Hobbes essay - Grade: A+ PDF

Preview

Summary

This essay will explore Hobbes’ belief in two sections: first, it will examine his idea of a “state of nature”; and second, show how absolute political authority improves upon the “state of nature” by establishing an artificial peace. Further, this essay will ponder whether Hobbes allows any disobey...

Description

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argued that a “sovereign”, bestowed with absolute political authority, was the only effective form of government. He advocated that people should obey whichever ruler comprised the sovereign in their society. This essay will explore Hobbes’ belief in two sections: first, it will examine his idea of a “state of nature”; and second, show how absolute political authority improves upon the “state of nature” by establishing an artificial peace. Further, this essay will ponder whether Hobbes allows any disobeying of this authority, or whether his definition of the sovereign is, indeed, absolute.

Core to Hobbes’ theory that we must submit to political authority is his view that the natural state of mankind is chaotic and quarrelsome. He suggests that people left to their own devices are naturally violent and prone to war, vice, and competition. Essentially, without overarching political authority, humans exist in a “state of nature”, which consists of them inevitably turning on each other in pursuit of individual interests, such as wealth, power, or prestige.1 In this state of nature, no person can be certain of security or stability, as three aspects of human nature ensure tension and violence. These are outlined in Hobbes’ work as “Competition, Diffidence, and Glory”2, or more simply put: greed, fear, and pride. Social stability could never be achieved in a state of nature as it would be undermined by every person acting selfishly. His view of human nature dictated that “good” was subjective, and “simply the object of a person’s desire,” 3 meaning that people justify their actions in relation to whether they directly benefit or not. For example, a person acting on natural impulses would be justified in killing their neighbour if that neighbour was causing them trouble, as in the state of nature everyone has “the right to do whatever they judge conducive to their own self-preservation”.4 This view of human nature gives no hope for cooperation, and portrays humankind as in dire need of some remedy for its’ natural condition. Hobbes also believes the reasoning capacity of man to be less potent than their passiongiving limited credit to people to think through their actions with relation to their consequences.5 Hobbes concludes that due to the tumultuous, conflict-prone state of nature that man naturally exists in, peace must be facilitated artificially.

Hobbes argues for an “artificial person” in the form of an absolute sovereign to be 1 Hofmann, K. 2014, "Bad Arguments: W. G. Runciman's Critique of Leviathan", History of European Ideas, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 57 2 Hobbes’ Leviathan frm photos, pg 99 3 Finn, S.J. 2007, Hobbes: a guide for the perplexed, Continuum, New York;London;. Pg 63 4 Sreedhar, S. 2008, "Defending the Hobbesian Right of Self-Defense", Political Theory, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 783. 5 Hobbes 131

established in order to facilitate peace and stability. Due to the irrationality of human nature, people require an incentive to cooperate, and the incentive provided by an absolute sovereign is the certainty of peace and an escape from the state of nature. A key aspect to Hobbes’ theory is that people authorise the sovereign to rule them- in effect, they relinquish their right to autonomy. This is known as a social contract, where people cede their “Right of Nature”6in order to authorise a ruler (the sovereign) who implements laws to ensure a stable society. The definition of law is a command issued by the sovereign to a subject, who is then obliged to obey, for not doing so would be an injustice.7 Hobbes believed that the subjects of a society were able to understand the balance between obeying the laws implemented by their sovereign and the benefit of protection that they gained from such adherence.8 Several factors enable the sovereign to facilitate peace if it is obeyed, including the monopoly on both the means of persuasion and the means of coercion.9 The state having the ability to implement laws and to punish wrongdoers prevents people from acting in a selfish manner, due to the fear of consequences. The state is prevented from “perishing by internal diseases”10 such as civil war when absolute authority is present, as it has the ability to protect and to punish. Hobbes states in Leviathan that the only way to prevent life from being “nasty, brutish, and short” 11 is the existence of an absolute sovereign. In short, obeying an absolute sovereign is the most certain path to peace and stability that a person can follow.

A popular interpretation of Hobbes’ work is that his definition of an absolute sovereign allows no leeway for disobedience. There may be some liberties allowed to subjects under such a sovereign, but at no point is a person allow to disobey the laws of a sovereign, even in self defense. Hobbes’ definition of injustice is “no other than the not performance of covenant” 12meaning that to break the aforementioned social contract would be to commit a morally illegitimate act.13 Michael Green holds that Hobbes’ model of a sovereign is entitled to punish as it sees 6 Sreedhar, S. 2008, "Defending the Hobbesian Right of Self-Defense", Political Theory, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 784. 7 Hofmann, K. 2014, "Bad Arguments: W. G. Runciman's Critique of Leviathan", History of European Ideas, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 179. 8 Runciman, W.G. 2010, Great books, bad arguments: Republic, Leviathan, & the Communist manifesto, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Pg 55 9 Runciman, W.G. 2010, Great books, bad arguments: Republic, Leviathan, & the Communist manifesto, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Pg 63 10 Cohen, J. 2013, Getting Past Hobbes, pp. 3, in Lloyd, S.A. 2013, Hobbes today: insights for the 21st century, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 11 Leviathan 139 12 Runciman, W.G. 2010, Great books, bad arguments: Republic, Leviathan, & the Communist manifesto, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Pg 56 13 Sreedhar, S. 2008, "Defending the Hobbesian Right of Self-Defense", Political Theory, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 784.

