Thomas Hobbes Social Contract Theory Thomas Hobbes, the famous English philosopher who wrote the influential

and widely admired book the Leviathan1 was born in 1588. In Leviathan, the justification of the power and authority of the sovereign was one of the main concern Hobbes wants to address. He would like also to show that rebellion is seldom if ever justified, not only because of the chaos that it brings, but also because it involves a breach of a deep and self-contracted obligation.2 It is difficult to classify as to what kind of philosopher Hobbes is. He is known as a political philosopher, in epistemology he is an empiricist like Locke, Berkeley and Hume, in the philosophy of language he is a nominalist. It is because of his theory of the state that made Hobbes a famous political philosopher. Hobbes is best known for his theory of human nature and his theory of the social contract. He held that man is ruled by self-interest and that the condition of human existence in the state of nature is liable to become, a war of every man, against every man. In order to overcome the dangers of this nasty and brutish state, men contract to surrender the right of aggression to a sovereign, whose overwhelming power allows the establishment and maintenance of peaceful order.3 Hobbes in his political writings aim to understand how governments come came to exists and why it is justified. In this paper, I started with Hobbes conception of the human nature and the state of nature. Hobbes conception of the human nature is an important aid in understanding his social and political theory. Source of conflicts can be traced back to Hobbes understanding of the human nature. After presenting Hobbes view of the human nature the next part presents the conflicts in the society as a product of mans nature. The conflicts and problems in the society will lead to chaos and to what Hobbes refer to as war of all against all. After dealing with the conflicts the next part of the paper discusses how Hobbes presented the social contract as a way of how people avoid the state of war. Discussions on the power of the sovereign, limitations of the power of the sovereign and Hobbes preference of monarchy will follow. The paper ends by examining whether sovereigns can be dissolved and what are these valid reasons why a sovereign can be dissolved. Why do we need a government? Why do we have to obey the government or the sovereign? Hobbes was trying to show the importance of society and government in attaining peace and order. Hobbes
1

Hobbes took this name, with a reference to Job 41, for the title of his most important book and used it as a metaphor for the state and its sovereign 2 Roger Scruton, Short History of Modern Philosophy: From Descartes to Wittgenstein (London: Routledge, 1995), 193. 3 The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, eds. Nicholas Bunnin and E.P. Tsui James (Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003), 308.

returned back to the basic reason for the existence of the government that is for the welfare of the people. However, Hobbes made a more profound description of the life of man before there was any government in order to justify the existence and purpose of governments. Hobbes father was a vicar, who was ill-tempered and uneducated; he lost his job by quarrelling with a neighboring vicar at the church door. After this, Hobbes was brought up by an uncle. He acquired a good knowledge of the classics. At fifteen Hobbes went to Oxford where he learned of the scholastic logic and the philosophy of Aristotle. In the year 1610 when Hobbes was twenty two years old, he became the tutor to Lord Hardwick, with whom he made the grand tour. It was at this time that he began to know the work of Galileo and Kepler which profoundly influenced him. In 1636 he travelled to Italy to visit Galileo. Hobbes published several works such as De Cive (The Citizen) in 1642, De Corpore (Concerning Body) in 1655, and De Homine (Concerning Man) in 1658. In the end it was his political philosophy that made Hobbes famous. Hobbes as a Political Philosopher As a political philosopher Hobbes is frequently thought, though not accurately as the father of modern totalitarianism.4 His books on De Cive and the Leviathan showed how people must surrender themselves and obey the sovereign. There are two considerations that led Hobbes to formulate his work on political philosophy. The first is the political turbulence during the time which Hobbes live and the Civil war which Oliver Cromwell led. Hobbes was therefore living in an unstable and divided country cause by civil war. Second is that Hobbes looked at political philosophy as a variation of the science of physics. Hobbes assumed a thoroughly materialistic view of the human nature. This materialistic view of the human nature which Hobbes held will be of great influence in which he describes the cause of the conflict of human being in the state of nature. Hobbes explained human behavior in terms of bodies in motion from which he formulated his political philosophy. We would now turn to the view of human nature which Hobbes held in order to understand the root of all human conflicts which would later on lead to the establishment of the sovereign or the government. In discussing the political philosophy of Hobbes it is important to take note of the three important aim that Hobbes is trying to address in his work: (i) how governments come into existence, (ii) what makes them legitimate, (iii) what their powers are.5 Concerning the first (i), of how governments come into existence there are two great traditions in political philosophy, one which maintains that the
4 5

Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, 212. The Blackwell Guide to Modern Philosophers, ed. Steven M. Emmanuel (A. P. Martinich)

