[1] Lisa Flavell Politics;

Thus in the 1640s he fled to France, due to fear of prosecution for his pro-

royalist publication, and stayed there until 1651 when the English civil

war (1583-1645) had ended. After creating “De Cive” it was not until

April 1651 that “Leviathan” was created, his most famous working, and

for which the royalists accused him of “Atheism”, “heresy” and

“treachery”.

                        Hobbes’ philosophy and Theory of the state

Due to his European, particularly Venetian, experiences of philosophy

and the influences of Marsenne and Galileo’s physics, Hobbes was a

rationalistic-sceptic with strong Anti-Aristotelian principles, such as

disputing the belief that the is a set of universal moral standards and

disputing the belief that observation could prove truth of a physical

proposition. He also agreed with the philosophies of Hugo Grotius, the

Dutch jurist and theologian, on man and a state of nature.

Hobbes believes that every man has at least one fundamental or natural

right of self-preservation and that unnecessary injury to another person is

unjustifiable. Hobbes was quite mechanistic in his theory and often

compared man to a machine. He believed that human life is naturally

competitive and seldom entirely free of the fight for symbols of status. He

saw that man in a state of nature, with no over-ruling power or

government, is predatory, greedy cruel and in fear of others. Man has

needs and will strive to satisfy them, however, these needs, in a state of

nature, would draw men into conflict. According to Hobbes there are

three principle causes of conflict: competition, diffidence and glory.

Hobbes believed that in a state of Nature

                        

        “Everyman has the right to everything; even to another’s body”                                                                                                (1)

If this were so, then conflict would certainly arise when goods are scarce

“And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies and endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another”

          (1)

Hobbes also saw that men are

        “Continually in competition for honour and dignity…and consequently amongst men there ariseth on that ground, envy and hatred, and finally war”

                                                                                        (1)

He continually stressed that men are restless and are never satisfied with

what they have for long. They

        “They relish nothing but what is eminent”

                                                                                            (1)

Or as Hobbes put it

        “I put from a general inclination of all of mankind a perpetual and restlesse desire of power that ceaseth only after death”

                                                                                        (1)

Hobbes did not believe that there was any natural solution to the political

problems of a state of nature. He rejected the opinion that there are some

that are naturally endowed with the right to rule and that men will

rationally follow the “laws of nature”. He also rejected the idea of moral

judgements, which were in his view

        “Nothing more but the variable approvals and disapprovals of men”

         (1)

The only solution to this state of nature would be the establishment of a

sovereign authority that could create an objective rule of right and wrong.

He believed that the only way to secure the right of self-preservation, in a

state of nature, is to transfer the right to a third party: the sovereign

power.

For the sovereign to exist, Hobbes believed that each individual would

enter a social contract that would not be imposed upon individuals but

was a means of ending the insecurity in a state of nature. The individuals

would agree a covenant

                

        “Of every man with everyman, in such a manner as if everyman should say to everyman, ‘I authorise and give up my right of governing myself’, to this man or to this assembly of men, on this condition that thus give thy right to him and authorise all his actions in like manner”                                                                                                                        (1)

Men would surrender their natural rights to the sovereign:

                

        “That great leviathan…that mortal God, to which we owe…our peace and defence.”                                                                     

(1)

And having agreed with each other to give up their rights, they also give

up their right to rebel against this sovereign on the condition that he

preserves peace and security. The subject is then obliged to obey the

sovereign, whose powers are absolute and demand total obedience.

Should a law or rule be broken, the subject would be punished, should

however he escape punishment

                

        “He will have weakened the State and brought human life that much closer to a state of nature, which is beneficial to no man”

                                                                                        (2)

The subject will have no powers against this sovereign as he has

covenanted to authorise all its/his acts, so even in the case of that subjects

execution he will have no say against the sovereigns decision. Also no

powers of the sovereign shall be shared as

        “Only a unified and single power can compress an anarchy of wills into the real unity of a state”                                                 

 (2)

For to create safeguards of the sovereign power, is to create an ultimately

stronger power than the sovereign. In contemporary society the sovereign

would have the power to; legislate, judge, tax (proportionally), distribute

land and resources, name his successor and control education and

censorship.

Hobbes believed that under his theory of the state avoidance of wars and

the resolution on conflict is possible. Men would go from a state of nature

with

        “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”

                                                                                        (1)

To a social society where the development of civilisation, art, science,

morality, law, peace and tranquillity is the focus. Although the sovereign

has absolute power

        “A blanket consent which the subjects cannot modify to suit their convenience”  

                                                                                        (2)

It is, all the same, the popular consent of the individuals that make up the

state that empowers him/it.

Hobbes’ aim in leviathan was to construct a theory of the state which

would avoid wars and resolve conflict, however, it offers no guarantee

against invasions of the sovereign power himself in fact it argues that no

guarantees are or could ever be securities against oppression.

Hobbes also appears to contradict himself in his argument when he insists

that we should regard our sovereign as having absolute authority but then

allows the subjects the liberty to disobey those of the sovereign’s

commands that would require them to sacrifice their lives or honour,

when the survival or protection on the state does not depend on it. Hobbes

argued that if the sovereign failed to provide adequate protection to its

subjects, they are no longer obliged to him, however, it is possible that

one subjects judgement of adequate protection may differ for another’s

therefore it can be argued that people have never really exited the state of

nature.

Thomas Hobbes is perhaps the most important political theorist, whose

theories is still debated and has significant relevance to the individual

today (especially in the study of international relations). It should be

noted that Hobbes never loses sight of man as a rationalistic individual

throughout his theory. The relevance of Hobbes’ theory can be seen by

the individual today by examining the society around them. We can see a

contrasting comparison between well-governed societies, i.e. Western

Europe and societies that are in political turmoil and conflict, i.e. war in

Afghanistan and civil wars.

        “In well governed states we live so happily with the solution, that we forget that it is a solution, and what it is a solution to.”

                                                                                        (2)

It is theorists such as Hobbes which help us focus on the true fundamental

ethics of political power which is, after all, the preservation and

protection of its subjects and over all maintaining peace and equilibrium

amongst its society.

Bibliography

• Hobbes, T., (1657). Leviathan. Oxford. (1)

• Minogue, K, R., (1990). Thomas Hobbes and the Philosophy of Absolutism. Ed David Thomson. Penguin. (2)

• Tuck, R., (1989). Hobbes A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

---