In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes contends that government should highly restrict individual
liberty. Readers find it difficult to determine why Hobbes thinks government should restrict so
much individual liberty. On the surface, it seems that Hobbes believes that individual liberty
engenders revolt against the government, threatening the stability of the government and
preventing the government from protecting its people. However, a closer look shows that
Hobbes does not believe that individual liberty is a threat to the government; he believes it is a
threat to the very society that is free. Hobbes contends that the government should greatly
restrict individual liberty because free individuals necessarily act in ways that threaten the
survival of their society. Reversing the traditional maxim, which says that individual liberty
empowers and enriches society but weakens government, Hobbes contends that individual liberty
strengthens government but endangers society. While it seems that Hobbes is fearful of
threatening the government, a close reading of Leviathan show that Hobbes is so fearful of
threatening society that he believes that the government should focus exclusively on ensuring the
survival of its society without regard to the quality of that survival. Therefore, he contends, the
government should neutralize the threat of the individual by disarming him of his liberty and by
forcing all individuals to behave in a way that protects society’s survival.
We must begin by distinguishing individual liberty from the other type of liberty that
Hobbes discusses, what we will call “ancient liberty.” Individual liberty is “the absence of…
external impediments of motion” (Hobbes XXI 1, XXI 10). A person is free, therefore, if “he
that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he
has a will to do” (Hobbes XXI 2). For Hobbes, an individual is free if another party does not
physically prevent him from acting in a way that he could otherwise act.
Hobbes contrasts individual liberty with what we call “ancient liberty,” the liberty of the
government to act without impediment in the realm of international affairs. Hobbes argues that a
government has ancient liberty when its leadership can “resist or… invade other people” without
being physically deterred (Hobbes XXI...
... middle of paper ...
... other men, how can the sovereign subdue his own appetites and rule in the interests
of society? Accepting Hobbes’s depiction of human nature, the sovereign lacks the capacity to
place genuinely the longevity of his people before his own desires. If the sovereign that cares for
society’s survival above all else does not exist, how can society ensure its survival? Perhaps,
society should allow a great deal of individual liberty and should adopt a democracy, a
sovereignty of free people. Perhaps the societal norms that arise when free people interact
naturally promote society’s survival. If free people who were motivated by these norms
governed themselves, they likely would achieve Hobbes’s end—the survival of society. Hobbes
introduces us to the perfect sovereign, one who forces the individual to protect society’s
existence. But because the perfect sovereign does not exist in the real world, maybe we ought to
look to the next best alternative, a free democracy.
Works Cited
Curley, Edwin. Footnote. Leviathan. By Thomas Hobbes. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994. 97.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994.
The foremost aspects to consider from the Leviathan are Hobbes’s views on human nature, what the state of nature consists of, and what role morality plays. Hobbes assumes, taking the position of a scientist, that humans are “bodies in motion.” In other words, simple mechanical existences motivated solely to gain sati...
He believes that by transferring all rights to a sovereign, the threat of the state of nature will be diminished. A sovereign elected will be able to represent and protect everyone equally, they are not a ruler of the people, but a representative. The Leviathan differs from a principality and a republic by establishing the institution of the commonwealth through the social contract. To understand how the Leviathan differs from either a principality or a republic, one must look at the principles of each to decipher how Hobbes bears resemblance to and disagrees with Machiavelli. The Leviathan state resembles a principality by giving absolute power to one sovereign.
Locke stated that people give up rights in return for benefits and the right to life, liberty, and protection of property. However Hobbes was more harsh and said that as long as you mind your own business and don’t get in the way then you won’t be harmed. John Locke’s beliefs are more apparent in today’s world because of the role of democracy in America and our lives, freedom, and property are not being threatened unless you aren’t fulfilling your role in society. The ideas of Thomas Hobbes show in a government such as a monarchy or a dictatorship which aren’t accepted in modern times. People want to feel safe and when you can’t completely control whether or not you or your possessions are harmed citizens will revolt and change to a different more stable government that works for
Thomas Hobbes is now broadly viewed as one of a smaller group of truly extraordinary political thinkers, whose major work was the Leviathan rivals in meaning the political writings of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls. Hobbes is most known for his for his early and elaborate development of what has come to be known as “social contract theory”, the method of justifying political principles or arrangements by appeal to the agreement that would be made among suitably situated rational, free, and equal persons. He is most famous for using his theory on the social contract to submit that human beings should submit to an absolute—undivided and unlimited—sovereign power (Lloyd, 2014) Hobbes wanted to ascertain the clear values for the construction of a civil organization that would not be subject to destruction from within. Hobbes maintains the ideology that people should look at their government as having absolute authority, while arguing that the government has absolute power he reserves the idea that we have the liberty of disobeying some of our government's instructions. He argues that subjects retain a
Hobbes tells us what that commitment must be, how to choose an alternative to a life of “warre.” He writes that people must give up certain “natural” rights to a sovereign power. This sovereign is the head of the Leviathan, and as such, will create laws, act as judge, and defend the peace. Of course, this concept only works if everyone participates in the social contract.