government is natural which is advocated by Aristotle; the other holds that governments are artificial constructs and that human beings are not naturally fit for society, advocated by the Epicureans and to which Hobbes view belongs.6 According to Hobbes, human beings are not naturally made for the political life. They think too much of themselves, put too much value on present gratification, and they are bad at predicting the consequences of their actions.7 For Hobbes it is easy enough to think of human beings as being human and not living under any government at all, that is the state of nature.8 Hobbes explained logically how the government comes into existence by first introducing the life of man in the state of nature9. Before introducing what the state of nature is as conceptualized by Hobbes it is necessary to know the views which Hobbes has about human beings because this will lead us to a better understanding of the state of nature. Hobbes view on Human Nature Before venturing into the political philosophy of Hobbes it is very important to be able to understand first the view of Hobbes on human nature. Hobbes began his works on political philosophy by providing some features of his view of the human beings and their nature. One quality that Hobbes used in his works is a gift for satire and irony.10 The passage on his work De Cive shows this irony that Hobbes has. In his work Hobbes denied that people simply associate with each other for the pleasure of sociability, but instead, always have some other purpose that they are trying to accomplish. A passage from De Cive reads:
We do not therefore by nature seek society for its own sake, but that we may receive some honor or profit from it; these we desire primarily, that secondarily. How, by what advice, men do meet, will be best known by observing those things which they do when they are met. For if they meet for traffic, it is plain every man regards not his fellow, but his business; if to discharge some office, a certain market-friendship market is begotten, which hath more of jealousy in it than true love, and whence factions sometimes may arise, but good will never; if for pleasure and recreation of mind, every man is wont to please himself most with those things which stir up laughter, whence he may, according to the nature of that which is ridiculous, by comparison of another mans defects and infirmities, pass the more current in his own opinion. And although

6 7

Blackwell, 1 Bunnin, The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, 672. 8 Blackwell 1 9 The actual or hypothetical natural human condition prior to entry into organized civil society. 10 Marshall Missner, Wadsworth Philosophers Series: On Hobbes (California: Wadsworth, 2000), 2. Hereafter, Missner, On Hobbes.

this sometimes be innocent and without offence, yet it is manifest they are not so much delighted with the society, as their own vain glory. But for the most part, in these kind of meetings we wound the absent; their whole life, sayings, actions are examined, judged, condemned. Nay, it is very rare but some present receive a fling as soon as they part; so as his reason was not ill, who was wont always at parting to go out last. And these are indeed the true delights of society, unto which we are carried by nature, that is, by those passions which are incident to all creatures, until either by sad experience or good precepts it so fall out, which in many never happens, that the appetite of present matters be dulled with the memory of things past; without which the discourse of most quick and nimble men on this subject, is but cold and hungry.

Hobbes view on human nature portrayed in this passage from De Cive shows an egotistical view of the human nature. This egotistical view of the human nature that Hobbes has is very important in how he would explain the cause of conflicts among human beings in the state of nature which lead to a social contract and to the establishment of a sovereign who will regulate the behavior of this men. Though many would object to this view of man that Hobbes shows, nevertheless many are convinced that indeed Hobbes has a point too. Some may contend that is a very narrow view of the human interaction, there is nevertheless something to what Hobbes was saying and it was presented in such an energetic, striking way, that we are swept along and persuaded that Hobbes point may indeed be true.11 After all, why do we have a lot of conflicts and wars? Are we simply animals who are driven by instincts and act as material bodies? It is also noteworthy as mentioned earlier how Galileo influenced Hobbes views. Galileo had adopted a view that had been presented since ancient Greece by Democritus and the Roman philosopher Lucretius. Hobbes version of materialism was based on the assumption that all existing things are pieces of matter that move around in the void of space. These pieces of matter clang into each other, and the bigger ones push the smaller ones around according to certain mechanical laws of motion. At times some of the pieces of matter stick together to form the physical objects that we perceive. Our own bodies are also combinations of these little clumps of stuff, and so the laws of motion that govern the behavior of inanimate physical objects apply also to us. All of our behavior can be considered as a mechanical process consisting of the little corpuscles banging into and moving other corpuscles.12 The views on human beings that Hobbes held is seen as negative and a dark gloomy view

11 12

Missner, On Hobbes, 4. Missner, On Hobbes, 9.

of the human nature, one that is too much negative and that over-emphasizes our hostile traits and ignores our more sympathetic and altruistic impulses.13 Hobbes thought that in order to understand why people fight and why people should also make peace, one must begin first with an understanding of the fundamental characteristics of human beings. These characteristics of human beings incline us not to cooperate with each other, and so without some interviewing factor, we humans would be living in a constant state of war, which Hobbes would call the war of all against all.14 The feature of human beings which Hobbes described is striking for it is in oppose to the belief that men by nature is good, Hobbes on the other hand seems to advocate that human nature is selfish. According to Hobbes even the desire of the adult to care for the infant is driven by his or her desire that someday the child will also take care of him or her when he or she grows old. Every action according to Hobbes is driven by self-interest. A teacher who is teaching the student is driven by the selfish desire to be acknowledged by student, to be promoted and even just to feel the satisfaction and joy of teaching. In sum, Hobbes account of the human nature emphasizes the egotistical aspects of the human beings. This is explicitly supported by Hobbes when he claim that human beings simply associate with each other just for power and glory. In an earlier work, Hobbes said that life is a race to excel ones neighbors, and as long as one is ahead, one is happy.15 Another explanation which Hobbes has why people are egotistical is by analyzing human motivation. He claims that everyone possess a twofold endeavor, namely appetite and aversion. This has the same meaning with love and hate. According to Hobbes people are attracted to what they think will help them survive, and they hate whatever they judge to be a threat to them. The words good and evil have whatever meaning each individual will give them, and people will call good whatever they love and evil whatever they hate. Thus, Hobbes conclude that humans are fundamentally egotistical in that they are concerned chiefly about their own survival and identify goodness with their own appetites. 16 If people continue to have this kind of egotistical behavior it is inevitable that there would be conflicts and war that will occur. Aside from this gloomy view of human nature Hobbes also discussed the main reason for the conflicts that occurs in the state of nature, the state that human beings had before the establishment of a government.
13 14

Missner, On Hobbes, 5. Missner, On Hobbes, 4-5. 15 Missner, On Hobbes, 27. 16 Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, 216.

