political philosophers. According to his own estimation, he was
probably the most important philosopher of his time, if not of
history, since he believed himself to be the first to discover a
genuine "science of politics." Modeled on the surefire method of
geometry, his political science was supposed to demonstrate political
truths with the certainty of a geometric proof. Such a science was
desperately needed by his fellow English citizens, Hobbes believed,
because political disagreements and conflicts were tearing apart his
country. According to Hobbes, civil war is primarily caused by
differing opinions over who is the ultimate political authority in a
commonwealth. In his own time, the King's claim of having the final
say on political matters was called into question by members of
Parliament. For example, when King Charles tried to raise funds for a
war against Spain and France in 1626, Parliament denied his request.
In response, the King used a "forced loan" to force individual
subjects to finance his needs. This action contributed to the rising
tensions between King and Parliament, tensions that ultimately erupted
in civil war. According to Hobbes, the only way to escape civil war
and to maintain a state of peace in a commonwealth is to institute an
impartial and absolute sovereign power that is the final authority on
all political issues. Hobbes believes his own political philosophy
scientifically proves such a conclusion. If Hobbes's political
argument is as sound as a geometric proof, then his own estimation of
his philosophical importance may not be exaggerated.
1. History and Politics: The Political Problem a. Hobbes's
Translation of Thucydides b. Hobbes's History of the English Civil War
c. Hobbes's Philosophy of Law 2. Scientific Views a. Philosophical
Method: Resolution and Composition b. Scientific Demonstration c.
Motion and Science d. Geometry and Physics 3. Philosophy of Human
Nature a. Hobbes's Moral Philosophy b. The State of Nature 4. Science
of Politics 5. References and Further Reading a. Primary Sources b.
Secondary Sources
1. History and Politics: The Political Problem Hobbes presented his
"science of politics" as a response to a specific historical situation
characterized by acute political problems. This science of politics is
primarily found in Hobbes's "political works," as they may be called,
which include The Elements of Law (1640), De Cive (1642) and Leviathan
(1651). Although these texts provide detailed insight into Hobbes's
solution to civil war, they provide only a general understanding of
the problem itself. Hobbes's so-called historical treatises, on the
other hand, reveal the specific causes of the deteriorating political
situation in seventeenth century England. These works include his
translation of Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian Wars (1628),
Behemoth (1668) and A Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of
the Common Laws of England (1669). As some Hobbes scholars have
pointed out, there is a logical priority to Hobbes's political works
because they provide solutions to the problems presented in the
historical works. To gain a better appreciation of Hobbes's political
solution, then, it is useful to first summarize his historical works,
which reveal his understanding of the particular problem he faced. a.
Hobbes's Translation of Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian Wars
Hobbes's decision to translate and publish Thucydides' history in 1628
was certainly a reaction to the growing political tensions in England
at this time. In the 1620s, troubles between Charles I and Parliament
escalated due to the King's insistence on raising funds for as series
of unpopular wars. After the King openly declared war on Spain, he
began to amass the largest military entourage since 1588. For a
variety of reasons, including early losses suffered at Cadiz at the
hands of the Spanish and the negative effects of war on trade,
Parliament was reluctant to grant additional funds to the King. This
situation was compounded by a progressively deteriorating relationship
with France. France's own maritime conflicts led to embargoes that
created more barriers to international trade. Furthermore, tensions
between England and France increased on account of France's continued
possession of English ships (which were originally on loan) and
because of long-simmering religious differences between the two
nations. After the Parliament of 1626 denied Charles' request for
supply, the King raised funds through a forced loan, by which private
individuals were made to loan money to the crown. Such actions not
only strained the relationship between the Parliament and King, but
also revealed a number of ideological differences between these two
centers of power with serious political implications. The most
important issue concerned the King's authority and its relationship to
the law. Charles advocated a divine right theory of kingship according
to which God granted him the power, by the grace of his royal
anointment, to act outside the law at his own prerogative. The King
tempered his view by claiming he would take extra-legal actions only
when necessary and only for the good of the commonwealth. Despite this
claim of self-restraint, some of his actions conflicted with his
declaration of good faith. The King's insistence on the right to
imprison outside the law, for example, sparked serious doubts as to
whether his word could be trusted. The Petition of Right, presented in
Parliament in 1628, attempted to preserve the liberties of the
subjects against the threatening actions of the King, such as forced
loans, extra-legal imprisonment, and the billeting of soldiers.
