Hobbes Supervision

Leviathan

Hobbes core text explaining the necessity of a sovereign in preventing conflict and maintaining peace

Natural behaviour of humans

• Causes a life that is nasty, brutish and short

• People live in constant fear of turmoil and violence creating conditions for the state of nature

• There are no objective moral norms that govern human behaviour so people act out of self-interest- this also causes people to interpret laws and actions differently leading to unrest and rebellion

• Selfishness= UNIVERSAL because even the weakest may kill the strongest in the state of nature

• The ‘right of nature’ allows individuals to do whatever they need to survive, but in the state of nature this right is ineffective because it leads to constant conflict

• Argues that rather than being social creatures humans are inherently non-social

Hobbes Remedy for the State of nature

• ‘Laws of Nature’ allows humans to seek peace

  • Following these laws places humans in a social contract, where they surrender their natural rights in exchange for security & the cessation of violence

  • Freedom from violence by giving up freedom to enact violence

• There needs to be the presence of a sovereign that holds absolute power to maintain peace and security

• Argues that the Monarchy is the most stable form of governance as there are very few ways to overthrow it and it is the least prone to instability

The Sovereign

• The unity of commonwealth is formed arises when a single artificial body takes over to represent the will of the people

• The overall leader of all of humanity

• The sovereign must be indivisible and have total control over all to ensure peace

• Rebellion= counter-productive as it disrupts the peace and artificial unity created by the sovereign

• If the sovereign directly threatens the life of an individual is it ok to rebel against the obligation to obey

• Peace is only maintained by complete submission to the sovereign- this ‘tyrannical rule’ prevents chaos and violence

Dunn- Political Obligation

Critiques Hobbes’ ideas of an all-powerful sovereign highlighting its limitations and the difficulties in reconciling Hobbesian theory with contemporary realities

1. Universality: Everybody is subject to political authority

   1. The subordination is the result of artificial power rather than an inherent or natural right

   2. Ideas of popular sovereignty or democratic legitimacy are paradoxical because it conflicts with the practical realities of governance

2. Ideological contingency: Asserts that political obligation is not about universal truth but a product of historical and ideological forces

3. Sovereignty & Social Elements: Questions whether political sovereignty can ever be truly independent of the society it governs

   1. Sovereignty is also influenced by societal forces so the idea of an independent on is unrealistic

4. Impartiality of Rulers: Rulers no matter the system of governance can be truly impartial or independent

5. The Hazards of Human Social Life: In times of chaos society may have to rely on the sovereign

Reichman- Proto-democratic Vs Anti-Democratic

• Argues that there needs to be a detachment of Hobbes’ concept of authoritization

• Hobbes sought a more stable foundation for the political order- one reliant on the fluctuating will of individuals- even if the specifics of his system are flawed.

• Argues that Hobbes’ theory could be extended to include some way for individual views to influence state representation

  • This would limit the behaviour of representatives so they mirror the opinions and views of individuals

    • As long as it didn’t depend on a collective identity formed from the sum of individual wills

• Reichman frames Hobbes as a proto-democratic as his view of authoritization is too rigidly interpreted.

Political Obligation- Deigh

• Hobbes adopted the Grotius framework of natural law, self-preservation, sociability, mutual self-restraint and commonwealth

• People as a state of nature act out of self-preservation causing conflict

• Formation of a commonwealth grants authority to a sovereign to ensure peace and security

• Political obligation is rooted in the rational necessity of peace for self-preservation- not virtue or divine command ALONE

• Hobbes aimed to create a science of politics, thus, his definitions consistently maintain their meaning

• Justice= keeping covenants

• The nature of obligation= a unilateral promise of obedience

Types of political obligation- Commonwealth by Institution (Voluntary Social Contract)

Commonwealth by Institution (Voluntary Social Contract):

• Individuals are motivated by self-preservation

• Condition leads to conflict due to competition

• Without a higher authority anomie and anarchy ensue

• To avoid conflict, people use reason and prudence to understand the laws of nature

• They are ruled by covenants and contracts also:

  • Contract= mutual agreement where rights are exchanged fro mutual benefit

  • Covenant= a promise to act in the future and requires trust

• Justice= keeping one’s covenant

• Political community is created via the transfer of rights between groups

Types of political obligation- Commonwealth by Acquisition (conquest or force)

• Despite the involvement of coerced promises, Hobbes argues that these are undertaken voluntary if made out of fear

  • Thus, the motive for obedience the same as a voluntary social contract the sam

• Institution= Acquisition because there is a unilateral gift of obedience to a victor

Limits of Political Obligation

• There is no totality in obeying the sovereign

• No moral obligation to surrender their right to self-preservation

• If a sovereign commands actions that would result in a subject’s death or torture, the subject has the inalienable right to resist

• Hobbes’ stance is unique because it differentiates between God’s will and political action

Covenant Vs Natural Law Views:

Covenant:

• Argues there are mutual promises individuals make to one another to obey the sovereign are sufficient to generate political obligation

• Therefore, there is no need for the law of nature to explain political obligation

Natural Law:

• Argues that without the law of nature, the promises made in the sate of nature would not generate obligations

• The laws of nature must have moral binding force, even before the commonwealth is formed