Absolute Sovereignty Essay

1289 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Hobbes view on human nature

As a nation we are obligated to obey the rules and regulation of society in which was given to us by a higher power, the government. The government doesn’t have absolute power of society but it holds a balance of limited power to maintain society from failing into chaos or revolutions. However many believe there should be absolute power in order for society to fully function properly and away from war. This idea is based on Hobbes philosophy of absolute sovereignty. In which power should neither be limited nor divided but given absolute authority to a single person or an assembly to have an effective society. In this paper I will explain why I agree with Hobbes philosophy of absolute sovereignty. The idea is not perfect because we may give …show more content…

According to Hobbes the state of nature plays a role in the reason for absolute sovereignty. This idea that mankind is a continuous cycle of conflict where violence exist in which he thought would bring human life to be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. As he puts it is “every man, against every man.” To Hobbes essentially human beings are selfish and without government would kill each other without a question because they rely on three principles: competition, diffidence, and glory. The idea that man kind will invade for self gain, for safety, and for reputation. Its in this state of nature that men rely on their strength in order to survive and will use any means to survival. Which I believe is true because if men were naturally good and capable of living in harmony with one another then they would have never been a reason for government to exist. Hobbes then express this idea that in this state of nature everyone man has the right to every thing and as long as this natural right exist there is no security to any man. Therefore in the state of nature they’re no divine rights as everyone has a right to take what is yours. Which is evident to prove that men cannot live in peace without an absolute sovereignty to keep them in …show more content…

We are not forced to give up our rights and give full freedom to one sole authority but where as a whole society we mutually agree that everyone must obey this absolute sovereignty. We give the ruler power by accepting and obeying the punishments and commands given. The sovereign is created by the people thus can be taken away by the people. As long as we obey is as long as the sovereign holds power. We determine for ourselves the commands and obedience to in which the sovereignty orders based on the best interest of our welfare. This idea of an absolute sovereign, its very existence is dependent on the obedience by the people. If a relationship exists between a sovereign and society then it becomes essential to establish higher laws to regulate the ruler’s actions where the people have the right of interpretation or review. This idea presented by Hobbes, that we couldn’t create a sovereign who decides all issues in society and whose reign is absolute and permanent. Which makes sense in that even though we give all our rights to one group or person that person doesn’t truly hold all the authority its up to society as a whole to determine whether we are going to give it absolute authority by obeying to commands and punishment we interpret as the best for the best interest of human

Show More
Related

  • The Influence of Locke and Hobbes on Government

    1741 Words  | 4 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes believes that the optimal form of authority is one that has absolute power over its people, consisting of just one person who will retain the exclusive ability to oversee and decide on all of society’s issues. This Sovereign will be constituted by a social contract with the people. With that, the Sovereign will hold all of the citizens’ rights, and will be permitted to act in whichever way he or she deems necessary. The philosopher comes to this conclusion with deductive reasoning, utilizing a scientific method with straightforward arguments to prove his point.

    Read More

  • Comparing The Social Contract And The Leviathan

    1688 Words  | 4 Pages

    However, after closely examining Hobbes’ sovereign we can find many problems with it, the first one being his immunity from civil law. While he is still held accountable for actions such as punishing innocent citizens, his punishment comes God and not man. He abides by the law of nature and not the civil law enacted. But, what good does it do for the subjects in Hobbes’ version of a commonwealth that the sovereign is subject to the laws of nature and not the laws created in the state. The logic Hobbes presents in defense of this is reasonable; to be subjected to civil law does not only mean that the law is above the sovereign’s power but that there is a judge that can punish the sovereign. The judge in this case acts as a new sovereign, and since the judge is also subjected to the law of the commonwealth, he too will need a judge, and so on and so forth until confusion sets in and the commonwealth dissolves. (Hobbes, 215) However, because of this, the sovereign is able to do as he please, changing and creating laws that suit him. (Hobbes, 176) We must ask ourselves this question: why would a sovereign need immunity from the law for his personal interest if he acts as the representative for the subjects? Why would Hobbes create this figure, the sovereign, to rule over the subjects in their name for their benefit and safety, yet allow him to also change laws on whim, where such actions can possibly

    Read More

  • Hobbes’ Leviathan: A Principality? A Republic? Or Something New?

    931 Words  | 2 Pages

    middle of paper ... ... The sovereign is able to hold absolute power but is equally controlled by the actions of the people as they are considered to be a servant of the people. Hobbes’ political thought is said to be the foundation for Parliamentary sovereignty in Canada. He believes society's main goal is to provide a safe, functioning life without the constant fear of death.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

    767 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hobbes first presents us with the practical problem of partial authority, that is to say, non-absolute. He exemplifies this in monarchies where the ruler does not necessarily have absolute power. He cites that when kings or queens are not in full control of their states from the outset, situations that arise where power is uptaking may appear as an ‘unjust act’ to the common man. Therefore, Hobbes concludes, the often critical uptake of power in times of crisis, war, or rebellion can be circumnavigated by unifying state power from initial construction, rather than dividing it.

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Locke: The Power Debate

    1209 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hobbes, an aristocrat who lived through the English civil war, had to flee England, watch his monarch’s execution, and observes the violence of human nature at its very worst. Given this experience, his central concern was the need for absolute power to maintain peace and prevent another civil war. On the other hand, John Locke lived and wrote forty years later, after the Glorious Revolution. His ideas developed in the context of a period in which individual’s rights and power were emphasized. He believed that individuals needed freedom from control to reach their full potential. Hobbes became an advocate for absolutism--the belief that because humans are naturally power seeking, a sovereign is needed to maintain peace, and the individual must completely submit to that power. In contrast, Locke advocated constitutionalism, the belief that all individuals have inherit rights, government should be based on consensus, and citizens must fight for their liberty in the face of an overpowering government. These philosophers and their ideas outlined the debate about where power should lie in society–with the individual or with the state.

