Analysis Of Thomas Hobbes The Collapse Of The Omnipotent Sovereign

1127 Words3 Pages

Anthony Vladimir Surganov January 27, 2014 SOSC. 15200-2 Prof. Julie Cooper The Collapse of the Omnipotent Sovereignty (A response to prompt #1) In Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, Hobbes introduces a fundamentally novel concept of the roots of politics and civic government. His ideas are based on his own views of human nature, which he believes to be disturbingly chaotic if left without structure. Hobbes believes, that the only way to guarantee society’s peace and security from such chaotic nature, is to establish a sovereign to rule over the commonwealth. Therefore, he proposes that the most practical and efficient sovereign is one that is all powerful with unlimited rights. However, although Hobbes’ mostly well-reasoned ideas create this ideal omnipotent sovereign, there are a few problems with his argument that cause it to fail; mainly because human nature does not allow for the cultivation of a covenant, the assumptions that Hobbes makes of the omnipotent sovereign is improbable if not impossible, and finally, Hobbes’ ideas regarding the rights of the sovereign are contradictory to some of his other political ideas. Hobbes believes that without government and structure, humans are doomed to live their lives in chaos, like savages or even animals since “… in the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel: competition, diffidence, [and] glory…” (pg. 76, par. 6). He continues on this point, by stating that without government, man is in a constant state of war with each other. In this state, every man is each other’s enemy and the ideas of justice do not exist (pg. 76 par. 8). Without a ruler, each man is his own lawmaker. Henceforth, each man is, by nature, entitled to the right to protect himself. The idea of self-pre... ... middle of paper ... ...ign made no covenant with the people, because there are too many of them in which to make a covenant with (pg. 111, par. 4). It seems that this idea further justifies the sovereign’s ability to rule as it pleases, and further restricts the citizen’s ability to rebel or demand a regime change. These contradictions discredit Hobbes’ arguments, in addition to leading to questionable conclusions. From Hobbes’ ideas of human nature and the laws of nature, he is able to theoretically develop a political regime that is formed though the covenants of the people, people who choose to relinquish their rights to a leader or assembly of leaders and assume that their authority will benefit them on their behalf. Due to humans’ violent nature Hobbes feels that a king can best keep the peace. The majority of his argument holds true, but does not take into account human weakness.

Open Document