Hobbes lived in an age of massive social turmoil and change. The collapse of the Catholic-based social order in western Europe opened up the way for scientists, reformers, and political philosophers to redefine the world order. To fill this vacuum, Hobbes formulated a political theory that sought to construct an all-powerful political authority that governed all things public. His theory was meticulously rational (or scientific) and highly creative and imaginative. Particularly creative was his definition of human nature and the state of nature from which that human nature arose. Inevitably, constructing a theory from a radical starting point resulted in a radical theory advocating for a radical polity that aimed to solve the problem of religious civil wars that were common for the time.
In the state of nature, Hobbes argued, people (notable for his time, Hobbes included women) are generally equal in dispositions. One person is as powerful and dangerous as anyone else, and the least powerful man could kill the most powerful man if he applied his strength correctly. Power, in this scenario, is heavily implied to be physical strength at first glance, but Hobbes argued that men are intellectually equal as well. He argued that intelligence was a product of experience and time. By devoting one’s time to ironmaking, one becomes more intelligent in the making of iron. In the state of nature, there was no barrier limiting one’s ability to obtain experiences, except for someone only as powerful as them and could be overpowered. So people are equally intelligent in the state of nature.
Because of this equality in strength and intelligence, people expect that they are as likely to attain their objectives and desires as anyone else. Therefore, when people desire the same thing (that cannot be shared), they would rather become enemies and go to war with each other rather than relinquish their claims. Why would you, if you are as powerful and likely to get it as anyone else? So the state of nature was also the state of war, of all against all, a free for all. In the state of nature, satisfaction or modesty means nothing, for one’s security could always be endangered by an ambitious person seeking to conquer others for the pure pleasure of having power. Or it could be a paranoid person who, because he was never sure of his neighbor’s intentions, believes that the only method of increasing his security was subjugating all his neighbors. Hence, in the state of nature, the only way to increase one’s security was by force and subduing others. There would naturally be no civilization, no industry, and no security for anyone.
From this, it was inferred that the right of nature was the right for men to use all their power to secure their self-preservation. Consequently, everyone has every right to everything and cannot be unjust in anything that he does.
Hobbes argued that, because the goal of each individual was the preservation of his life, and because people have the faculty of reason, it was a fundamental Law of Nature that everyone would seek to end the perpetual state of war and establish a state of peace if possible. If not, they would seek every advantage they could get in the state of war. From this, he inferred two further Laws of Nature. The second Law of Nature stated that men would willingly relinquish as much liberty and right as others if it would allow a state of peace to be established (except the right of life. As people relinquish other rights for the goal of self-preservation, the right of self-preservation could not be alienated). They relinquish their right to a civil power that’s created to preserve peace through a covenant or contract. The third Law of Nature stated that the covenant must be preserved, for the destruction of the covenant meant the destruction of the civil power and return to the state of war, which was worse than any form of government that preserved civil peace.
In short, Hobbes argued that people are naturally inclined (because they are naturally inclined to use their reason) to form contract-based polities where they give up some or almost all of their liberties to escape the horror of endless civil war. The question then became how much right and liberty was it necessary for one to give up to build this commonwealth. And what’s the scope and limit of the commonwealth’s power?
Hobbes argued that everyone should give up almost all his rights and liberties, except that of life, and that the power of the commonwealth was virtually unlimited. Hobbes argued that this was necessary because humans are naturally prone to war. They are continuously competing for honor and dignity (he did not talk about money). They are inherently selfish and do not care about their peers or the public good. They form different opinions and have different definitions of good and evil. Because people’s actions are often, if not always, guided by their opinions, conflicting opinions would inevitably result in conflicting actions, which inevitably result in discontent and civil war. Hobbes also argued that, because the commonwealth was an artificial creation, it was not natural for men to blindly obey the commonwealth. So people must be kept in awe by the commonwealth’s power. The commonwealth also needed absolute power to direct people to take actions that were beneficial to the public good, which they do not care about. The commonwealth also has the right to all the property of its citizens because, in a state of war with another commonwealth, the commonwealth has the right to use all the resources, which includes everyone’s property, to facilitate the war. And commonwealths are in perpetual war with each other, as a commonwealth cannot alienate its sovereign right. So a commonwealth has the natural right to everyone’s property at all times. Consequently, the state had the right to suppress anyone that it deemed a danger to the state and had the power to regulate any opinion that it deemed subversive.
Hobbes did not argue that the commonwealth directed everyone’s action all the time, of course. Hobbes argued that people had the right to do things they believed were beneficial to themselves. But the sovereign ultimately had the power to do whatever it saw fit to its citizens, for the goal of maintaining internal and external peace. In Hobbes’s framework, the people not only relinquished their rights and liberties but were indirect authorizers of every action of the sovereign. Hence the sovereign could not commit any injustice against its subjects, for every action of the sovereign was authorized by its subjects, and it’s impossible to commit an unjust act unto oneself. This argument, while distinct from the “civil war was worse than any form of government” argument, was deeply tied to it and they imply each other.
Glossary
State of Nature: the natural state of men; the state of men prior to the formation of the covenant; a state of perpetual war of all against all.
Rights of nature: each individual has the right to act in favor of the preservation of one’s own life.
The Leviathan: the artificial, political institution created by men, through the covenant, to preserve the internal and external peace.
Reason: the instrument to reach the conclusion and desired state most effective and efficiently.