Causes of Conflicts: Competition for Power, scarcity of needs and fight for survival Given that people in the state of nature are egotistical it would appear that in the state of nature there is no obligation for humanity to respect others or that there is no morality in the traditional sense of goodness and justice.17 It also worth mentioning other factors which Hobbes considered had contributed to the conflicts of human beings in the state of nature due to their egotistical nature. Hobbes asserted that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly diffidence; thirdly glory (L, 823). These three causes of conflicts mentioned by Hobbes can be considered as competition due to scarcity of needs, competition for power and fight for survival. Competition for Power Hobbes gave an importance consideration on how power led people to conflict and war due to their self-interested behavior. Hobbes said that all of us have a restless desire to increase our power that stops only when we die. It is not that we want money, fame, knowledge or accomplishment-what we all want is as much power as we can get.18 In fact the pursuit of honor is a basic human drive and is morally neutral according to Hobbes.19 Is Hobbes right in saying this? Do all of us desire for power? Perhaps this is another striking feature of human beings that Hobbes has in addition to the egotistical view or this can just be a complementary and supporting claim he has regarding his view. This view of man as having a restless desire to pursue power is indeed evident in the political scenario. Take for example our present politicians who would stay in the power and would do all means to acquire power during election. Politicians would do all means to win the election, not to serve the people but to acquire position which will give them power. There are some who would continue to seek power in another position after having completed the 3 consecutive terms that they have. Take another example the political dynasties that surrounds politics in our country. During elections there a lot of election related violence because people want to ensure themselves of the power. The former president Gloria Arroyo continues to hold on to power by running as a representative of her district in Pampanga. Politicians steal money not for moneys sake or simply for pleasure it is because money is the way to power, money makes power stronger, with more money comes more power. This desire for restless pursue of power cannot only be seen in political scenario but also in educational institutions and church
17 18

Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, 217. Missner, On Hobbes, 21. 19 Bunnin, Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy, 311.

hierarchy. There is indeed truth to what Hobbes is claiming that we are in endless pursue of power and such pursue will only end in death. Some people dont want to be treated equal they want special treatment and power over others. Some people would not want to submit over the power of the other and thus they will fight each other. We want to be happy and that means being able to obtain the objects of our desires. However, we cannot be sure what it is that will give us that happiness. We are not sure what particular thing when possessed will give us satisfaction and happiness. We always experience a lack in us, when we possess something we always want to possess another one and we dont seem to be contented with what we have. We also hold on to whatever we have. When we desire fame and power we want to hold on to that position. Everybody who is in power wants to hold on to that power as long as they can. People want continuous fame, and even more growing fame.20 People continue to desire for power even if they have a taste already of that power. The worst thing is that when people got a taste of power they would continue to search and increase their power. Nobody would want his or her power to diminish, that is why politicians would always seek for a higher position in the government. Hobbes claimed that the desire for power is not just confined to a few individuals-it is a universal human characteristic.21 If desire for power is a universal human characteristic then it would create conflict simply because power is not available to all. People compete over power. Not all people can be the president, Not all presidential candidates will win in their competition for power. Given that the desire for power is a universal claim and there is a limited availability of power it is inevitable that it will result to conflict and war. The time of the election clearly shows this to be true, take the example of Maguindanao massacre, they kill each other because only one among them will win and in order to ensure victory they kill their opponents. If there are is unlimited position for power people would not fight with each other, but the fact is that only the best man wins. Do all people really desire for power as Hobbes claim? The desire for power according to Hobbes can be expressed and seen in variety of ways. According to him even peaceful people, those who would just like to cultivate their own gardens and not bother anyone else, desire the power that will enable them to live this sort of life. So it is not just the warriors or the athletes and the vain who are interested in more power. Everyone who has some plan for their life desire the power to make that plan happen.22

20 21

Missner, On Hobbes, 21. Missner, On Hobbes, 21 22 Missner, On Hobbes, 21.

The first source of conflict which Hobbes cited is the endless desire for power that every person has. I believe that this endless desire for power is related and in support to the claim which Hobbes made that humans are self-interested or egotistical. Because humans are self-interested they seek power for themselves not just to please their own selves but sometimes they used this power in expense of other people. Most people desire for power not just for themselves but they desire for power to have influence and to dominate other people which would surely lead to conflict. Power is often times associated with influence and dominion over the others. Most people dont seek power for the good of all but above all to serve their own selfish interest. Even if they seem to show help to other people using their power one cannot dismiss the fact they are still acting with the end that it will serve their own interest too. Conflict due to scarcity of needs The second cause of conflict among men is the scarcity of needs. Men compete over power and over the scarcity of needs. The scarcity of needs has something to do with the competition for power. Due to scarcity of needs people compete for power because power would give them access over those needs. We are not living in the Garden of Eden where everything is abundant and everyone can take whatever he wants. The reality of our situation shows the scarcity of needs. Even if we are now living in this so called technological and modern world it is still evident that we lack a lot of material needs. The commodities we need still cost money-there is no free anymore as they say, we pay everything we use and that means there is a competition for material goods.23 As Hobbes would assert, From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies (L, 823). When everything is free and there is enough for everybody then competition is unnecessary, but this is not our situation nor it will occur as far as we can foresee.24 It is indeed inevitable that people would fight each other when there is a scarcity of needs. Take for example the zombie movies which for me is like a situation wherein people return to their state of nature. In these movies we can see not only conflict and fights of men against the zombies but at the same time they are fighting among themselves due to the lack of resources. When a certain group of people occupy a place where there is abundance of supply and another group comes in conflict arises, first, because the group would compete as to who will have power and would lead the group. Second is that each group will feel suspicious over each other

