How Thomas Hobbes views human nature and concludes the best form of government is monarchy

“The right of nature, which writers commonly call it jus naturale, is liberty each man had to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.”

According to Martinich, there is two ways to establish that people in the state of nature have a right to everything:  “One depends on the definition of rights as liberties to act and of laws as constraints on action.” It means that as there is no law to control human’s action, everyone has any liberty to act; hence one has the right to all things. He explains the second way as “The second begins with the proposition that whoever has a right to end has a right to the means to that end.” From this point it can be understood that as anything in the nature may be necessary for survival, a person has right to everything in the nature.

The second law of nature is that, if others are willing to do the same, one may lay down the rights to all things and live with the rights which are given by others, in this way, they could achieve peace. This view is an inspiration of Hobbes from the Bible: “Whatsoever you require that others should do to you that do you to them.’ By giving up rights or renouncing them, a man expects others to do the same things and benefit from this action; because it is a voluntary action and the aim of any voluntary action of human are some good to himself.

The mutual transferring of rights is called the contract. If the contract is due a determined time, Hobbes calls it covenant. In the state of war, the covenants are not valid due to a reasonable suspicion, whereas, if there is a power over humans like a state requiring them to perform covenants, these are valid and trustful.

The third law of nature is that “… men perform their covenants made; without which covenants are in vain, and but empty words; the right of all men to all things remaining, we are still in the condition of war.” If covenants are not performed this causes injustice. Without a commonwealth there is nothing unjust or wrong and, when a commonwealth is established, it will provide justice and property:

    “…there must be some coercive power to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants, by the terror of some punishment greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenants and to make good that property which by mutual contract men acquire in recompense of the universal right they abandon: and such power there is none before the erection of a commonwealth.”

Consents, covenants, and contracts have their strength not from their own nature, but from the fear of some evil consequences. Moreover, the laws of nature are binding humans only in accordance with conscience and they are not secure to keep humans in order. On the contrary, laws of a state make people both obey the laws of nature and perform their covenants; also they provide security because they are obligatory.

Under such conditions individuals live in the state of war and,Hobbes reflects human’s life in the state of nature as,

“In such condition, there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

In the state of war there is nothing unjust or wrong because, as Hobbes claims that, “Justice and injustice are none of the faculties of the body nor mind.” So justice cannot be provided by humans, and to establish justice among people, a common power is necessary. If there is no common power over humans to control their actions, the notions of right or wrong, justice or injustice, have no place.

In this way, Hobbes tries to show how human life would be without laws. Since nothing would be forbidden, everything would be permitted and it follows that a person has a right to all things.

As a result, individuals desire peace. The passions that lead people to peace are: “…fear of death, desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them.” According to Hobbes, the actions of individuals are directed by the desire that “…the object of man’s desire is not to enjoy once only, and for one instant of time, but to assure forever the way of his future desire.” So people want to guarantee their desire to enjoy during their whole life by establishing a peaceful society.

Then Hobbes clarifies why establishing a commonwealth is a necessity. The final cause of people who confront restraints due to living within a commonwealth is to be protected and have a more contented life; so the aim of the commonwealth is to maintain security. At this point Hobbes indicates that the security cannot be provided by laws of nature by saying: “For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and in sum, doing others as we would be done to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like.”

In addition to that Hobbes indicates that the desired security cannot be provided by being governed by a multitude unless there is a particular leader who makes all decisions because if actions of citizens are not directed by particular judgements, there cannot be seen any defence or protection against a common enemy. Also particular judgements must be made by one person and this decision-maker must continue his job permanently. This view arises from the notion of Hobbes that, as Elza Talmor points out:

“A multitude of men can never be a natural whole, a natural unit. Men can create through their concurring wills an artificial person and endow it with the monopoly of certain powers, rights to act in their name. In such a case the consenting men remain the authors of their acts but no longer their owners.”

Hobbes identifies a commonwealth as the multitude united in one person and he indicates that this is the generation of the great Leviathan by saying;

“That mortal god which we owe, under the immortal god, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the commonwealth, he had the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad.” 

One who carries this authority is called the sovereign and has the sovereign power, and the rest who obey his order are called his subjects.

One may attain this sovereign power in two ways. The first one is the natural one that is to make his family and his enemies submit to him by natural force. The second one is gained by general will that humans agree amongst themselves to submit one man or an assembly voluntarily in order to be protected by the sovereign.

Hobbes clarifies the second type of commonwealth as

 ”A commonwealth is said to be instituted when a multitude of men do agree, and covenant, everyone with everyone, that to whatsoever man, assembly of men, shall be given by the major part the right to present the person of them all, that is to say, to be their representative; everyone as well he that voted for it as he that voted against it, shall authorise all actions and judgements of that man, or assembly of men, in the same manner as if they were his own, to the end to live peaceably amongst themselves, and be protected against other men.”

    As a result, Hobbes suggests, human finds a way out of the state of nature that includes every condition of war in the monarchy. However, achieving peace costs them a great loss of rights, but Hobbes indicates that every man is considered to be the author of all actions and judgements of the sovereign; so the subject are always bound by the covenant of which they remain always authors. 

However, monarchy cannot provide security among for the society because the sovereign is not obliged to give up any of his rights, meaning he has not entered into a contract or a covenant, as these are two sided agreements, the sovereign is still in the state of nature. The implications of having a sovereign in the state of nature are very serious, since a man in the state of nature is not to be trusted as Hobbes indicates. So the greatest origin of mistrust should be having a sovereign out of the contract. In addition, how can people be made obey one power in society that no one can trust him.  

For this reason, separation of sovereign’s powers would be the resolution of this problem as Locke or Montesquieu claim. If the legislative, executive, and judicial powers are controlled by different hands, they will control and balance each other. But Hobbes’s governmental system has one power includes all these powers and none of the subjects is allowed to criticise his judgements or decision- due to the mutual contract that “I authorise all his actions” – so there is no way to trust the on sovereign.

From this point it can be understood that having one sovereign can only provide social security in the way of performing contract and covenants, and the civil war based on selfishness of people in the natural state. Although having a sovereign would prevent society from a civil war, as the monarch remaining in the state of nature, no one can claim that social security would be provided by monarchy.

 Furthermore, as no one can control monarch’s actions, the concept of political stability would have no place because two of the three causes of disagreement in nature of man- diffidence against others and desire for glory- would make the monarch do bad things. He may suspect some of his subjects of being a threat against the sovereignty even they did nothing and punish them- as he has the right to kill only the ones who harm the sovereignty- so such kind of an action may result in diffidence among subjects or disobedience of subjects or even rebellion of subjects. Also having a desire for glory would lead the monarch to attack other nations that could provide him great military fame and this may shorten the life of state.    

As a conclusion, according to Hobbes, humans in the state of nature were not able to live in peace because natural laws could not provide them with security so they established a commonwealth through social contract. Also to provide peace among society and keep the commonwealth for a long time it is necessary that the commonwealth is ruled by an absolute monarchy. However, having one power as the sovereign cannot prove his points about social peace, because as long as the monarch would not be one of the sides of the contract.

References:

• Leviathan Text,  (20/03/03)
• Talmor, Elza. Mind and Political Concepts, Pergamon Press Ltd., Oxford 1979
• Martinich, A.P. Hobbes, a Bibliography,(P.230) Cambridge University Press, USA 1999

---