fit.14 This means that even when a citizen faces punishment or state imposed actions that could be considered an affront to their liberties, that citizen could not justifiably object due to the nature of the social contract. The fact that they have effectively relinquished their natural rights prevails, and the sovereign has “no obligations to his subjects”.15 Some liberty is allowed to subjects in the form of the “Silence of the Law” 16, which is where the sovereign has not legislated for any particular rule. If the sovereign has not dictated for adherence to certain rules in one area of society, then people are at liberty to utilise their own discretion. This does not, however, equate to disobedience, and Hofmann maintains that citizens allowed more freedoms are still “equally bound to obedience to the sovereign.”17 The counter argument to absolute obedience is that Hobbes allows for disobedience in the form of self defense, however many scholars take issue with this claim. This argument follows that there remains no provision for disobedience in Hobbes’ social contract, and that any claims otherwise are either inconsequential or hypocritical. Glen Burgess writes that for there to be a clause enabling self defense against the sovereign would mean that “Hobbes’ theory undermined its own conclusions.”18 In an early work, The Elements of Law, Hobbes states that entering the commonwealth requires subjects to surrender their ability to selfdefend.19 This means that even if it is not present in Leviathan, an earlier version of Hobbes was one that did not outline self defense as an important facet of the social contract. Whether or not Hobbes incorporates a self defense clause into his social contract without undermining himself becomes integral to establishing whether one can at any point disobey political authority.

In contrast to the assertion that Hobbes demands complete obedience, some scholars recognise that he has allowed for disobedience in extreme cases. The ‘self defense clause’ of Hobbes explains that subjects living under the social contract can never fully authorise the sovereign to use violence against them. Michael Green outlines that accepting the sovereign’s role as the enforcer of punishment may be one thing that citizens are not obligated to obey.20 Green’s analysis stems from the fact that Hobbes’ perception that the right to resist violence is inalienable. Hobbes writes in Leviathan that there exist “some 14 Green, M.J. 2015, "Authorization and Political Authority in Hobbes", Journal of the History of Philosophy, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 25-47. 15 Sreedhar, S. 2008, "Defending the Hobbesian Right of Self-Defense", Political Theory, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 784. 16 Hobbes 152 17 Hofmann, K. 2014, "Bad Arguments: W. G. Runciman's Critique of Leviathan", History of European Ideas, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 179 18 Glenn Burgess, "Hobbesian Resistance Theory," Political Studies 42 (1994): 74. 19 Sreedhar, S. 2008, "Defending the Hobbesian Right of Self-Defense", Political Theory, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 786.

20 Green, M.J. 2015, "Authorization and Political Authority in Hobbes", Journal of the History of Philosophy, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 28.

rights, which no man can be understood by any words… to have abandoned.” 21 Basically, subjects cannot be expected to fully accept punishment by a sovereign, as their right to resist violence, including in the form of punishment, is not a right they can voluntarily relinquish. However, Green concludes that the authorisation of the sovereign to punish is present, as outlined in the above paragraph. Susan Sreedhar picks up the argument for Hobbesian self defense, while noting Hobbes never precisely defined what self defense entailed. She underlines that for a legitimate right to self defend in a Hobbesian commonwealth to exist, it would have to be a narrower definition than mere self preservation, because in a state of nature, the outright attitude of self preservation is what Hobbes sought to remedy. Sreedhar mentions what she calls the “conceptual impossibility argument,” which stipulates that someone can not give up their right to self defense in the form of a contract. This is because “death is the worst evil” and they cannot expect to benefit from a contract which strips them of their right to preserve their life. Sreedhar states that the “death is the worst evil” argument is weak on its own, and goes on to construct an argument for Hobbesian self defense based on other means. 22 She claims that reasonable expectations of a contract show that “the right of self defense cannot be transferred in the social contract.”23 Central to her argument is the fact that for a contract to be valid, each party must have a reasonable expectation that the other party will remain loyal to their contractual obligations. The sovereign cannot expect a subject to not resist death, and therefore the right of self defense “cannot be transferred” as it doesn’t align with the reasonable expectations of the contract. 24 The presence of a self defense clause within Hobbes is hotly debated, but if it is to be believed then it provides for scenarios in which people are allowed to disobey political authority.

Hobbes’ view of human nature was negative to the point where he did not believe that humans could coexist peacefully without being subjected to absolute political authority, the only effective form of government. For him, the social contract through which subjects transferred their natural rights to a governing power- the sovereign- meant an end to the highly unpleasant “state of nature” that arose due to the selfishness and unpredictability of human temperaments. There is much contention surrounding whether or not Hobbes allows for any disobedience within the social contract he presents in Leviathan- even his own 21 Green, M.J. 2015, "Authorization and Political Authority in Hobbes", Journal of the History of Philosophy, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 26. 22 Sreedhar, S. 2008, "Defending the Hobbesian Right of Self-Defense", Political Theory, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 789. 23 Sreedhar, S. 2008, "Defending the Hobbesian Right of Self-Defense", Political Theory, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 792. 24 Sreedhar, S. 2008, "Defending the Hobbesian Right of Self-Defense", Political Theory, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 795.

opinion on the matter appears to have shifted over time. If there is to be any justified disobedience of a sovereign’s command, that would take the form of self defense. Contemporary scholars such as Sreedhar have found ways to reconcile a Hobbesian self defense clause with his social contract, although others maintain that any such clause would invalidate his logic....