23 24

Missner, On Hobbes, 26. Missner, On Hobbes, 26.

who might want to kill them in order to take over the place which they occupy. Since there is no more government and law enforcers and even laws dont apply anymore people feel free to kill not just the zombies but each other in their fight for survival. Because of the scarcity of needs there is a need to fight with each other for survival. Men would find themselves competing with each other regardless of whether they are seeking pleasure, or aiming simply at self-preservation.25 In the state of nature people would take whatever he thinks is necessary in preserving his own life, even it means taking the life of the other. When calamities and tragedies happen and there is a scarce supply of needs people would compete and fight each other in order to satisfy their needs. In the state of nature, everyone has the right to preserve himself. There are no laws that could constrain behavior. In this case everyone has to decide for himself the best means for surviving, it follows that everyone has the right to everything.26 It is inevitable that people would sometimes compete with each other for the same objects.27 The competition over needs cause war among people. This competition over needs result to people being suspicious and distrustful over each other and this worsen the war. Fight for survival The third cause of conflict and war among men is the fight for survival and or safety. Since every man has the right to take whatever he wills in the state of nature and that there is nobody who will tell him what is right and wrong each person then in the state of nature is in constant fear of his own life. In the state of nature there is no notion of justice and injustice. Everyone can do whatever they want to do since nobody would punish or imprison them. Nobody judges the other to be wrong in the state of nature. There is a tendency in man to be a wolf to the other. Each man having the knowledge that each person is suspicious of him and may take his life anytime would live in fear. Each man distrusts his competitors and fears attack, so he seeks by anticipation to overpower them.28 In the state of nature since people are in the state of war it follows that each person would also be in the state of fear. In the state of nature according to Hobbes each men is equal. Given that each men is equal each would have the ability to kill the other person. Even the most stupid and weak person is smart enough to wait for the strongest man to sleep and kill him. Hobbes claim that in the state of nature all men are equal in the sense that even the strongest man can be killed in his sleep by the weakest person. Hobbes is often

25

Anthony Kenny, History of Modern Philosophy: The Rise of Modern Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 283. Hereafter, Kenny, History of Modern Philosophy: The Rise of Modern Philosophy. 26 Blackwell, hobbes p 2 27 Blakcwell 2 28 Kenny, History of Modern Philosophy, 283.

counted as a liberal political theorist because he asserts the natural equality of all men.29 However, this equality of man in the state of nature is also the cause of conflict among men. Since they are equal they see the opportunity to take advantage of the other. In the state of nature all humans are equal and equally have the right to whatever they consider necessary for their survival. Equality here means simply that people are capable of hurting their neighbors and taking what they judge they need for their own protection.30 Because of the fear and suspicion of men over each other each man will do all means to protect himself against the other. In this case even the weakest person would be force to attack when his safety is jeopardized by the other. Each man who would be willing to protect his own life will find himself in war against the other just to protect his own life. Each man has the knowledge that when he doesnt defend his life it will lead to his destruction. Even the good man would not always want to yield over the domination of the other. Even the good natured man would not want to surrender his freedom and life to the other. Even the wicked man has the tendency to resist domination of the other. The equal ability of each person to kill anyone else is the most important kind because the basic psychological principle according to Hobbes is that everyone desires to preserve his own life.31 Some people would disagree with Hobbes view of how people in the state of nature lives. Such life in the state of nature presents a view of humans who are so suspicious with each other and live in constant fear of each other. Is Hobbes description a portrayal of reality? Hobbes mentioned the following as a support to his view:
When taking a journey, he arms himself, and seeks to go well accompanied; when going to sleep, he locks his doors; when even in his house, he locks his chests; and this when he knows there be laws and public officers (L, 84).

Given all the conflicts that arises in the state of nature, wherein people are relentlessly pursuing whatever acts they think will ensure their safety Hobbes formulated one of his most famous political quote: that life in the state of nature is poor, solitary, short, nasty and brutish and people in the state of nature are in what Hobbes call war of all against all. If people would remain in the state of nature there would be no progress, no society, no economy, no agriculture and commerce and there would be no way to develop skills:
no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short (L, 84).
29 30

Blackwell p 1 Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, 216. 31 Blackwell p 1

