Hobbes

background

• English philosopher

• wrote during the English civil war

• nicknamed the ‘monster of malmesbury’

• key work was leviathan

divine right of kings

• justifies political authority

• monarchs are allowed to rule because they have been chosen by god and they have divine right

• the monarch is not accountable to any earthly authority

• Hobbes rejected the divine right of kings

human nature

• Aristotle said that nature was somethings purpose but Hobbes rejected this

• Hobbes’ understanding of nature is that we are a collection of atoms that his naturally in motion, it the 'stuff’ were made of that gives us nature

• behaviours therefore are explained through desires and impulse rather than purpose like Aristotle said

• our attempts to secure our desires drive our behaviour

• Hobbes reduces our desires into ‘power’

• we need to work together to secure what we want

the state of nature

• chapter 13 of leviathan

• our natural state is one of ‘warre’

• even if some people are physically stronger, people banding together or being mentally greater can be a greater asset

• we crucially, all want the same things and we will compete for them because we’re paranoid that others are trying to take our things

• we project this paranoia into anger as we try to protect ourselves

• life in the state of nature would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short

• Hobbes identifies this in places of civil war

the social contract

• hobbes agrees that everyone has a natural right to work towards their own self preservation

• hobbes’ account of natural rights is that we have a natural right to steal, maim and kill in order to preserve ourselves

• “every man, ought to endeavour peace”

• just because we have a natural right to do these things doesn’t mean we should do them

• individuals in the state of nature would be motivated to lay their natural rights aside in order to form a commonwealth in which they’re ruled by a sovereign

laws of nature

• a set of moral principles or rules which emerge from human reason

• they’re not written or imposed by authority

• derived from the rational understanding of human beings

• aim to guide humans towards self-preservation and peaceful coexistence

• firstly, there’s the right to self preservation, everyone should seek peace but if they cannot attain it then they have the right to defend themselves by all means

• laying down natural rights and submitting some power to the sovereign in exchange for security and order

the sovereign

• rights: choosing their own successor, demanding taxes and going to war

• duties: keeping peace and protecting subjects

• central and an absolute authority

• created through the social contract

• they aim for the common good of everyone they have power over

• individuals are expected to submit to the sovereigns authority completely

• their power must be seen as undivided to prevent civil war and disruption

• a weak or tyrannical sovereign would inevitably fail to maintain peace and society would return to the state of nature

• hobbes uses the metaphor of leviathan to represent this, a biblical sea monster

do we really need a monarch?

• hobbes was a royalist, the monarchy has single will and is thus preferred over the sovereign

• why not a presidential system?

• why is a single will preferred anyways, whould’t it be better for a group to rule as it feels less dictated

• realistically, anything is better than the state of nature

isn’t the social contract a bit skewed?

• we didn’t really sign the social contract, tacit consent is not binding

• hobbes just assumes that we would if we were in the state of nature

• having a social contract would benefit some people more than others

should we overthrow the government?

• hobbes thinks we have no right to rebel, unless the sovereign threatens our lives

• we should only recognise the authority of the sovereign on the basis of self interest, we are implicit in this theory

• as soon as the sovereign acts contrary to our self interest then we have the right to rebel

• the sovereign can threaten our lives both directly and indirectly (execution, arrest) or indirectly (starving healthcare services)

• we could probably always do better so it might end up being worth overthrowing them to get a better one. although this could also result in one thats worse.