Religious differences, as well as politics, were partly to blame for
the political problems of Hobbes' England. It was well understood that
religious leaders were not always content with some of the policies of
the crown. English Protestants, including both traditional Anglicans
and the more radical Puritans, for example, were highly suspicious of
Charles' fervent support of the Anglican Archbishop Laud. The primary
reason for their reservations was Laud's advocacy of certain
anti-Calvinist notions, including the view that the elect could fall
from God's grace through sin. Such a view questioned the bedrock
Calvinist notion of predestination to which most English Protestants
adhered. In effect, Charles asserted his right as king to declare the
traditional position and dictate orthodox dogma by supporting his
Archbishop. Historical circumstances strongly suggest that Hobbes's
translation of Thucydides was meant to be a political argument for the
royalist cause. Hobbes himself supports the truth of this when he
states that Thucydides' history provides instruction useful for the
defense of the King. But what specific lessons does this ancient
history hold? Hobbes believes democracy is inadequate partly because
common people are easily swayed towards politically destructive
actions by "demagogues" and religious zealots. If political power is
placed in the hands of the common people, who are under the influence
of power hungry individuals seeking their own advantage, then the
commonwealth will likely fall. Hobbes's publication of Thucydides was
a political act meant to support the royalist cause and to warn
against the dangerous consequences of usurping the King's power. b.
Hobbes's History of the English Civil War: Behemoth In Behemoth,
Hobbes shows his readers that an ideological dispute concerning
politics and religion was the root cause of the English Civil War. The
work begins with a simple question: How did King Charles I, a strong
and capable leader, lose the sovereign power that he held by the legal
right of succession? The initial answer is that the King lost control
of the kingdom because he lacked the financial resources required to
maintain a military. Upon further consideration, however, Hobbes
reveals that a deeper cause of conflict was the fact that the "people
were corrupted" by "seducers" to accept opinions and beliefs contrary
to social and political harmony. Hobbes claims that religious leaders
were mostly to blame for creating dissension in the commonwealth
because they are responsible for the dissemination of politically
dangerous beliefs. In addition, Hobbes placed some of the blame on
Aristotle or, more precisely, on religious and political leaders who
misused Aristotelian ideas to their own advantage. As noted above,
Hobbes had suggested the dangerous consequences of religious fervor in
his translation of Thucydides. In Behemoth, religious leaders directly
bear the brunt of his critical remarks. According to Hobbes, religious
leaders sow disorder by creating situations of divided loyalty between
God and King. Hobbes first blamed Presbyterian preachers for using
rhetorical tricks to capture the minds and loyalties of their
parishioners. These preachers did not instill beliefs by using reason
or argument, nor did they necessarily seek to teach people to
understand. Instead, they indoctrinated their listeners with seditious
principles. For Hobbes, preachers are actors who bedazzle their
audience by claiming to be divinely inspired. Many "fruitless and
dangerous doctrines," Hobbes says, are adopted by people because they
are "terrified and amazed by preachers" (B 252). In short, preachers
used the word of God as a means to undermine the lawful authority of
the King. Hobbes also criticized Catholics for their belief that the
Pope should reign over the spiritual lives of the people. Although the
Pope's power is supposed to operate solely within the realm of
religious faith and morality, papal orders frequently bled over into
the world of politics. The problem, for Hobbes, is that the Pope may
extend his power over spiritual concerns to the point where it
infringes upon and restricts the legitimate scope of the King's power
over civil matters. The most dangerous problem with Catholicism, for
example, is the Pope's self-proclaimed right to absolve the duties of
citizens to "heretic" Kings. In Behemoth, Hobbes also launches an
attack on Independents, Anabaptists, Quakers, and Adamites for their
role in creating civil discontent. These religious groups,
discontented with both Protestantism and Catholicism, encouraged
individuals to read and interpret the Bible for themselves. The result
was that "every man became a judge of religion, and an interpreter of
the Scriptures" and so "they thought they spoke with God Almighty, and
understood what he said" (B 190). The private, antinomian
interpretation of Scripture, Hobbes claims, frequently lead to
situations of divided loyalty between God and King. If individuals may
speak with God directly, then each person may decide for him or
herself what civil laws are contrary to God's word, and thereby what
laws may be justly broken. Furthermore, Hobbes indirectly blames
Aristotle for problems in his country when he criticizes the
destructive use of Aristotelian metaphysical and ethical ideas. Hobbes
points out, for example, that priests used Aristotelian philosophy to
explain their power to transform a piece of bread into the "body of
Christ." The notion of the transubstantiation of the Eucharist,
according to Hobbes, gives the impression that priests deserve
reverence because they possess godly powers. Priests exploited the
metaphysical doctrines of Aristotle to convince people "there is but
one way to salvation, that is, extraordinary devotion and liberality
to the Church, and a readiness for the Church's sake, if it be
required, to fight against their natural and lawful sovereign" (B
215). In the same vein, Hobbes points out that Aristotle's ethical
ideas were used to undermine the legitimacy of the sovereign power.