    Read More

  • Hobbes Justification Of Absolute Authority Analysis

    1986 Words  | 4 Pages

    tradition. Characteristic of his approach is an attempt to justify absolute political authority by an appeal to our rational nature, i.e., in order to avoid a state of war, the appointment of such an authority is considered to be in our best rational interest. By this is implied that we are to collectively give up our naturally endowed freedom in order to ascertain a prolonged existence. This allows for Hobbes to grant such an authority unbounded and absolute power: as long as this authority ensures our continued existence—which reflects our most fundamental drive—rebellion is strictly forbidden. Since the guarantee of our continued existence seems to function as the only criterion for a legitimate authority, one can question some of its implications.

    Read More

  • Absolute Power: A State of War Against Its People

    1132 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hobbes’s government is impossible, firstly, because people have no arbitrary power to transfer. Secondly, a government that is not bound by laws is no government at all since it remains in a state of nature with its citizens. Lastly, the Hobbesian sovereign’s right to take away his subjects’ property makes the establishment of this form of government incongruous because the purpose of the government is the protection of property. Absolute arbitrary government comes about only when the government exceeds its authority and is not something that should be strived for. Therefore, the government, which Hobbes proposes to exit the state of war, would, for Locke, directly introduce or set the stage for civil war. In Locke’s Treatise, the social contract binds citizens to a government, which is responsible to its citizenry. If the government fails to represent the interest of its citizens, its citizens have the right and obligation to overthrow it. By contrast, in Hobbes’s Leviathan, there is no reciprocal relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Absolute arbitrary government invests all rights in the sovereign and the citizens forfeit their rights. It is because of these different views on the purpose and origin of government that one can say Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” is a successful confutation of Hobbes’s

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1937 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...d seek peace. In establishing a covenant and instituting a sovereign, men give up the rights they possessed in the state of nature, as well as the right to live without tyranny. However for Hobbes, those sacrifices are overshadowed by what is gained by living under a truly absolute sovereign. A sovereign, corrupt or not, guarantees order and prevents chaos and death. Those are, word for word, the reasons the social contract was initially established and therefore fully justify the creation of an absolute sovereign. Thomas Hobbes, who wrote Leviathan during the English Civil Wars, looked out his window at chaos and decided that survival should be pursued at all costs.

    Read More

  • Hobbes's Theory Of Political Nature And The Theories Of Human Nature

    1286 Words  | 3 Pages

    In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern

    Read More

  • The State of Nature: Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury

    1681 Words  | 4 Pages

    In this essay, I will present three reasons as to why the absolute authority of the sovereign in Hobbes’s state of nature and social contract is justified. The three reasons Hobbes uses are: the argument from contract, the argument from authorisation and the argument from weakness of mixed or divided sovereignty. Firstly, I shall explain Hobbes’s understanding of human nature and the natural condition of humanity which causes the emergence of the social contract. I shall then analyse each argument for the absolute authority of the sovereign being justified. I shall then consider possible objections to Hobbes’s argument. I shall then show why Hobbes’s argument is successful and the absolute authority of the sovereign is justified.

    Read More

  • The Purpose Of Government In Machiavelli's The Prince

    1192 Words  | 3 Pages

    Is the purpose of government today, similar to that of philosophers of the past, or has there been a shift in political thought? This essay will argue that according to Machiavelli’s The Prince, the purpose of government is to ensure the stability of the state as well as the preservation of the established ruler’s control, and that the best form of government should take the form of an oligarchy. In contrast, in his book, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that the purpose of government should be to preserve the peace and security of men and, that the best form of government would be an absolute monarchy which would sanction such conditions. This essay will utilize themes of glory, material advantage, peace and stability to illustrate

    Read More

  • The Absolute Monarchy Of France In The 17th Century

    731 Words  | 2 Pages

    An Analysis of the Absolute Monarchy of France in the 17th Century This historical study will define the absolute monarchy as it was defied through the French government in the 17th century. The term ‘absolute” is defined I the monarchy through the absolute control over the people through the king and the royal family. All matters of civic, financial, and political governance was controlled through the king’s sole power as the monarchical ruler of the French people. In France, Louis XIII is an important example of the absolute monarchy, which controlled all facts of military and economic power through a single ruler. Udder Louis XIII’s reign, the consolidation of power away from the Edicts of Nantes to dominant local politics and sovereignty

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2134 Words  | 5 Pages

    Hobbes and Rousseau created a revolutionary idea of the state of nature. They did not believe government should be organized through the church, therefore abandoning the idea of the divine right theory, where power of the king came directly from God. Starting from a clean slate, with no organized church, Hobbes and Rousseau needed a construct on what to build society on. The foundation of society began with the original state of nature. Hobbes’ perception of the original state of nature is what would exist if there were no common power to execute and enforce the laws to restrain individuals. In this case, the laws of the jungle would prevail: only the fittest survive. Man’s desires are insatiable. Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

    3013 Words  | 7 Pages

    Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.

    Read More

  • Similarities Between Hobbes Locke And Rousseau

    560 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hobbes believes that if there is no government then it will lead to a state of war. This is because the people can have different judgement which cause them to not have an agreement on what the government should contain. This means that the people did not view each other as equal and did not have the same morals as Locke would believe in. It can also lead to a state of war if the people don’t have the right to property since it will cause the peace to break. However, the only type of state Hobbes believes in is the Leviathan state that has only one

    Read More

More about Absolute Sovereignty Essay

Open Document