Thomas Hobbes (1588-1697) was a philosopher and mathematician. He spent much of his life in the service of the Great Cavendish family, but was also for a while tutor in mathematics to the Prince of Wales. He also travelled in Europe, and met many of the great intellectual leaders of his day, including Descartes, Galileo and Francis Bacon.
He was the author of several books in both
Latin and English, but is best known for “Leviathan” (1651), where he argues
for a social contract leading to absolutist government. The book is long and
not easy to read, even when rendered into modern English, so here I am
attempting a very short summary of the argument.
……………………………………………………………………………
Men are more
or less equal as individuals. We are governed by our passions, which lead us to
seek liberty and advantage for ourselves and domination over others, and we are
in consequence always in competition with each other. Without the restraining
power of a sovereign power to impose external restraint, we live in a perpetual
war of all against all, civilisation cannot develop, and life is “solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish and short”. The only “right” in this "state of nature" is
the right to benefit ourselves in any way that seems advantageous.
As well as
seeking to benefit ourselves, we are motivated by fear, especially of death,
and by the desire for security for our persons and possessions. In the war of
all against all, security can never be guaranteed. Ultimately, people realise
come to realise this and in order to achieve wellbeing come together to form a
Social Contract.
The Social
Contract consists of the people agreeing to create a Sovereign, to which they
surrender the rights existing in the State of Nature. By this, the people cease
to be just a crowd, and become instead a Commonwealth of citizens.
The Sovereign may be an individual or an
institution (e.g. a Parliament), but in any case must have absolute authority;
for if sovereignty is divided, natural ambition will mean there is bound to be
constitutional conflict. (Hobbes had seen how the conflict between King and
Parliament had led to civil war, and he would have read how, in the first
century B.C., the Roman republican constitution, with all its checks and
balances, had led to anarchy, which was only solved with the creation of an
Empire under Augustus).
The
Sovereign enacts laws. These laws are the sole guide to what is right and
wrong, just and unjust. No-one can claim the right to break the law with
impunity. The Sovereign has full rights over our private property, and even
over our lives; for if we claim the right to follow our consciences against the
decrees of the law, this is no more than conceding that anyone can do whatever
they like. (Hobbes denounced the claims of the Papacy to universal sovereignty,
and the actions of the Popes under Elizabeth, ordering English Catholics to
rise up and depose the Queen).
The
Sovereign cannot be charged with breaking the social contract, for who could
judge in such a case? Once again, the question would have to be “decided by the
sword”.
Although no
law can be unjust, laws may be unwise, if the people deeply resent having to
obey them. This outcome must be avoided.
However, if
the Sovereign has been overthrown and lost all power, there is no longer any
obligation to obey the deposed Sovereign (By this argument Hobbes justified his
submission to Cromwell in the civil wars)
All men are
subject to God; but atheists, disbelieving in God, have no reason to obey God’s
laws.
The anarchic
war of all against all is seen today in the relationships between states, where
a State of Nature still prevails. Everything is determined by force or fraud:
all states attempt to grab whatever they can because there is no international
sovereign power to enforce obedience to laws. (Hobbes could have argued for a
United Nations sovereign authority, with sufficient powers to enforce peace,
but he did not go this far!)
............................................................................................
Hobbes is
very modern in a number of ways. He ignored the questions about Natural Law and
absolute standards of right and wrong which had preoccupied mediaeval thinkers;
and neither did he have anything to say about hereditary monarchy or the Divine
Right of Kings. His book was therefore denounced by all sides in his day, and
he was accused of atheism and republicanism.
..............................................................................................
Questions
from Hobbes:-
Was there
ever an actual social contract as a historical event, or do we live under a
“virtual” social contract? – i.e. it is as if we have promised to obey the
government, and in return the government protects our lives and property
against criminals at home and foes abroad.
In any case,
even if there was an actual social contract some time in the past, why should
it bind us here and now? Does the social contract need to be constantly
renewed?
Is there
such a thing as authority, as distinct from power? Power in the political sense
means the ability to get people to obey commands, but authority means the right
to issue those commands, with an obligation on the citizens to obey them. A
follower of Hobbes might argue that claims to authority are no more than propaganda
to persuade the deluded citizens to obey: in reality there is only power, which
might or might not be strong enough to enforce obedience.
............................................................................................
Footnote:
For the "state of nature", see my previous post
In Britain ever since the Middle Ages, it has been accepted that the highest sovereign authority is “The King in Parliament”. An Act of Parliament can confiscate private property, sentence someone to death, change the succession to the throne, postpone or cancel elections, etc. In the USA, the Founding Fathers copied the Roman system of checks and balances, and sovereignty would appear to reside in the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment