Reaction to Hobbes (Week 1, Module 1) Austin Peterson

Thomas Hobbes’s thoughts detailed in Leviathan have been labelled realist and pessimist regarding the primal nature of man. His fervent belief in a hostile and violent world shaped his ideas of what should be done to survive and mitigate these realities. Leviathan is an ode to staunch realists in its core argument about the selfish and abusive nature of mankind, but his remedy to the solution is overly optimistic about a sovereign power’s ability to withstand corruption and underestimates the masses’ patience for subjugation.

Hobbes makes the interesting point that matter does not act for itself “unlesse somewhat els stirre it, it will lye still for ever” but once in motion remains so until hindered (Leviathan pg 12). This idea, when carried throughout the course of the book illustrates the point that the physical world is made up of collisions which constitute our natural senses, thought process, and ultimately our relations with others.  According to Hobbes the “natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge and the like” are contrary to the “laws of nature” such as “justice, equity, modesty, mercy …” and cannot be controlled except by a “common power to keep them in awe” (pg 136). Hence, men enter into a social contract with a sovereign out of fear of war and atrocities.

Leviathan is a euphonic argument for a centralized power that has no checks or balances except at the whim of the sovereign. This seems to follow the logic that checks and balances would only create more opportunity for conflict and the competing powers would not effectively cooperate. Hobbes does state that the sovereign should surround himself with good counselors, but emphatically denounces popular politicians as contrary to the aims of peace as they control the masses for selfish ends.

The rise of modern democracies might have left Leviathan’s arguments discounted as failed political philosophy, but the apparent shortcomings of democratic governments to create stability within their own spheres of influence perpetuates the questions of whether an undeniably strong central power is necessary. Government systems found in Russia, China, Turkey, and Romania are drifting toward absolute rule by one authority who slowly breaks down checks and balances. While some of these regimes are marked by economic stagnation such as Zimbabwe and North Korea, others seem to have the capability to speed economic progression such as Russia and China by easily manipulating markets due to a lack of internal regulation. No doubt, all of these are poor examples of human rights, but Hobbes is not concerned with this since the social contract extrapolates such conditions in return for peace and security. These regimes can pool resources together and create political stability by the complete eradication of all dissenting opinions such as in North Korea and Russia particularly. They also can react quickly to the ever-dynamic international world, a common weakness of democracies who must wade through bureaucratic and systemic norms.

The greatest weakness in Leviathan is Hobbes’s failure to fully anticipate the citizens’ patience for an increasingly amoral sovereign. The social contract sets up no stipulations for the sovereign. This was a central point of Hobbes’s argument. The sovereign must be able to act unilaterally without the approval of the people they rule. History since that time suggests that absolute power corrupts to a degree that makes the regime inefficient at providing peace and security. As Erik Khzmalyan questions, what assurance is there that the sovereign will not simply seek to enrich himself at the expense of the citizens making life for them more miserable than the terrible state of anarchy that Hobbes fears. Khzmalyan also suggests that perhaps the citizenry would prefer anarchy to such a regime (Hobbes’s Leviathan: A Critique of the Omnipotent Sovereign). Leviathan offers a radical solution to a realist view of human nature but contradicts itself by believing that a sovereign would not act in accordance with this human nature when not constrained by a mutual social contract.

Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by Flathman, Richard, Johnston, David. 1997.

Khzmalyan, Erik. Hobbes’s Leviathan: A Critique of the Omnipotent Sovereign. https://www.erainstitute.org/hobbess-leviathan-a-critique-of-the-omnipotent-sovereign/.