The life that people has in the state of nature is unbearable and as mentioned earlier people in the state of nature live in constant fear. Is there any solution to all this conflicts and war? What shall people do in order to avoid this short, nasty, poor, brutish and solitary life in the state of nature? Laws of Nature Salvation from the dangerous natural condition of the state of nature can come about only by creation of something that can protect each person from her fellows.32 Hobbes argued that several logical conclusions or consequences can be deduced from humanitys concern for its survival, among these is what Hobbes calls the laws of nature. Laws of nature are principles of rational self-interest; recipes for maximizing the chances of survival.33 Even in the state of nature, people know these natural laws, which are logically consistent with peoples principal concern for their own safety.34 What does Hobbes mean by natural laws? A natural law according to Hobbes, is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or take away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved (L 15.3). The first law of nature is that every man ought to seek peace and follow it. Ones desire for survival impels one to seek for peace. The first law of nature endeavors man to seek for peace. Every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it (L 15.4). Supposing that the first law of nature is not true then man remains in the state of war and thereby jeopardizes his life. But this this contradicts the definition of the law of nature. Therefore, man should endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it.35 The second law of nature, namely, that for the sake of peace and his own life, a person is willing, to the extent that others are, to lay down his right to all things. The second law of nature can be proven with a reductio argument. Suppose a person is unwilling to lay down his right to all things. Then he doesnt desire peace. But this contradicts the first law of nature. Therefore, a person should be willing to lay down his right to all things.36 The third law of nature states that, men perform their covenants. If people do not keep their covenants, they will incite war, which contradicts the first law of nature.37 Social Contract
32 33

Blacwell p2 Kenny, History of Modern Philosophy, 285. 34 Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, 217. 35 Blackwell, 2. 36 Blackwell, 3. 37 Blackwell, 4.

Given the laws of nature and the condition that men have in the state of nature, how can man make a way to get rid of such condition? After elaborating the condition under the state of nature, Hobbes proceeded to argue how men can escape such condition. Following the dictates of natural law, seeking peace, renounce some of their rights or freedom, and enter into a social contract and thereby create an artificial person, that great Leviathan, called the commonwealth, or state.38 The laws of nature which Hobbes stated are necessary in forming a contract that would ensure the safety of the people. Hobbes holds a social contract theory in which people make a contract to form a society or government with the purpose of protecting their lives and property and to avoid the state of war. Hobbes social contract theory is famously called as the Hobbesian contractarianism, wherein it starts from the assumption that people have equal rights over each other, they natural equality in physical power, and in order to prevent them from harming each other and cause war and conflict, they make an agreement to protect each persons interests.39 In social contract theory people who are living in the state of nature, aiming at peace, as stated in the first law of nature, lay down their rights to all things and create a sovereign to rule them. For Hobbes, the contract is agreed between people and a proposed sovereign, who received absolute authority.40 The contract by which people avoid the state of nature and enter the civil society is an agreement between individuals, as if every man should say to every man, I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner (L 17.13). The sovereign as held by Hobbes possesses all the power necessary to fulfill the covenants that people made for their peace and security. The Leviathan, or sovereign is presented by Hobbes as a fearful and horrifying monster that will scare people in order for them to keep their agreements in order to form a just and humane society.41 Hobbes presented the sovereign in such manner in order to justify why people ought to obey the state and at the same time to justify that the state has such overwhelming force to make people keep their contract. In the social contract it is supposed that a number of people come together and agree to choose a sovereign, or a sovereign body, which will exercise authority over them and put an end to the

38 39

Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, 217. Bunnin, Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy, 140. 40 Bunnin, Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy, 646. 41 Missner, On Hobbes, 3.

condition of war of all against all.42 The purpose of creating a sovereign is for self-preservation from the universal war resulting from our love of liberty for ourselves and of dominion over others.43 In coming together to form a sovereign to protect them, people come together out of fear of being in constant war with each other. The element of fear is something that forces people to gather together, give up their rights to the sovereign for peace. While it is true that humans are competitive and our desire for power ends only in death, at some point in their lives because of fear people will realize that the current state is not desirable and will eventually lead to disaster. People will eventually realize that fear of being in constant war is a real disaster.44 For Hobbes it is fear with each other and fear of the sovereign that makes people form a society and live in peace. In Hobbes the contract which people enter into with each other is valid despite the fear that convinces or push them into social contract. Even if people simply enter the social contract because they fear conflicts and war in the state of nature such fear doesnt make the contract invalid. In social contract people lay down their rights to the sovereign, in laying down their rights, people give up everything and state their intention to not interfere with someone else or to do harm to the other. On person gives up his right and the other also gives up his right, the result of the exchange is beneficial to both parties. This is the basic form of all contracts according to Hobbes. In every contract it specifies that each party lay down their natural right to something.45 In social contract people agree to give up their own rights and also make an agreement to stop the war, killing and slandering. Because of the sovereign, there is someone who has the collective power of the people who can make force them to cooperate with each other. The sovereign has all the power necessary to enforce the covenant made by the people. It is the sovereign who ensures that each person keep up his promises as what has been stated in the contract. We have to give up our right to kill others if we want to avoid living in such a state of war. It is important to take not that in social contract the parties who are involved in such contract are the individuals, that is the contract is between the individual who decide to give up their rights. The sovereign is not part of the contacting parties, the sovereign is someone who will ensure that the contract made by men among themselves will be fulfilled. The contract is not between the sovereign and the people, but rather it is between the people themselves. It is the people who agree to come together to give their rights to the sovereign. Because the contract is between the people themselves
42