According to Aristotle's doctrine of the mean, to determine what is
virtuous in a particular situation one must find the middle path
between two extremes. In Hobbes's opinion, this leaded individuals to
determine for themselves what is right or wrong in a given situation.
The political problem with this view, as might be expected, is that it
leads to questioning the validity and regulatory power of civil law,
and it thereby could foster resistance and rebellion. c. Hobbes's
Philosophy of Law: A Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of
the Common Laws of England In A Dialogue between a Philosopher and a
Student of the Common Laws of England, Hobbes claims that common law
lawyers, such as Sir Edward Coke, are partly to blame for the civil
strife in England. According to Coke, the King is legally restricted
by the common law, which is a set of laws determined and refined over
the course of time by the application of an 'artificial reason'
possessed by wise lawyers and judges. Hobbes agrees with Coke that
reason plays an important part in law, but argues that the King's
reason is responsible for determining the meaning of laws. In the
political situation prior to the outbreak of civil war, this
philosophical difference revealed itself when the King requested funds
and was denied. Hobbes, as we have seen, believed the immediate cause
of Charles' inability to maintain the sovereign power was his lack of
funds to support a military. Charles' request was denied on the basis,
in part, of certain statutes claiming that kings shall not levy taxes
or enact other means of funding without the common consent of the
realm. The interpretation of these statutes according to the 'reason'
of the lawyers in Parliament, Hobbes says, is partly to blame for the
King's failure to acquire needed funding. As with the religious
seducers, common law lawyers often created situations of divided
loyalty. In their interpretation of the law, barristers such as Coke
sometimes claimed the 'law' is in conflict with the dictates of the
King. In such situations, is one's duty of obedience to the law (as
interpreted by the 'wise men' of Parliament) higher than one's duty to
the King? These kinds of questions, Hobbes believes, inevitably lead
to division in the commonwealth and this, in turn, leads to factions
within the body politic and civil discord. 2. Scientific Views
Hobbes's "science of politics" was supposed to provide a solution to
the ideological conflicts that lead to civil war by providing a method
of achieving consensus on political matters. If the conflicting
parties could ultimately agree on political ideas, then peace and
prosperity in the commonwealth could be achieved. Hobbes's aim was to
put politics onto a scientific footing and thereby establish an
enduring state of peace. To understand Hobbes's idea of science one
needs to turn to De Corpore (or On the Body), which is his most
developed text on scientific ideas. In this manuscript of natural
philosophy, Hobbes presents his views on philosophical method,
mathematics, geometry, physics, and human nature. In his own opinion,
the views contained in De Corpore represented the foundational
principles of his entire philosophical system and, therefore, of his
"science of politics." a. Philosophical Method: Resolution and
Composition Hobbes, like many of his contemporaries, stresses the
importance of having a proper philosophical method for attaining
knowledge. In contrast to the reliance on authority that was typical
of medieval scholasticism, leading intellectuals and scientists of
Hobbes's time believed that knowledge is not attained by appealing to
authority, but by employing an appropriately objective method. For
Hobbes, such a method was not only important for attaining knowledge,
but also served the practical end of avoiding disputes which arose
from speculation and subjective interpretation. Although Hobbes did
not consistently describe his philosophical methodology, most scholars
agree that he used a "resolutive-compositive" method. According to
this method, one comes to understand a given object of inquiry by
intellectually "resolving" it into its constituent parts and then
subsequently "composing" it back into a whole. For Hobbes, such a
process may be used when investigating a natural body (such as a chair
or a man), an abstract body (such as a circle), or a political body
(such as a commonwealth). So, to use Hobbes's example, one can
