Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Hobbies political ideas
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke theory of sovereignty
Thomas Hobbes description of government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Hobbies political ideas
A right, or power, institutional sovereignty is said to have addresses protest against the sovereign. Hobbes makes extremely clear that actions of the instituted sovereign are wholly protected. This particularly lucid in the following:
Thirdly, because the major part hath by consenting voices declared a sovereign, he that dissented mu8st now consent with the rest . . . or else be justly destroyed by the rest. For if he voluntarily entered into the congregation of them that were assembled, he sufficiently declared thereby his will . . . to stand there to what the major part should ordain; and therefore, if he refuse to stand thereto, or make protestation . . . he does contrary to the covenant, and therefore unjustly . . . he must submit to their decrees or be left in the condition of war he was in before . . . (112)
For all intents and purposes there can truly be no protest against the sovereign, as regardless of previous position, one covenants with all others who have authorized the sovereign when one seeks to place themselves among those assembled to form a commonwealth. That is, one subverts their predispositions that are counter to the majority’s and aligns with them for the purpose of preserving an agreement that aims for unity and peace, manifested by the institutional sovereign. To protest the sovereign then is to protest the covenant one has entered into as well as the covenant that exists with all others. Furthermore, Hobbes segways into two other rights that can be seen as derivations of this third rThe first stipulates that the sovereign cannot commit an injustice. (113) In essence, this stems from the logic that sovereignty is not established by covenant with the people, but is created out of a covenant between ...
... middle of paper ...
...s necessary to preside over the commonwealth. However, it is also hoped that when compared with a second kind of sovereignty, one by acquisition, generational elements of fear, legality, and identical claims of right, portray a sovereignty equally equipped for governance as the former. More importantly though, it is hoped that an understanding surfaces that with both there is an actual fear of falling back into a state of war and sovereignty that is absolute, which is evidenced by their shared legal claims of right as well as those that enable power, transcends a difference in name. That is, neither has a greater claim of right in any respect based on unique foundation, as like capacities must be employed if both seek to arrive at the same ends.
Works Cited
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Edwin Curley (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994).
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.
This includes those who are willing to risk their lives for their own country. It’s not uncommon for people to refer to this when they are thinking about justice. However, the concept of self-sacrifice is absent from Hobbes’s view on justice. Hobbes’s view only considers the element of self-interest. This is problematic because the commonwealth requires its citizens to risk their lives in order to defend the commonwealth. One would face terrible consequences for avoiding military service so they would be willing to take their chances on the battlefield. Therefore, the obligations to the commonwealth conflicts with the concept of civic obligations. Although Hobbes does provide a valid, coherent argument in reply to the fool about justice that attempts to avoids the concept of conventionalism, logical consistency is not enough to prove his
Under Hobbes’ Sovereign, the subjects are far more protected, and the Sovereign works in their favour. The primary goal of Machiavelli’s Prince is to take and then maintain his power; the goal of the Sovereign is to maintain peace and stability, and the “procuration of the safety of the people”. This “safety” that Hobbes refers to is not simply a “bare preservation” of the human life, but “all other Contentments of life”; food, shelter, and employment, for example. It is for this end that the Sovereign
Cases on the foundations of a constitutional order, such as parliamentary sovereignty, tend to be rare in any event. But what makes R (Jackson) v. Attorney General [2005] U.K.HL. 56; [2006] 1 A.C. 262 a significant case, is the dicta regarding constitutional issues mentioned by the judges in relation to parliamentary sovereignty. The discussions of the central issues in the case are in many ways constitutionally orthodox, treating the primary concerns as that of statutory interpretation and adopting a literal interpretation of the 1911 Act. By contrast, the discussion of the wider issues suggest that the judiciary may have support for what could be classed as unorthodox opinions on the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty is to be considered as a mere ideology in the eyes of the legislature, as the modern day practical sovereign parliament is far from that of the theory.
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
If those in power do not obey the social contract, the commonwealth has the right to create a new social contract so the state of nature does not prevail. The sovereign is entrusted with unlimited power, but must always act in a way that protects the people. Laws from the sovereign allow the commonwealth to not constantly fear death. Like principalities, sovereignty is allowed ultimate rule. It is similar to a republic in which the ruler has to abide by the will of the people.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were seventeenth century political philosophers whose different beliefs stemmed from the different contexts in which each man lived.