Bertrand Russel, A New History of Western Philosophy (New York: American Book Stratford Press, 1945), 550. Hereafter, Russel, A New History of Western Philosophy. 43 Russel, A New History of Western Philosophy, 551. 44 Missner, On Hobbes, 35. 45 Missner, On Hobbes, 40.

the sovereign is not subject to the contract. The sovereign has absolute power to govern and is in no way subject to citizens.46 Hobbes states that resistance against the sovereign is illogical because it is the people who agreed among themselves to give their rights and be ruled by the sovereign. Since people agreed among themselves to give their rights to the sovereign and give up their right to govern themselves it is illogical that they resist the sovereign. People agreed that they will be governed by the sovereign, thus it is selfcontradictory to resist the sovereign. Furthermore, the sovereign which was legitimately formed by the people cannot be legitimately opposed by its subject for two reasons. First, in making the contract people have authorized the sovereign to act for them and to govern them, second is that people have given up their rights to him; thus, the subjects have no right to complain or resist.47 Above all resistance to the sovereign is to revert to independent judgment, which is to revert to the state of nature or anarchy.48 If people would resist the sovereign or would go against the sovereign people would either revert to the state of nature of a civil war will occur. It is worthy to take note Hobbes was writing his Leviathan during the civil war, when monarchy or the sovereign has been broken. For Hobbes, if people disobey the sovereign civil war will most likely occur and civil war are generally extremely brutal.49 To cite an event, in the history of the United States, there were more American casualties in the four-year Civil War in the 1860s than the combined total of all the other wars that America has fought during its over two hundred years of existence.50 Hobbes is trying to argue that it is always better to have a government even if it would do some wrong. Hobbes claimed that it is better if there is a political-legal order and that a society is more efficient if it has a government than if it lacks one.51 A sovereign cannot be forfeited of his power, and no subject can accuse his sovereign of injustice, this is because the sovereign personifies the people, every person who enters the contract and created the sovereign is the author of every action of the sovereign, and so he cannot make any complaint about such actions.52
No man that hath sovereign power can justly be put to death, or otherwise in any manner by his subjects punished. For seeing every subject is author of the actions of his sovereign; he punisheth another, for the actions committed by himself (L, 118).

46 47

Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, 218. Blackwell, 4. 48 Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, 218. 49 Missner, On Hobbes, 48. 50 Missner, On Hobbes, 48. 51 Bunnin, Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy, 199. 52 Kenny, History of Western Philosophy: Rise of Modern Philosophy , 287.

There is no right of rebellion, because the ruler is not bound by any contract, whereas the subjects are.53 Hobbes view of the government and the creation of the sovereign through social contract affirms his position that governments are simply artificial human constructs. It is not because people are by nature inclined to form a government but rather for Hobbes people simply form a government in order to avoid conflicts and war. If there are no conflicts, war and problems that arises from the state of nature one would not be convinced of the need for a government. In entering social contract people enter such a contract considering that they will benefit from such contract and that it is for their own good. This affirms one of Hobbes view that people associate and relate with each other for their own good. People as Hobbes would think would not lay down their rights to the sovereign if there are not going to benefit from such. Even in entering into social contract people are still governed by their self-interest. They believe that the sovereign can protect their self-interest. Powers of the Sovereign What powers does the sovereign has in order to have the people keep their contract and therefore effectively propagate peace among men? If people lay all their rights to the sovereign what right remains to the people? According to Hobbes the power of the sovereign is absolute. Absolute because for Hobbes it is necessary in order to make the people keep their contract and in order to preserve the peace the contract must give the sovereign an absolute power of life and death over every subject.54 In order for the sovereign to have an absolute power the citizen must lose all their rights to the sovereign. The sovereign as described by Hobbes must be liken to a ferocious monster that people should fear. The sovereign must possess an overwhelming force that could make people obey and keep their covenants with each other. The sovereign must have a terrifying power in order to enforce the agreements that people made with each other. If the sovereign does not have an overwhelming and terrifying power then people would not be afraid if they would not keep their agreements with each other. The sovereign must be seen as somebody that can punish people if they dont keep their covenants. If the sovereign doesnt have the power to punish those who would break their agreements the sovereign would have no use then. The sovereign must have coercive power and be feared as a sword, as claimed by Hobbes:
Therefore before the names of just, and unjust can have place, there must be some coercive power, to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants, by the terror of some

53 54

Russel, A New History of Western Philosophy, 551. Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ed. Ted Hondrich (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 313.

punishment, greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenantCovenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all (L, 956, 111).

