Thoughts on Leviathan

        It is understandable why Hobbes is one of the most controversial and contested political philosophers. In Leviathan, he equips the sovereign with absolute power and covers the most frequently debated topics, morality and politics. The question is whether Hobbes’ thoughts translate to modern politics. 

Hobbes points out that people are more or less equals in intelligence and strength. Humanity is driven by the desire to fulfill their wants and needs and in trying to achieve satisfaction, they will inevitably encroach on others attempting to fulfill their own wants and needs. This constant state of opposition and opponents being equally matched ensures a constant state of warfare. The more powerful drive, the fear of death, is what motivates people to join in a compact with one another, make a social contract, and set up a sovereign to assuage this fear. The sovereign has absolute power, it will keep its people in check and protect them from their enemies. In order to rid ourselves of the state of nature and create a peaceful society, we must engage in social contracts with each other by allowing a sovereign to make decisions for all people as a group, which would limit our individual freedoms. This is the only way to ensure the safety of the people. 
Given the time at which Hobbes wrote this text, he was most likely referring to a monarch or dictator when claiming that a state must be under the control of a people. This is applicable to political thoughts today, though not in the traditional sense. The United States for example, isn’t an autocracy but it isn’t in a state of anarchy either. In the absence of a king or queen, there is the Constitution that lays out a structured government with laws to control the population. It is a source through which decisions are based and carried out. This could mistakenly be considered a sovereign in a loose interpretation of the concept, however, for Hobbes the sovereign is an active body. The sovereign is a person that can actually make the decisions and rule the people. The Constitution is a doctrine used as a basis to carry out the action of government, it merely states laws that must be followed by the citizens. Hobbes would most likely see the Constitution as an infirmity, because through it the governing body surrenders any hope of having complete supremacy over society, which would be the ideal situation for the sovereign. The implementation and enforcement of the laws are what drive people to follow them and avoid a state of nature. That is why an active body of people or ruler must enforce the laws in the Constitution and establish consequences. 


It seems that the founders of the United States did pull things from Hobbes when deciding how to build the nation. There is a sense of the one leader that Hobbes references but there are many strings to the power of this nation. People can speak up and question if something is wrong, they are not left out of the processor security in the nation. A more relatable way in which Hobbes’ theories apply to our society today is in our reliance of other people to keep peace in our world. While individual action may be important, the world functions as it does mostly because of the trust we have in one another. Overall, Hobbes’ Leviathan can not be directly applied to today’s societies. His idea of an absolute monarch doesn’t seem to have the capacity to exist alongside civil freedoms and justice. His idea about human nature, though, still remains very relevant.

Comments

  1. AnonymousMay 7, 2018 at 4:30 PM

    While I was reading Leviathan, I frequently thought about how the constitution incorporated Hobbes's theories. I think much like you that the constitution does not share Hobbes's end conclusion that a sovereign with unquestioning authority should rule, no doubt the colonists already had that in the English government. Rather, there were key parts of Leviathan blended into the framework. Emma mentioned how Hobbes condemned monopolies and the constitution effectively divides financial responsibility. The constitution also realizes that Hobbes's depiction of human nature is evident in government figures and adequately seeks to balance out those tendencies with checks and balances. Thank you for bringing some of those things to my mind. Excellently written.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousMay 7, 2018 at 6:35 PM

    Excellent point, but I still like to play devil's advocate on this subject! I would argue that Hobbes's end conclusion could be compatible with civil freedoms given the social contract the people enter with their leader (like the US government). I do think that our government takes many points from Hobbes, but if it had more central power perhaps it would be more efficient. Policies that would help the poor wouldn't sit for years because of lobbied interests. Political lobbying probably wouldn't exist. Of course, that is marginally offset by the will of the leader, but some cultures desire a strong figure of power. I subscribe to the "to do" vs. "to be" vision of cultures, where perhaps certain "to be" cultures simply function better with Hobbes's vision of government. We take freedom for granted, but perhaps we take the security we have in this country for granted even more. I won't argue that repressing political opposition is right, but I will argue that a deadlocked bi-party system isn't much better at times.

    ReplyDelete
  3. EHMay 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM

    I find myself in agreement with all sides. Certainly Hobbes' political standards writ large are not longer applicable to our system of governening, but I wonder how his perceptions might have shifted if he were given the opportunity to start over with (mostly) blank slate, like the writers of the US Consitution. Given freedom from the deeply entrenched divine monarchies that ruled most of Europe, could Hobbes have arrived at something approaching our own checks and balances? Or, faced with Ted's observation that power spread out equals a slow, handicapped legislative process, would Hobbes have been justified in his belief in absolute sovereign?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownMay 13, 2018 at 8:14 AM

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. UnknownMay 13, 2018 at 8:17 AM

      Those are interesting questions that you bring up. Hobbes seems to draw from his experience and the environment he was surrounded by. He was a monarchist and believed the monarchy was the best of the three possible versions of Leviathan. His arguments are pretty strong in justifying an absolute sovereign. A monarch has the same interests as his people, has good selected expert counsel, consistent policies of one mind, civil war less likely because there's no disagreement with oneself, and there's a more stable succession of power are some of the reasons Hobbes provides in support of the monarchy. But who's to know if his experience was different would he still hold so strongly to these views.

      Delete
  4. AnonymousMay 8, 2018 at 3:23 PM

    In modern day, I believe many people choose to surrender some of their freedom in order to live in a peaceful and orderly place. I think Hobbes’ theory of social contract especially regarding his views about an absolute authority might concern larger societies, which are more diverse and populous, rather than smaller ones. Take tribes for example, whether it be an indigenous group from North America, Australia or Africa, they seem to work as a unit instead of separate individuals, at least from what I know. It is for that reason that I believe Hobbes’ ideology may apply to larger societies who incorporate many people from different backgrounds who hold different values and beliefs, sometimes making it more difficult to agree on things and live in peace. Also, if you consider bohemian communities that are typically small in size, they tend to work in unison and be free of the corruption and greed described by Hobbes in Leviathan. Their size, and the mutual respect and understanding they share for the greater good of society, guarantees them peace and security, avoiding the need to surrender their personal freedom to a higher authority, and thus maintaining their absolute freedom.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more

Balance of Power Theory is Not All Encompassing

There are several theories that attempt to explain the rise and fall of great powers. In reviewing the theories it appears that no single theory can account for every situation that has occurred in international politics at least the way in which these theories are currently elucidated. This is especially true concerning the balance of power hypothesis, which claims that international stability is created when there is an equilibrium among state actors, especially concerning militarily capability. However, findings show that hegemonic stability may ensue in a multi-state system. While the balance of power theory may account for some of the outcomes in world politics, to some extent, the theory loses credibility through its inability to account for variations between states and the rise and fall of great powers. The balance of power theory certainly does not hold true in the case of the United States. In my view, the US is the current hegemon and thus, we are living in a unipolar w...
Read more

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more