Analysis Of Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

At first reading, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan can be an intimidating piece of academia. In spite of this, Part 2 of his work, ‘Of Commonwealth’, is still a core piece of political philosophy. Hobbes proposes that the only true functional, permanent and society is one of absolute authority. This essay is focused primarily on the identification and translation of Hobbes’ main doctrines against divided authority, versus the aforementioned unified state. This will be done by looking arguments about the initial construction of the state, the problems of giving each individual the responsibility of power, and benefits of the sovereign as a singular all-powerful figure versus alternatives.

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.

Exemplifying what is being suggested here in a modern context could be expressed in taxation – maker the ruler subject to such ideas such as paying taxes. In essence, this argument simply suggests that putting the power of the law above the power of the lawmaker renders both weakened. Therefore, the Leviathan concludes that a unified sovereign who is independent of the laws they enact and enforce is more beneficial to the Commonwealth than a larger government body subject to its own rules and