Modernity and Politics

How did modern thinkers rethink the traditional political

system of government inherited from the Middle Ages?
 The Philosophers of the Enlightenment on
the Nature and Role of Government

Montesquieu Jean Jacques Rousseau

Thomas Hobbes John Locke

(1588-1679) (1632-1704) (1689-1755) (1712-1778)

You are a group of approximately 20 people ages 5 to 25 who have been stranded on an
deserted island. Fruit trees appear to be a major source of food and water is available from
rainfall. You posses the clothes on your back. There is no apparent shelter

1. What would be your major concerns or problems?

2. Explain different types of cooperation or conflict that might emerge

between individuals in the group. What are possible solutions?

3. How would order, continuity and social welfare be established and

maintained within the group?
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
Thomas Hobbes

Leviathan
excerpts
OF THE NATURAL CONDITION OF MANKIND AS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY AND MISERY

NATURE has made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes
manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man
and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another
may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by
secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.

And as to the faculties of the mind... I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength… For such is the nature
of men that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent or more learned, yet they
will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves; for they see their own wit at hand, and other men's at a distance.
But this proves rather that men are in that point equal rather than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the
equal distribution of anything than that every man is contented with his share.

1. In this passage, Hobbes describes mankind in what philosophers of the enlightenment have called the state of
nature. According to Hobbes what is a main characteristic of mankind in that state of nature?
In this passage, Hobbes described the condition of mankind in a hypothetical state of nature. Hobbes
argues that in the state of nature men were equal in their physical and intellectual capacities. Apparent
discrepancies such as for example one individual having a smaller body than another could be
compensated by different strategies: weaker individuals could unite and defeat a stronger opponent.

As for the powers of the mind, Hobbes argues that even though people recognize that some individuals
may appear smarter than others, each person seems satisfied with their own intellect. He concludes that
people being contented with their individual intellectual powers is a sure indication of an equal distribution
of those powers..
From this equality of ability arise the 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; and in the way to their
end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or
subdue one another. And from hence it comes to pass that where an invader has no more to fear than another
man's single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to
come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his
life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another.

Again, men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power
able to overawe them all. For every man looks that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon
himself, and upon all signs of contempt or undervaluing naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (which amongst them
that have no common power to keep them in quiet is far enough to make them destroy each other), to extort a greater
value from his contenders, by damage; and from others, by the example.

1. How does Hobbes describe human interaction in that state of nature?

2. According to Hobbes, the absence of which factor encourages this kind of interaction?
1. In this passage, Hobbes explains that the equal distribution of physical capacities among humankind
favors in turn the conviction that everyone is capable of acquiring what they wish to possess. As a
result, when two men share the same object of desire they become competing enemies. This
competition often leads to violence and destruction. Whoever succeeds in taking from the other what
he desired may in turn be disposed in a similar process.

2. Hobbes further adds that “men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in
keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all”; in other words, Hobbes states
that men do not have a natural inclination to live together in peace. They only do so in the presence
of a power that is strong enough to dominate them all. Only then will men no longer engage in
fighting one another.
Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that
condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man… In such condition there is no
place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor
use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and
removing such things as require much force; 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…

What terms does Hobbes use in this passage to describe the life of mankind in the state of nature?
Hobbes concludes that life in the state of nature is in so many ways similar to a state of
war which prevents mankind from engaging in activities such as agriculture, industry,
commerce, the arts etc…. As a result, Hobbes describes life in the state of nature as
being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short…”
A B
To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right
and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law,
no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties
neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses
and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same
condition that there be no private property, no public domain, no mine and yours distinct; but only that to be every
man's that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it. And thus much for the ill condition which man by mere nature
is actually placed in; though with a possibility to come out of it, consisting partly in the passions, partly in his reason.

1. What are some consequences of the ‘war’ that takes place in the state of nature?
2. What does Hobbes suggest at the end of this passage?
The main consequence of the state of war is that no notion of justice or injustice exists. No principle that
distinguishes between what in a person’s property what is a common public space. As a result, man can
only have what he can take by force until someone who is stronger takes it away from him.

Hobbes concludes, however, that because of man’s ability to reason and feel, a way out of this state of war
is possible.
And because the condition of man (as hath been declared in the precedent chapter) is a condition of war of
every one against every one, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can
make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it follows that in such a
condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural
right of every man to every thing endures, there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise so ever he
be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily allows men to live. And consequently it is a precept, of general
rule of reason that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he
cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule
contains the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of
the right of nature, which is by all means we can to defend ourselves.

What are according to Hobbes two fundamental “ laws of nature”?

The two fundamental rules of nature are:

1. Man seeks peace whenever possible.

2. When peace is not possible, then man will engage in war.
From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavour peace, is derived this second
law: that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think
it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he
would allow other men against himself. For as long as every man holds this right, of doing anything he likes; so
long are all men in the condition of war. But if other men will not lay down their right, as well as he, then there
is no reason for anyone to divest himself of his: for that were to expose himself to prey, which no man is bound
to, rather than to dispose himself to peace…

Right is laid aside, either by simply renouncing it, or by transferring it to another…

The mutual transferring of right is that which men call CONTRACT….

