The Leviathan is a very difficult, but interesting reading.
Many times during the process, many phrases and terms popped into my mind,
which I've studied during my BA. Mostly really realism, self-interest, egoistic
mankind and so on.
Hobbes idea of mankind is obviously rather dark and negative,
since he implies that in a society with no rules or laws the default will be
the state of nature, where humans will act based on self-interest. Interesting
enough is that he neglects the institution of church, which has been
established one can argue to promote conduct among people.
While I liked Hobbes explanations of the human mind, dreams,
sense, language etc., I am most intrigued by chapters 10 to 19, since they
mostly reflect the possible parallels between his theory and politics as they
still are today.
In these chapters, Hobbes argues that the only way to get
out of the state of nature is to understand that it’s in the best interest for
a society to commit to a commonwealth, or I feel like it could be called “social
contract”, which establishes certain rules and regulations. This of course can
only occur, if every single person gives up their rights to one strong and
powerful entity (state), which has to be a so to speak almost neutral third
party. So the people agree to a “social contract”, which has nothing to do anymore
with possible punishment through God, but from each other.
The contract is
based on a contract made by the people for the people. Sovereignty goes hence
to the third party; in this case monarchy or nowadays we could argue the state,
organizations, etc. That authority will take care of “order” and in return the
people will receive freedom. Hobbes ideal in this case is the monarch, because
he would be a single instance, instead of a parliament where multiple
authorities would probably make it difficult to maintain the order.
Hobbes definition of a commonwealth is:
It is of interest to me to think of ways Hobbes is still of
importance nowadays and where we actually make use of his theory. I think that
we have lots of social contracts nowadays and that his theory encouraged the
notion of a commonwealth. However, the main difference I believe is that in his
idea the contract is made between the people, however they still lose a
substantial right through that contract. In a democracy we could argue for
instance, that contracts are still made, but between people and the third
party/state etc. Nowadays we have checks and balances on decisions, compared to
Hobbesian times.
An interesting view on the social contract. The way I read the text, Hobbes states that all men are by Nature free (p. 119) but also that in that natural state there exists a permanent state of war (p. 76). For the contract to work, men are willingly giving up their freedom, at least in part, to the sovereign they all agree on in order to no longer live in the natural state of war against each other. While they may not have as much freedom, the contract attempts to guarantee they have security, which does not naturally exist.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Scott. We are on the same page. I read it as (philosophical speaking) the people have to give up freedom in order to receive freedom. If that makes sense.
DeleteWhen you talk about Hobbes' favorable view of the monarchy, and as I read that portion of the text, I wondered how he would feel about America's present day republic. Given how highly he regards the notion of concentrated power, would he view the more widespread, democratic approach to government that exists today as a good thing? Despite his strong support for the monarchy, I think his ultimate allegiance would be to a commonwealth that provides protection for its people, no matter what shape that form of government would take. He would ask if the government upholds its end of the bargain of taking individual rights in exchange for security-- and if the answer is yes, I think he would be all for it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Matt. I am not so sure, because Hobbs felt that the power would have to be unilateral. In a democracy you would not have that. I think his concern was, that basically too many powerful decision makers would again fall back into the state of nature and thus not useful to keep order and peace...
DeleteThat's an interesting perspective Matt; however, I have to agree with Heiti. I think Hobbes favors the idea of a monarchy because there would be no worry of conflicting ideas, discussion, etc. All decisions would be made unilaterally and be devoid of any argument. My blog post further discusses the similarities between the founding ideals of the United States and Hobbes' circumstances of an “imperfect institution.” A majority of the founding ideals of the United States goes against Hobbes' beliefs. These ideals include, private property, individual rights, separation between church and state, etc. because of this reason and others I feel that Hobbes would not agree with our present day republic.
DeleteI will move this from a comment to a post once I am part of the group.
ReplyDeleteLeviathan is a challenging read and I think that part of what confounded me is what sounds to the modern reader like a disconnect between Hobbes’ insistence on the use of reason and rational thought, and his assuredness in Christian belief and practice.(XII) His distinction between Gentiles and Christians (who have a revealed truth) does not fit my perception of an intellect engaged in the Enlightenment project of utilizing reason and observation. However, as Professor Jackson mentioned in his opening lecture, Hobbes is an early thinker in the Enlightenment, the leap from Christianity to even Deism might have been too much. Hobbes also makes reference to the Reformation and the corruption of the Catholic church. Yet while he is willing to acknowledge where the church might have stumbled, he is not willing to question the authority of the church to convey legitimacy on temporal rulers. (pg 68) Maybe it is too early in history to question the legitimacy of the Church. I am just not clear if Hobbes sees the Church/Christianity as useful, if he is a true believer, or if it is not safe to hold Church doctrine up to the same scrutiny he applies in chapters I-IX.
But Hobbes also strikes a discordant note with my conception of the Enlightenment in XVIII as he defines the rights and obligations of the individuals in the Common-wealth. The people cannot “cast off Monarchy.. if they depose him…it is an injustice.” It is not only unjust but also “…vile, and unmanly” to attempt to break a covenant with a Soveraign in order to make a new covenant with God. Hobbes goes on to denounce the concept of a ruler’s legitimacy based on the ongoing consent of the governed, he brushes off the rights of the minority, he dismisses the notion of the Soveraign being held accountable by the subjects. The Soveraign is expected to exercise prior restraint on publishing books.
Yet, we can also see that the intent of Hobbes is to create a climate that removes humanity from the tyranny of state of nature. Perhaps the Leviathan is a necessary concession to human nature. (“If men were angels, government would not be necessary.”) But men are not angels, and as men decide to give their power to a Soveraign they are better served by allowing him to have absolute control.
There can be no checks and balances of the “Essence of Soveraignty.” Hobbes quotes the bible, “a Kingdome divided in it selfe cannot stand”. I wonder if Lincoln had Hobbes in mind when he used a similar quote?