According to Hobbes the supreme power, whether a man or an assembly, is called the sovereign. The power of the sovereign in Hobbes system, are unlimited.55 Hobbes thought that in order for the sovereign to be obeyed and feared by the people there must be absolute power. Thus Hobbes thought that sovereignty by definition was absolute that it has all the political power and has authority over every aspect of life.56 In his history of the English Civil War entitled the Behemoth, Hobbes says that a son has the obligation to kill his own father if commanded to do so by the sovereign. For Hobbes there shouldnt be any restriction to the power of the sovereign, any restriction on the power of the sovereign will undermine its stability. Sovereigns, once established, are very formidable monsters, but hopefully they will be useful ones.57 The concept of a limited power of the sovereignty, the view supported by many educated Englishmen is for Hobbes self-contradictory and absurd. In describing the powers of the sovereign as absolute and unlimited, according to Hobbes the sovereign has the right of censorship over all expression of opinion and that laws of property are entirely subjected to the sovereign. The power of the sovereign is not only in political matters but it extends even to the religious matters. In the cover of his book, the leviathan can be seen as holding sword in his right hand, signifying political power, in his left the cross as signifying religious power. Accordingly the sovereign is supreme in matters of religion. It is for the sovereign, and not for any presbytery or bishop, to determine which books are to be accepted as Holy Scripture and in what way they are to be interpreted. The power of the sovereign extends even in religious matters and up to the interpretation of the Holy Scripture. This power of the sovereign over religious matters was made concrete in England during the reign of Henry VIII who considered himself as the supreme head of the Church of England. In declaring himself to be the head of both the state and the church Henry VIII portrayed the Leviathan of Hobbes as holding both the cross and the sword in his both hands. I would label Hobbes as having an authoritarian view. This because Hobbes holds a political view that subjects should obey the authority whose legitimacy is not open to question. In addition, in authoritarian political system the government has unlimited power and lacks proper constitutional constraint.58

55 56

Russell, A New History of Western Philosophy, 551. Blackwell, 4 57 Missner, On Hobbes, 46. 58 See, authoritarianism, Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy, 62.

Since the power of the sovereign is absolute,

the sovereign is also the source of law and of property rights. He has the right to determine what means are necessary for the defense of the commonwealth, and it is his prerogative to make war and peace with other nations. He is the arbiter of all contested lawsuits, and it is for him to decide what opinions and doctrines may be maintained within the commonwealth. He alone has the power to appoint, and to reward and punish, all ministers and magistrates.
59

Hobbes is aware of the great power the sovereign has that he is open to the idea that the sovereign might use such power against the people themselves. Given the power the sovereign has, how certain are we that he will not kill us? In facing this objection Hobbes asks us to consider the alternative which is according to Hobbes the civil war. According to Hobbes, nothing could be worse than the civil war and thus it is more worth to obey the sovereign than to resist.60 For Hobbes, obeying the sovereign at least gives us a best chance rather than resistance which would surely lead to war and conflict. As Hobbes said, the state of man can never be without some incommodity or other, and so we should at least give ourselves the best chance.61 Another reason why the sovereign would not abuse or take advantage of its power is the desire for good reputation. It is argued that the rulers of the past who have been corrupt and exploitative are now looked upon with scorn. The sovereigns too know this and they are aware that there is always a greater power that will punish them for their cruelties on earth.62 Does this last argument still seems to be plausible today? It seems that many government officials nowadays are not concern anymore about their reputation. Those who are in power continue to take advantage of them and exploit other people. The problem of corruption continues and grow worse more than ever. Where is the care for reputation in this? When people are in power they tend to forget about their reputation and do things within their power. If people who are in power doesnt desire for good reputation would we just continue to hope that someday they will also be punished? What about the effect of the acts of the sovereigns who doesnt care about their reputation? The fact is that people who are in power are so absorbed that they are not even afraid of being punished in the future because they think of themselves as gods. If the powers of the sovereign is absolute, does it extend even to the minority? Hobbes claimed that the minority is in as much bound as the majority since the covenant was to obey the government chosen by
59 60

Kenny, History of Modern Philosophy: Rise of Modern Philosophy, 287. Missner, On Hobbes, 48. 61 Missner, On Hobbes, 48. 62 Missner, On Hobbes, 48.

the majority. Hobbes emphasis on the absolute power of the sovereign is seen by some as having a totalitarian view. However, Anthony Kenny, in his book History of Philosophy: The Rise of Modern Philosophy states that Hobbes political system is not totalitarian, in spite of its emphasis on absolute sovereignty, because within it the state exists for the sake of the citizens, not the other way round.63 Is there any exception to the power of the sovereign? To what extent is the power of the sovereign? We know that Hobbes attributed absolute power to the sovereign, but how absolute is such power? According to Russell in his History of Western Philosophy, Hobbes admitted that there is one limitation on the duty of submissions to the sovereign. He regarded the right to life of the people as absolute and that the subjects have the right to self-defense even against the sovereign. Russell argues that the right to life and self-defense of the people is absolute and even the sovereign cannot take away such right is because it is the very reason for instituting the government. The very reason why the government was instituted is in order to protect the right to life of the people against each other, thus it is absurd if it is the sovereign himself who would take it away.64 Hobbes claimed that the sovereign was instituted to protect the life of the people. Disobedience is justified if there is any action on the part of the sovereign that is contrary to the very reason for its existence which is the protection of life and propagation of peace.
If the sovereign command a man (though justly condemned) to kill, wound, or maim himself; or not to resist those that assault him; or to abstain from the use of food, air, medicine, or any other thing, without which he cannot live; yet hath that man the liberty to disobey. (L, 144)

In addition, despite the absolute power of the sovereign man still has freedom or liberty to do what is not regulated or prohibited by the sovereign. A person has liberty to buy and sell, to choose his abode, his diet, and his trade; parents have liberty to educate their children as they think fit.65 The sovereign cannot compel a person to incriminate himself, nor is he bound in justice to fight as a soldier at his sovereigns command. Allowance must be made, Hobbes says, for natural timorousness, not only in women but in men of feminine courage.66 Until when should the people obey the sovereign? According to Hobbes, people have the obligation to obey the sovereign as long as the sovereign has the power to protect them. People are bound to obey
63 64

