Thomas Hobbes is most famously known for his political philosophy, particularly from his magnum opus, “Leviathan”, which built upon ideas from his “De Civi” (“On the Citizen”). His primary arguments from those works is a secular justification for the necessity of a government empowered by an absolute social contract in order to prevent a “warre of every man against his neighbor” [1] that he believed would occur in the state of nature. This entry will highlight the inquiries Hobbes makes to come to that conclusion: why government is necessary, what it is, and how it arises.
Hobbes’ beliefs in government are rooted in his beliefs in psychology and moral philosophy, which diverged greatly from the ideas of prior philosophers. Hobbes believed firstly in a subjective morality – that good and bad were reducible to individuals’ desire and aversion. Further, Hobbes believed that in the absence of government (in the “state of nature”) where humans live without defined rules, we will fight each other to compete over finite resources and as we fear others may attack us [2]. Hobbes posits that these factors create an undesirable “state of war” and constant conflict, and in the absence of an objective morality these conflicts cannot be settled by participants who are partial to themselves.
Hobbes believed, however, in two “passions that incline men to peace” – a collective fear of death, and our ability to reason. With our common dislike of death as a starting premise, Hobbes reasons that in the state of war we shall always be exposed to the threat of death because of the conflict’s nature. As such, we have the first “natural law” that impels us to prefer a world of peace – or an exit of the state of nature – and that we should do anything to attain such peace. He further posits that such peace is only possible if we are willing to agree to rules as we expect others to – his second natural law. As given the first natural law to wish for peace, therefore we should all be willing to accede to government. His third natural law states that in respect of the need for peace – and the governmental institution of punishment for disobedience – individuals will adhere to the laws of government that they are bound by [3]. Hobbes’ only grants one exception to any person to defy these natural laws – which is when they themselves are threatened (even by government). This is because the foundation of the natural laws is the individuals want to avoid death, and one should then not obey commands causing death to themselves as the justification for obedience is the avoidance of death. Notably, Hobbes does not believe this does grants an individual the ability to defy a government which is forcing them to hurt another person. As it is only one’s own protection which they have the right to defy the government on the basis of, the protection of others does not suffice to disobey government.
From the natural laws which tell us that we must find peace through governance, Hobbes says we are then obliged to be bound by a “social contract” of government in which we agree to transfer over the total freedom we have in the state of nature by following whatever rules the government dictates, in exchange for protection by the government. These rules coalesce individuals’ interests to prefer collaboration over competition and direct their fears towards that of punishment for disobedience instead of fear of others’ malice. In turn, they ensure the state of nature’s dangers are remedied.
This social contract is to be absolute – meaning that no individual can disobey and there aren’t limitations to what the government can institute. The only decision maker on the social contract’s rules is the “sovereign” of the government. This may be an assembly, or, as Hobbes prefers, a monarchy. The absolutism of the sovereign is justified by a handful of arguments beyond natural law. One cited reason for absolutism is that if individuals were to retain any rights, they might use them against the interests of the government or as a basis for disobedience [4]. Hobbes also does not allow any attempts to police the powers of the sovereign. Any external body (such as a judicial system) which regulates the sovereign necessarily gains power over the sovereign which Hobbes finds disagreeable via his principles on absolutism. Further, he argues that if empowered institutions require a judge, that begs who judges the judge – creating an infinite regress or ambiguity [5]. The decisive factor, in Hobbes view, which justifies all of the above is the belief that the protections and peace provided by a sovereign, even one of flawed justice, outweigh the costs of their absence [6]. Thus, limitations, doubt, checks, and disobedience – which may fracture governance – are all unwanted. This belief of Hobbes is likely informed by his experiences with civil wars and is speculated to be foundational to his interest in political philosophy.
Ultimately, while many of Hobbes’ conclusions on the nature of government have been disputed from many sides: rational choice theory arguments undermine the viability of his natural laws as motivations for governmental accession. Contradictions have been highlighted between the rights of individuals to their personal protections and the absolutism of government. His supposition of the individual psychological penchant for selfishness and paranoia has also been contentious. Nevertheless, his frameworks and articulation of the social contract’s importance laid the foundation for political philosophers thereafter. Particularly, Rousseau and Locke, two of the most influential modern political philosophers, both lean on Hobbes’ framework of governance formed through social contracts to escape a state of nature. He was also the first to provide a secular account for government which does not suppose the essence of man as preferring politics, like Aristotle, nor reliance on divinity, like Aquinas. Hobbes’ contributions to the philosophical canon of political philosophy cannot therefore be understated.
Glossary
Competition – A descriptor used for the conflict that individuals will find themselves in when they have to fight each other for access to the limited resources
Fear – A descriptor used for the fear that other people – whether motivated by malice, competition, or vanity – will attack oneself and, consequently, that oneself may be inclined to attack others pre-emptively
Social contract – A hypothetical agreement made by individuals to mutually agree to a series of rules in order to mutually gain some benefit.
Sovereign – The decider of the rules of the social contract.
Natural law – A rule that can be derived supposedly from reason alone. Hobbes, however, despite calling them “natural laws” himself preferred to consider them as “conclusions” or “theorems” because he believed that “laws” must be commands whereas these “natural laws” could be derived in the absence of a command. [7]
State of nature – The world in which no government exists. The state of nature is characterized by everyone having no rules preventing them to act in any way and, thus, Hobbes believed that people in the state of nature all acted selfishly. His famous quote was that in the state of nature the life of man is “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.”[8]
Footnotes
[1] From Leviathan XIX, in “Soveraign Power Out in All Common-wealths To Be Absolute”
[2] Hobbes also cites a third psychological reason for man’s selfishness – the desire for “vainglory” or to be the envy of others. How government and vainglory interact is a complex argument that I did not believe to be essential to Hobbes’ understanding of government, so I chose to exclude it for brevity.
[3] Hobbes argues for several other natural laws such as the need for gratitude and the importance of responsibility. Again, these are less important to the core argument of government, so they were omitted.
[4] Detailed in Leviathan Chapter XVIII, in “These Rights Are Indivisible”
[5] Leviathan XXIX, in “Subjecting the Soveraign Power to Ciill Lawes”: “ For to be subject to Lawes, is to be subject to the Common-wealth, that is to the Soveraign Representative, that is to himselfe; which is not subjection, but freedome from the Lawes. Which errour, because it setteth the Lawes above the Soveraign, setteth also a Judge above him, and a Power to punish him; which is to make a new Soveraign; and again for the same reason a third, to punish the second; and so continually without end, to the Confusion, and Dissolution of the Common-wealth.”
[6] Detailed in Leviathan Chapter XX, in “Soveraign Power Ought In All Common-wealths To Be Absolute”
[7] Leviathan XV, in “The Science Of These Lawes, Is The True Morall Philosophy”: “These dictates of Reason, men use to call by the name of Lawes; but improperly: for they are but Conclusions, or Theoremes concerning what conduceth to the conservation and defence of themselves; whereas Law, properly is the word of him, that by right hath command over others.”
[8] From Leviathan XIII, in “The Incommodities of Such A War”
Sources Used
Hobbes, Thomas. 1651a. Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiasticall and Civil. Andrew Crooke.
Hobbes, Thomas. 1651b. Philosophicall Rudiments Concerning Government and Society (De Cive). London.
Lloyd, Sharon A., and Susanne Sreedhar. 2022. “Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2022, edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/hobbes-moral/.
Sorell, Tom, ed. 1996. The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes. The Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge Univ. Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521410193.
Williams, Garrath. n.d. “Thomas Hobbes: Moral and Political Philosophy.” In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/.