What does Hobbes suggest is a consequence of the man’s reasonable choice to seek peace?
In their endeavour to seek peace, men will agree to a SOCIAL CONTRACT which states that
they will all give up their natural rights of equality and freedom to an absolute ruler who will
then be given the power to ensure that these rights are guaranteed and protected.

People will agree to this contract if they all surrender in a similar fashion their natural rights.
The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and
the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits
of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one
man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: […]
which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; […]and therein to
submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgements to his judgement. This is more than consent, or
concord; it is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every
man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: I authorise 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
authorise all his actions in like manner.

What is the solution proposed by Hobbes to bring mankind out of the state of war towards a state of peace?
Hobbes argues that people will give up their individual wills and give them to either one
rule or an assembly of rulers whose power or will is the sum of all the individual wills.
Hobbes’ preference went to one absolute ruler whose power represents the sum of the
individual powers that were submitted to him through the social contract.

For Hobbes, the ruler does not take part in the contract. The parties to the contract are
the people only. Once they surrender their individual wills to the ruler they also lose the
possibility to contest the ruler and get their individual wills back.
This is an illustration of the absolute ruler conceived by Hobbes. A man whose power is
the sum of all the individual wills that are wilfully submitted to him through the social
contract.
This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS. This is the
generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe,
under the immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the
Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is
enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him
consists the essence of the Commonwealth; which, to define it, is: one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by
mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the
strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence.
And he that carries this person is called SOVEREIGN, and said to have sovereign power; and every one besides,
his SUBJECT….

1. What are the terms used by Hobbes to define the ruler and the ruled?
2. How does Hobbes describe the power of the ruler?
The ruler designated by the social contract is called the Sovereign and symbolically referred to as
LEVIATHAN (the name of a biblical sea monster). His role is to protect the ruled which Hobbes calls
his subjects from foreign threats and internal threats and to ensure peace and security.

Hobbes compares the Sovereign to a mortal god or in other words to an absolute ruler who governs
people on earth as God rules over them from the heavens.
 What was the ‘premodern’ form of government in Europe?
• During the Middle Ages and during the Enlightenment, the dominant political system was that of Kingship or Monarchy.

• The ruler was the king and the ruled were the king’s subjects.

• The King was a hereditary ruler. The legitimacy of his rule was derived from being the son of a king.

• The ruled had no say in who was to become king. They simply had to recognize and accept the king as their legitimate
ruler and obey him.

• The king made the laws and was in many ways above the law.

• The king was also responsible for enforcing the laws and for punishing those who did not respect the law.

• In other words, the legislative, executive and judiciary powers were held by the king.

• The king was clearly assisted by lawyers, ministers and judges.

• The final decision in all matters, however, was in the hands of the king.
Premodern form of government Ruling Dynasty:
Source of legitimacy

RULER : King or Monarch Absolute Ruler

Legislative Executive Judiciary

Power Power Power

RULED: the people as subjects of the king

What were new in the ideas proposed by Hobbes?
 The ruler is chosen by the people, the concept of popular legitimacy

 The choice of the ruler is based on a social contract

 The people have natural rights (equality before the law, individual
freedom, right to property)

 The main responsibility of the ruler is to ensure these rights

 The rights and responsibilities of the people and the ruler are stated in
the social contract.
What is a CONTRACT?
 A CONTRACT
is an agreement between a number of parties.

What were the parties of the SOCIAL CONTRACT?

? ?
HOBBES Hereditary Rule:
Source of legitimacy

RULER : King or Monarch Absolute Ruler

The Ruler is
designated by
Legislative Executive a social
Power Judiciary
Power contract held
Power
among the
people

People: Source of Legitimacy

RULED: the people as subjects of the king King
Premodern form of Hereditary Rule:
HOBBES
government Ruling Dynasty: Source of
Source of legitimacy
legitimacy

RULER : King or Absolute Ruler

Monarch
RULER : King or Absolute Ruler
Monarch The Ruler
designate
Legislative Executive a social
Judiciary
Legislative Power Power
Executive Judiciary Power contract h
Power Power Power among th
people

People: Source of Legitimacy

RULED: the people as subjects of the king RULED: the people as subjects of the king
 Philosophers’     Social Contract The role and Power The form, role and Power
Works Historical State of Nature The Contracting Parties of the People of Government
Context
Hobbes   Life is solitary, poor, nasty, The people are the contracting They relinquish or The ruler/government may
(1588-1679) The bloody brutish and short. parties. give up their rights to be a person or a group.
  English Civil War Natural rights: Equality and The ruler is not a party to the equality and freedom His role is to make and
Leviathan King Charles I Freedom. social contract. to an absolute ruler. enforce the laws with the
Beheaded Absence of laws which leads However, it is the people who Once they choose the purpose of ensuring a life of
to a state of war and a desire choose the ruler and thus grant ruler, the people do peace, security and
for peace. him popular legitimacy. not have the right to prosperity.
rebel against him
Locke
(1632-1704) The Glorious
Two Treatises Revolution.
of Peaceful with no
Government bloodshed 
    
Montesquieu          
(1689-1755) French an absolute
monarchy by
Spirit of the divine right
Laws
 
Rousseau          
(1712-1778) The democratic
The Social republic of
Contract Geneva