Kenny, History of Western Philosophy: Rise of Modern Philosophy, 288. Russell, A New History of Western Philosophy, 553. 65 Kenny, History of Western Philosophy: Rise of Modern Philosophy, 288. 66 Kenny, History of Western Philosophy: Rise of Modern Philosophy, 288.

the sovereign if they see that the sovereign is capable of protecting them and sustain the peace and harmony in the society. If the sovereign is not anymore capable and doesnt have the power anymore to protect the people Hobbes think that obligation that people has towards the sovereign lapses and they are justified in disobeying the sovereign. This position was justified by Hobbes himself when he submitted himself to Oliver Cromwell while Charles II was in exile. Hobbes on Monarchy The sovereign must be powerful and be must have the power necessary to make the people keep their contracts. But what specific form of government or sovereign does Hobbes advocate? According to Hobbes there are basically three types of sovereignty-monarchy, which is open only tone person, aristocracy, which is for few people and in democracy wherein sovereignty is basically open to everyone. With all these different forms of sovereignty, Hobbes was convinced that monarchy is the best. Hobbes believe that monarchy is the best because he believed that it can most likely provide security and peace. Hobbes preferred monarchy over other types of government. Though Hobbes prefer monarchy, the concept of the sovereign has powerful and having unlimited power is applicable to all forms of government. The argument of Hobbes that a sovereign is necessary for peace and order can be applied to any form of government that has supreme authority and not its power is not limited. Hobbes can tolerate Parliament alone, but not a type of government where the power is shared by the parliament and the king. The power of the sovereign as described by Hobbes must be unlimited and that the power of the sovereign must be absolute. Any form of government in which the power of the sovereign is limited and not absolute is not what Hobbes prefer. Why is Hobbes against divided power and why he want to ascribe absolute power to the sovereign alone? Hobbes cited that the English war occurred because the power was divided between Kings, Lords and the Commons. When power is divided and those who have power disagree with each other a civil war will most likely occur. Whereas, if only one person holds absolute power the sovereign alone decides and disagreement by the people can be suppress by the sovereign in order not to lead to rebellion and chaos. Hobbes offered several arguments in favor of monarchy as government over a government by assembly. According to Hobbes it is admitted that the monarch will usually follow his private interest when it conflicts with that of the public, but also will the assembly. A monarch according to Hobbes may also have favorite, but the assembly have also have favorites, the difference however is that there are most

likely few favorites under a monarchy. Secondly, according to Hobbes a monarch can hear advice from anybody secretly while an assembly can only hear advice from its own members that is publicly. Third, the absence of some members of the assembly may cause a different party to obtain the majority, and thus, produce a change of policy. Lastly, if the assembly is divided against itself, the result maybe a civil war. With all these reasons presented by Hobbes, he concludes that monarchy is the best.67 Is Hobbes correct in choosing that monarchy is the best form of government? Is he right in his belief that monarchy can secure peace and security in the society? Many people believe that the arguments presented by Hobbes in favor of democracy is no longer acceptable and possible in the contemporary period. The objections given against Hobbes are taken from historical events in the 19th and 20th centuries. In the 20th century for example we have experience of quasi-monarchical leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein. These rulers disprove Hobbes claim that a sovereign would not abuse its power because of the belief that they are conscious of their image or that they may be afraid of some future power that is greater than theirs. In the 20th century, technology has given these dictators and tyrants the power that can exploit people that Hobbes had not imagined in his lifetime.68 Rulers and dictators such as given above disprove Hobbes claim that they will not do evil because they are conscious of their reputation. In the 21st century rulers hardly care about reputation, what they care is how to harvest wealth. Can the sovereign be dissolved? There are some reasons for the dissolution of the sovereign. One of the reason is giving too little power to the sovereign. When the sovereign has little or limited power it cannot protect the people and make them obey their contract. When this happens, the sovereign becomes useless, since it cannot protect people and keep peace and order. Other reasons are: allowing private judgment in subjects, the theory that everything against conscience is sin, the belief in inspiration, the doctrine that the sovereign is subject to civil laws, the recognition of absolute private property, division of the sovereign power, imitation of the Greeks and the Romans. Separation of spiritual and temporal power, refusing the power of taxation to the sovereign, the popularity of potent subjects and the liberty of disputing with the sovereign.69 Conclusion
67 68

Russell, A New History of Western Philosophy, 552. Missner, On Hobbes, 59. 69 Russell, A New History of Western Philosophy, 552.

Hobbes presented valid and logical reasons why governments are necessary. The need for government was presented by Hobbes based on the very reason that it is necessary for peace and order. By presenting the condition of man under the state of nature, a state before there was a government, Hobbes made a convincing argument that a government is better than anarchy. It is not only by presenting that the government is necessary that made Hobbes political theory famous, but it weaves together with it how Hobbes justified the validity of the power of the sovereign. By making a social contract with each other people agree to create a sovereign who will have control over them. The legitimacy of the power of the government and why government should be obeyed are all presented by Hobbes in Leviathan. The reasons which Hobbes presented why a sovereign is necessary and why it should be obeyed remains valid up to this time. We can just imagine the chaos and disorder that we can experience at present if there is no government. Indeed Hobbes arguments are powerful in convincing us of the necessity and legitimacy of the government.