Hobbes

problem of subjective morality

‘whatsoever is the object of mans appetite or desire, he calleth good, and the object of his hate, and aversion: evill’

• there is no ‘common rule of good and evil’

  • leads to public disorder which cannot be objectively solved

• sovereign is needed to create objective rules on good and evil

state of nature

state of permanent fear where humans are always at risk of death

• because there is natural equality amongst individuals

• humans are willing to use violence to protect themselves or acquire things

‘no place for industry… no account of time; nor arts, no letter; no society’

right to nature

Hobbes argues this is objective

• acting to keep ourselves alive is our right

  • but this is often ineffective and brings us into collision with others also exercising this right

laws of nature

universal rule where humans are ‘forbidden to do that which is destructive of their life'…’

• save us from state of nature and seeks peace

only sovereign can enact these with unlimited power because implementation into civil law is needed, otherwise laws of nature will get no traction in society

human nature

‘nature hath made men so equal’ that ‘the weakest has strength to kill the strongest’

• leads to state of nature

commonwealths

commonwealth by institution: formal alienation of individual wills, out of fear of state of nature

commonwealth by acquisition: individuals either run away from sovereign invasion or agree for fear of death

• not by victory but consent of the vanquished

institution= response to individuals fear of one another v acquisition = response to fear of sovereign itself

• both regarded as legitimate by Hobbes

obedience to sovereign

obligation to obey lasts as long as he is able to protect them

Hobbes argued that only ’radical subordination of individual or group will’ could guarantee security for individual human beings

limitations of Hobbes

• Dunn argues that since his time ‘the range of knowable potential hazards to human life has become far wider’ such as nuclear weapons, and giving a sovereign unrestrained power is thus not a good idea here

Runciman’s ideas on sovereign’s duties

Runciman argued ‘it will be no good to any sovereign [….] to have absolute power over a state that is depopulated, poor, fractious or vulnerable to attack’

salus populi suprema lex = by which must be understood not the mere preservation of their lives but generally their benefit and good

Runciman argues ‘sovereigns have no good reason not to do their duty’

freedom of subjects

Runciman argues that ‘subjects must be free, where possible, to use their own initiative’

• not too many rules

• if there are more laws than we can easily remember the whole system is discredited because men find they have broken the law without knowing it

definition of sovereign

Hobbes describes sovereign as someone who authorises all actions and judgements on behalf of their subjects

• must be monarchy, democracy or aristocracy

sovereign unifying

always artificially one person

• this is how it unifies people under it

sovereign as the representative

this is what stops Hobbes’ ideas from being fundamentally authoritarian

• can see this in commonwealth by institution

• still prefers monarchy and sees elections as disruptive