls in the path of civility was based rather on aristocratic character