intellectually resolve the idea of a human being into the following
ideas: "rational," "animated," and "body." On the other hand, one can
compose the idea of a man by reconstructing these concepts. In the
process of resolving and composing a thing, one is able to discover
its essential qualities. This process is analogous to taking apart a
watch and putting it back together again to find out what makes it
tick. Hobbes used the method of resolution and composition in his
science of politics. He first resolved the commonwealth into its parts
(that is, human beings), and then resolved these parts into their
parts (i.e. the motions of natural bodies), and then resolved these
into their parts (that is, abstract figures). After such a resolution,
Hobbes recomposed the commonwealth in his grand trilogy that
progressed from the abstract and physical investigation of natural
bodies, to the study of human bodies, to finally the examination of
political bodies. b. Scientific Demonstration It was important for
Hobbes not only to acquire knowledge for himself, but also to
demonstrate his conclusions to others. According to Hobbes, scientific
demonstration is a linguistic activity of constructing syllogisms out
of propositions, which themselves are constructed out of names. The
basic linguistic unit of scientific demonstration, then, is the
"name." Hobbes believes that names may be used either as "marks,"
which recall certain thoughts to our minds, or as "signs," which
communicate our thoughts to others. One may, for example, use the name
"man" as a mark, or mnemonic device, to remember what a man is, or one
may use the name to communicate something about men to others. When
two or more names are joined with a copula (an "is"), a proposition is
created. For example, "man is an animal" is a proposition that joins
"man" with "animal." A syllogism is a series of three propositions
where the first two (that is, the premises) logically support the
third (that is, the conclusion). From the two premises "men are
animals" and "animals are alive," for example, one may logically
conclude that, "men are alive." This is how one constructs syllogisms
out of propositions. Scientific demonstration, however, is not simply
a matter of logically deducing conclusions; the conclusions must also
be universal and true. According to Hobbes, a universal conclusion is
one that attributes a characteristic to an entire class of things. For
example, "all human beings are rational" is a statement in which the
term "rational" is used to describe all humans. Hobbes continues, if
the predicate term in such a statement 'comprehends' the subject term,
then the statement is also a true one. For example, in the statement
"Human beings are animals," the subject term ("human beings") is
included within the predicate term ("animals") and so is a true
statement. A scientific demonstration, then, is a syllogism that
deduces universal and true propositions on the basis of premises with
the same characteristics. (Interestingly, in geometry, which is
Hobbes's paradigm of scientific demonstration, the truth of the first
principles is established by agreement. In this case, Hobbes adheres
to a "conventional view of truth," according to which the truth of
propositions is determined by consensus.) c. Motion and Science It is
not possible to speak of Hobbes's view of science without referring to
the concept of motion. Hobbes believes that motion, understood as any
kind of change, is the universal cause of all things. The various
branches of science, therefore, are ultimately sciences of motion. For
example, Hobbes believes that geometry is a science of motion because
it involves the construction of figures through the movement of
points. Physics, similarly, is the science that studies the motion of
physical bodies. Even moral philosophy is a science of motion because
it studies the "motions of the mind" (such as envy, greed, and
selfishness) that cause human actions. Thus, one may discover the
motions, or actions, that lead to the creation of a commonwealth by
understanding the "motions" of the human mind in a parallel way as
when one studies points and physical bodies. d. Geometry and Physics
After presenting his ideas on philosophical method in the first part
of De Corpore, Hobbes applies this method to both the abstract world
of geometry and to the real and existing world of physical objects.