Hobbes explains justice in relation to obligations and self-preservation. This essay will analyze justice specifically in relation to the statement? The fool hath said in his heart, There is no such thing as justice. Looking for Hobbes & Hobbies? reply to the fool will demonstrate that his main goal was to declare what people ought to do when interacting with others and what can be expected in return for that behaviour.
Above anything else, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is a creation story and an investigation of human nature. The story begins in a time of chaos and death and through a journey of human development culminates in the establishment of a sustainable and rational society—the commonwealth—led by a sovereign. At a first casual glance, Hobbes’ reasoning of the transformation from the state of nature to the commonwealth is not airtight. A few possible objections can be quickly spotted: the contradictions of natural law with suicide and the civil law to honor even harmful covenants. Hobbes deals with some of these issues and seems to ignore others, but he does address in detail the most significant objection to his theory: the unlimited and unchecked power given to the sovereign. The establishment of the commonwealth culminates in a covenant that grants the sovereign absolute power in enforcing the civil laws of the state, but also guarantees the sovereign’s status as above the law. How does this ensure peace and survival, as is the point of the commonwealth? Hobbes provides many convincing reasons why it would be difficult, counterproductive, and impossible for the sovereign to not be above the law, but in the end, disorder and chaos are worse than any tyranny.
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
Hobbes, T. (1839-45) The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury; Now First Collected and Edited by Sir William Molesworth, Bart. Vol. 3. Leviathan. London: Bohn. Accessed via: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hobbes-the-english-works-vol-iii-leviathan
He states that, “Every one with every one...Shall be given by the major part, the right to present the person of them all” (Hobbes [1651] 2013). Thus, a democratic form of governance is beginning to emerge, and the responsibility of the sovereign is to form laws that avoid returning to a state of nature. Essentially, Hobbes presents a way of government that appears optimal, and capable of lasting a long term. The elected sovereign is not to be overthrown because through the unanimous decision of members of the state the sovereign was chosen, and maintain authority through deliverance of suitable laws (Hobbes [1651] 2013). Thus, citizens are more likely to comply with this form of government because they maintain the impression that their sovereign only looks out for their best interests, as well as recognizes what is best for them because he was chosen to be in
The main critics of Thomas Hobbes’ work are most often those with a more optimistic view of human nature. However, if one is to really look at a man’s actions in depth, a self-serving motivation can always be found. The main problem with Hobbes’ claims is that he does not account for the more Darwinian perspective that helping one’s own species survive is at the same time a selfish and unwar-like act. Thus his conclusion that without a governing body, we are essentially at war with one another is not completely true as years of evolution can help disprove.
Hobbes and Locke’s Ideas of government reflects subjects that have been put in place, rejected many times, or are still in consideration. The idea to allow the government to have access to our text messages, our emails, and our phone calls to prevent crime and terrorism would be an example of Hobbes idea of government as having an absolute ruler with unlimited power would do whatever is necessary to prevent chaos. But in todays society Locke’s idea of government has been favored as the government would only be able to do that with a warrant and reason for the warrant, to protect our natural rights. Locke’s idea of government reflects our police department regulations also; to protect our natural rights police have limited power, as they cannot do whatever they feel necessary to prevent crime. But if the police department was reflected by Hobbes idea of government the police could do whatever they felt necessary, which in today’s society could actually cause more chaos, then prevent
Hobbes, on the other hand argues that justice is needed for people to live together in civil society. He outlines this idea down to human beings in the
Hobbes was a strong believer in the thought that human nature was evil. He believed that “only the unlimited power of a sovereign could contain human passions that disrupt the social order and threatened civilized life.” Hobbes believed that human nature was a force that would lead to a constant state of war if it was not controlled. In his work the Leviathan, he laid out a secular political statement in which he stated the significance of absolutism.
Philosopher Thomas Hobbes asserted this theory by stating that all free will actions were based or influenced by external factors that compel a person to act. However, one might dispute this approach because they are conceptualized based on two different types of distinct types of freedom namely: freedom of will versus freedom of action. This distinction is aggravated by the clear fact that agents can have free will ...