“They must have the right sort of intelligence and ability; and also they must look upon the commonwealth as their special concern – the sort of concern that is felt for something so closely bound up with oneself that its interests and fortunes, for good or ill, are held to be identical with one’s own” (The Republic of Plato ...
Now, able to express their grievances and frustrations, the Colonies were able to essentially “stick it to the man” against Britain. Thomas Jefferson writes how Great Britain’s king had “impos[ed] taxes on [them] without [their] consent,” and “depriv[ed] [them] of the benefits of trial by jury.“ He goes on to say that the king had abolish[ed] [their] most valuable laws; and alter[ed] fundamentally the forms of [their] governments.” (Baym 342) This list of complaints goes on and on. The king took away all of their fundamental rights, and the colonists were fed up. Thomas Jefferson says that he didn’t just take away their rights, but he took away their basic human rights, and “waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him.” (Baym 343) These are very strong words from Thomas Jefferson, but they reflect the way these colonists felt. They were angry, and they had every right to
Theories of human nature, as the term would ever so subtly suggest, are at best only individual assertions of the fundamental and intrinsic compositions of mankind, and should be taken as such. Indeed it can be said that these assertions are both many and widespread, and yet too it can be said that there are a select few assertions of the nature of man that rise above others when measured by historical persistence, renown, and overall applicability. These eclectic discourses on the true nature of man have often figured largely in theories of political science, typically functioning as foundational structures to broader claims and arguments. The diversification of these ideological assertions, then, would explain the existence of varying theories
Individual liberty is the freedom to act and believe as one pleases. It is a widely controversial issue when it comes to the power of the government policing over individual�s freedoms. In this paper, I am going to compare two well known philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls. In part one, I will explain the political and social positions taken by each philosopher. I will explain how Thomas Hobbes is associated with the �social contract theory,� and how John Rawls� theory of government is a �theory of justice.� In doing so, I will describe their different viewpoints on the government and its power over the people. In Part two, I will describe the differences between Hobbes and Rawls. I will argue that Rawls position on the government is the most reasonable, and I will explain why I believe so. In part three, I will explain my own theory and viewpoint with the example of sex laws, including prostitution. With this example, I will tell how and why I believe individual liberty is important. In part four, I will explain how someone might disagree with my position. I will explain how conservative individuals would argue that the government should regulate sexual activity to protect the greater good of society. Finally, I will conclude with discussing the power of the government and individual liberties in today�s society.
On one hand, political constitutionalists argue that parliamentary sovereignty is the underlying principle in the British constitution as power and law making are bo...
Thomas Hobbes and John Stuart Mill have completely differing views on affairs consisting of liberty and authority. Hobbes believing that man is inherently unable to govern themselves and emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure, leading him to be in favor of authority. Throughout “On Liberty” Mill believes that authority, used to subvert one’s liberty, is only acceptable in protecting one from harm. In Leviathan Hobbes uses the Leviathan as a metaphor for the state, made up of its inhabitants, with the head of the Leviathan being the sovereign and having sovereignty as the soul of the Leviathan. Hobbes’ believes that man needs the absolute direction of the sovereign for society to properly function, deeming liberty practically irrelevant due to authority, as the government’s power is the only thing that allows society to go anywhere. The views that Mill has on liberty are not simply more applicable in modern and ancient society, but the outcome of his views are far more beneficial on society as a whole compared to Hobbes’ who’s views are far too black and white to be applied in outside of a theoretical situation and would not truly work in real world scenarios.
Thomas Hobbes creates a clear idea of the social contract theory in which the social contract is a collective agreement where everyone in the state of nature comes together and sacrifices all their liberty in return to security. “In return, the State promises to exercise its absolute power to maintain a state of peace (by punishing deviants, etc.)” So are the power and the ability of the state making people obey to the laws or is there a wider context to this? I am going to look at the different factors to this argument including a wide range of critiques about Hobbes’ theory to see whether or not his theory is convincing reason for constantly obeying the law.
In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.