Keeping to his goal of scientifically demonstrating his conclusions,
Hobbes begins his geometrical investigations with a number of
foundational definitions, including those of space, time and bodies;
he uses these definitions to compose an abstract world of geometric
figures and then to draw a number of conclusions about them. At the
end of Part III, the investigation shifts away from the abstract world
to the 'real and existent' one, signifying a shift from geometry to
physics. At the start of his physical investigations, Hobbes
reiterates his point that resolution and composition are the methods
to obtain philosophical knowledge. The appropriate method for
scientifically investigating the natural world, Hobbes says, is
resolution. The goal of physics is to understand the motions of the
world as experienced by us. Since our knowledge of the physical world
comes from our experiences, Hobbes believes the first job of physics
is to analyze the faculty of sense. Hobbes resolves human sensation
into its various "parts": the sense organs, the faculties of
imagination and fancy, and the sensations of pleasure and pain. Hobbes
then resolves natural bodies, starting with a resolution of the
"whole" world, to unveil the variety of motions responsible for
physical phenomena, such as the motion of the stars, the change of
seasons, the presence of heat and color, and the power of gravity. All
of these natural phenomena are explained, just as geometric figures
are, in terms of bodies in motion. Important differences between
geometry and physics surface in Hobbes's De Corpore. In the first
case, Hobbes uses a compositive method in geometry. Starting with
definitions of lines and points, Hobbes derives a number of
conclusions about the world of geometric figures. In his physics, on
the other hand, Hobbes starts by resolving senses and the phenomena
provided by them. There is also a second distinction that concerns the
truth or falsity of claims made in each science. According to Hobbes,
geometry operates within the realm of truth because it is grounded on
primary principles, or definitions, that are known as true because
they have been accepted as true. The principles of physics, on the
other hand, are hypothetical because they are not agreed upon
initially, but are discovered through observation. The difference in
the demonstrable nature of physics and geometry is ultimately based
upon their contrasting methodologies. 3. Philosophy of Human Nature
The second part of Hobbes's trilogy, which investigates human bodies,
follows physics, which studies natural bodies. The point of transition
between physics and the study of human nature is found in what may be
called Hobbes's "philosophy of mind" or "psychology." Moral philosophy
is a part of physics because the motion of material bodies on our
sense organs, which is the subject matter of physics, causes a variety
of motions in the human mind. While moral philosophy is technically a
part of physics, it may also be seen as the starting point for
political philosophy insofar as it lays down the foundational ethical
principles from which social conclusions are derived. Hobbes's
scientific methodology is apparent in the political argument of
Leviathan. Following the method of resolution, Hobbes resolves the
commonwealth into its fundamental "parts," i.e. humans, and further
resolves humans into their "parts," i.e., motions of the mind.
Hobbes's political argument in Leviathan, then, begins with his views
on the nature of the mind and human psychology. After studying human
individuals in isolation, he reconstructs the commonwealth by placing
them in a state of nature, an abstract condition prior to the
formation of political society. By analyzing the behavior, or
"motions," of humans in this controlled environment, Hobbes believes
he has discovered the causes of commonwealths. At the same time that
Hobbes uses the compositive method to intellectually reconstruct the
commonwealth, he also tries to demonstrate his political conclusions
following the paradigm of geometry by defining fundamental features of
human nature and then drawing conclusions on the basis of these. It
should be noted that Hobbes is not always consistent or rigorous in
applying a scientific method to political matters. In the Introduction
to Leviathan, for example, Hobbes claims that self-inspection is the
primary method for understanding his political ideas. In this case,
the foundational principles of his political science are not derived
from physics, but are known simply by reflecting on one's experiences.
In addition, Hobbes claimed that the second part of his trilogy, De
Cive, was published first because it relied on its own empirical
principles. Furthermore, in Leviathan, especially the early chapters,
Hobbes uses many rhetorical devices in getting his point across,
rather than following a strict pattern of deriving conclusions from
definitions and fundamental principles. Such devices probably indicate
that Hobbes was aiming at a wider readership with this work, with
possible political implications. a. Hobbes's Moral Philosophy Hobbes's
masterpiece in political philosophy begins with a study of human
individuals and the "motions" of their "parts." In the early chapters
of Leviathan, Hobbes advocates a mechanistic and materialist
psychology. He claims that the motions of external physical objects on
sense organs cause a variety of mental experiences in the mind, which
Hobbes refers to as "fancies" or "appearances"; such mental phenomena
ultimately cause human behavior. As Hobbes sees it, the movement of
external objects lead to the production of mental motions called
"endeavours," which are of two types: appetites and aversions. An
appetite is an endeavour that causes an individual to seek out a
particular object. An aversion, on the other hand, is an endeavor that
causes one to avoid an object. For Hobbes, individuals naturally have
an appetite for the "good," which he defines simply as the object of
one's appetite. In other words, if a person desires an object, that
object is "good" for that person. When deciding how to act in a
particular situation, humans must "deliberate" by weighing appetites
and aversions. Individuals will necessarily choose the act that
apparently produces the greatest good for the individual concerned.
Deliberation, therefore, is not as much a matter of choice as it is
the result of a mechanical process. b. The State of Nature Hobbes's
psychological observations in the early chapters of Leviathan are
about human individuals, not community members. Following the
compositive aspect of his methodology, Hobbes "combines" individuals
in a state of nature, a state prior to the formation of the
commonwealth. In the "natural condition of mankind," humans are equal,
despite minor differences in strength and mental acuity. Hobbes's
notion of equality is peculiar in that it refers to the equal ability
to kill or conquer one another, but quite consistent with his notion
of power. This equality, Hobbes says, naturally leads to conflict
among individuals for three reasons: competition, distrust, and glory.
In the first case, if two individuals desire a scarce commodity, they
will compete for the commodity and necessarily become enemies. In
their efforts to acquire desired objects, each person tries to
"destroy or subdue" the other. On account of the constant fear
produced in the state of nature, Hobbes believes, it is reasonable to
distrust others and use preemptive strikes against one's enemies.
Hobbes also considers humans to be naturally vainglorious and so seek
to dominate others and demand their respect. The natural condition of
mankind, according to Hobbes, is a state of war in which life is
"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" because individuals are in
a "war of all against all" (L 186). In such a state, Hobbes contends
that individuals have a "natural right" to do whatever they believe is
necessary to preserve their lives. In other words, individuals in the
state of nature are not constrained by moral or legal obligations as
neither could exist prior to the establishment of a commonwealth. In
the state of nature "nothing can be Unjust' since the 'notions of
Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place" (L 188).
Human liberty, for Hobbes, is simply the freedom of bodily action and
is not limited by any moral or legal notions. A person is free, in
other words, when not physically confined or imprisoned. Because the
state of nature is a state of continuous and comprehensive war, Hobbes
claims it is necessary and rational for individuals to seek peace to
satisfy their desires, including the natural desire for
self-preservation. The human power of reason, Hobbes says, reveal the
"laws of nature" that enable humans to establish a state of peace and
escape the horrors of the state of nature. 4. Science of Politics The
geometric method is nowhere more apparent in Hobbes's political
philosophy than in his treatment of the laws of nature. Definitions
are provided and a series of conclusions are drawn in rapid fashion;
there is a deep logical consistency to its prudential outcomes. Hobbes
begins by defining laws of nature as rational precepts that lead
individuals toward a state of peace. The first law of nature is that
every person should seek peace with others, unless others are not
willing to cooperate, in which case one may use the "helps of war."
This law of nature has two parts to it. In the first part, it
encourages a state of peace by instructing individuals to satisfy
their desire for self-preservation. Yet, because peaceful coexistence
requires reciprocity, if only one party seeks peace, it is unlikely it
will be established. For this reason, there is a second part to the
first law of nature; that is, if others are not interested in settling
the conflict, one must resort to violent action to secure one's
survival. Humans, as we have seen, have a natural right to determine
what is necessary for their own individual survival. The existence of
this natural right often promotes a state of war, so peace requires
that individuals renounce or transfer this right in part or in whole.
From the first law of nature, then, Hobbes derives a second law
according to which individuals must lay down their natural rights
universally and concurrently in order to obtain peace. A natural right
is relinquished either by transferring a right to a specific recipient
or by renouncing the right entirely. In order to escape the war of all
against all, Hobbes claims, a common power must be established by a
mutual transference of right to protect the individuals not only from
foreign invaders, but also from each other. Yet, since the object of
one's voluntary actions is some good to oneself, a person can never
abandon or transfer their right to self-preservation. The purpose of
establishing a common power is to escape from the condition of war, a
condition that seriously threatens each person's conservation, which
is one's highest good. Thus, a person cannot give up the natural right
to self-preservation or to the means of self-preservation. According
to the second law of nature, then, we must transfer those rights whose
exercise contributes to civil conflict. This leads to the third law of
nature stating that individuals must abide by any covenants consented
to freely. For a common power to perform the task for which it is
erected, it is necessary that individuals follow through on their
mutual agreements. In Leviathan, Hobbes deduces sixteen more laws of
nature, all of which aim at maintaining the state of peace established
by the erection of a common power. These laws provide a code of moral
behavior by prohibiting socially destructive behavior or attitudes,
such as drunkenness or ingratitude. The political consequence of the
laws of nature is the institution of a political body that makes
possible a state of peace. Hobbes claims the sovereign power may
reside in one person or an assembly, so that a singular type of
government is not required to maintain the peace. It is necessary,
however, for the sovereign power to possess certain rights to fulfill
the task for which it was established. In a manner similar to the
deduction of the laws of nature, Hobbes derives the rights and powers
of sovereignty. In this derivation, Hobbes deduces those rights that
are necessary for maintaining peace. To give one example, the
sovereign power has the right not to be dissolved by its subjects
Hobbes derives eleven other rights; if any of the rights are granted
away, Hobbes asserts, the commonwealth will revert to a state of war.
The rights, briefly put, entail a defense of political absolutism.
According to the basic tenets of Hobbes's political absolutism, the
sovereign power enacts and enforces all laws, determines when to make
war and peace, controls the military, judges all doctrines and
opinions, decides all controversies between citizens, chooses its own
counselors and ministers, and cannot be legitimately resisted, except
in rare instances (that is, when it cannot guarantee the peace and
security of its subjects—that is, it loses "the power of the sword").
The "science of politics," as presented in Hobbes's political works,
offers a solution to the specific problems he addressed in his
historical works. The essence of his solution is "political
absolutism," according to which the sovereign is the final arbiter on
all matters ethical, religious, and political. One of the "diseases of
a commonwealth," Hobbes says, is the opinion that "every private man
is Judge of Good and Evil actions" (L 365). In the state of nature, as
we have seen, individuals possess the natural right to determine what
is good for themselves, i.e., what is necessary for their own
conservation. As long as individuals make such determinations, Hobbes
believes, there will be a state of war. In established commonwealths,
religious doctrines are often responsible for civil conflict,
especially in those cases where God's law and civil law seem to be in
opposition. Hobbes's solution to the problem of conflicting religious
and political powers begins by a free and unanimous consent to
irrevocable place both powers under the control of the civil
sovereign. Furthermore, Hobbes provides an extended interpretation of
Biblical passages in part III and IV of Leviathan with the goal of
showing that God's word supports, or is consistent with, his
philosophy. If the civil sovereign accepts and enforces Hobbes's
interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, it is argued, then the
possibility of conflicting duties on the basis of religion will
vanish. For this reason, Hobbes's science of politics concludes that
the sovereign power must be in charge of all doctrines and opinions in
the commonwealth. If everyone accepts his political conclusions,
Hobbes claims, then disagreement over political and religious matters
would come to an end and peace would be firmly established in a
commonwealth. 5. References and Further Reading a. Primary Sources
References to Behemoth (B) are taken from The English Works of Thomas
Hobbes of Malmesbury, ed. Sir William Molesworth, London: John Bohn,
1841, Vol. 6. References to Leviathan (L) are taken from Leviathan,
ed. C.B. Macpherson, Harmondsworth: Penguin Publishers, 1968. b.
Secondary Sources Finn, S.J. (2007) Hobbes: A Guide for the Perplexed.
London: Continuum Press. Herbert, G. (1989), Thomas Hobbes: The Unity
of Scientific and Moral Wisdom. Vancouver: University of British
Columbia Press. Kraynack, R. History and Modernity in the Thought of
Thomas Hobbes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Lloyd, S.A. (1992),
Ideals as Interests in Hobbes's Leviathan: The Power of Mind over
Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peters, R. (1956),
Hobbes. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Sommerville, J.P. (1992), Thomas
Hobbes: Political Ideas in Historical Context. London: MacMillan.
Sorell, T. (1986), Hobbes. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
No comments:
Post a Comment