Thomas Hobbes (1588-1697) in his famous book Leviathan, discusses about the rational thinking of giving up one’s natural rights and submitting oneself to a sovereign with absolute power to rule over them and how the state is justified. In general, Leviathan is defined as a large and very powerful organisation. Even in the illustration on the cover of the Oxford World Classics edition of Leviathan, it is shown as a body made up of individuals, greater than the houses, churches and castles, implying the power of such an organisation. Hobbes’ experience during the English Civil War made a huge impact on him and drove him to enlighten people about the adversities that they may face in the absence of an absolute power ruling over them. He believed that to avoid such a state, it is rational to create a Commonwealth and submit to an absolute sovereign. In response to the question of how it can be rational to submit to an absolute sovereign, he replies that to get out of the state of nature, it is necessary to authorise the control in the hands of an absolute sovereign. This paper will argue that Hobbes argument is reasonable, but given that his description of the state of nature is true.
Hobbes proposes the idea of a sovereign, to lead people out of the state of uncertainty and fear, i.e. the state of nature, and to help them live peacefully and securely within the commonwealth realms. Hobbes, in chapter 13 of Leviathan, begins by assuming the existence of a “state of nature” and refers to it in a negative light throughout the book. According to him, in the state of nature, since there is no common ruling power, people live in a “continual fear and danger of violent death” (chapter13). For him, in the state of nature, all men are equal despite of minor differences in physical strength and mental acuity. He highlights the fact that men like to exercise their power and control on others, and desire to be more powerful than others. This raises the very characteristic of human nature being selfish, to which even Dawkins(1989) agrees to, but he goes on linking selfishness to biological concepts and differs from the basic idea of what Hobbes wants to deliver. Hobbes states that if men continue to exercise their power and desire to acquire whatever they like, since the state of nature doesn’t provide any ownership rights and everything is available to everyone, they go on war with each other and may end up living a life which is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
In my opinion, after some point, men tire out of living in such precarious conditions of War. Even Hobbes claims that the basic necessity of human society is to live in peace and to stay out of danger and, to live peacefully and to preserve oneself from threat of death, are the natural rights of all the human beings. But, in the state of nature, both the things are in exception as there is a state of uncertainty all the time. In chapter 17, he defines liberty as the “absence of external impediments” which can be obtained by appointing a sovereign, who could protect individuals from “war of everyone against everyone”. Here, it can be argued that even in the state of nature, men may not be in a constant war after all. This even sheds light on the fact that Hobbes shows the state of nature in a very negative manner. In contrast to Hobbes’ state of nature, Rousseau in his work Discourse on the origin of Inequality, describes the state of nature as a peaceful state where people attempt to avoid conflict and war.1 But Hobbes still maintains his argument and continues to defend his position. He further continues "that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it" (chapter16) and "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" (loc. cit.). Thus, they all come together and agree to transfer their rights, by mutually consenting to create a body, which thereby will rule over them and will be in full authority to act in any way it finds correct.
Hobbes says that the mutual transfer of rights take place through ‘a social contract’. In a social contract, men agree to transfer their natural rights mutually to a sovereign, by using the words, “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” (chapter17). Thereby, they enter into a social contract with each other, where they write their expectations from their sovereign. One main characteristic of this contract is that the sovereign is not involved in this contract, besides it’s just the men who enter into the contract with one another. Interestingly, all the men write their rules and expectations on their own, thus, indirectly they obey themselves which is quite intriguing, given on the part that the sovereign is present to rule over the people. It raises doubts about the role of sovereign in the Commonwealth.
Hobbes’ idea of sovereign and sovereign power is quite interesting in its own way. According to him, sovereign power can be acquired either by acquisition or institution. Throughout the paper it is quite noticeable that Hobbes favours more of the former one and raises doubts about him being more totalitarian. Hobbes’ sovereign is said to have absolute power and is above all else. He has full power and authority to do what he wishes to and is not answerable to anyone, as Hobbes says. Unnervingly, Hobbes mentions about the power to execute the innocent subjects if the sovereign deemed to be necessary. Two main points arise from here: if a monarch has absolute power in himself, and he faces any danger from his subjects, he may execute him. This highlights the possibility of presence of danger even in the Commonwealth, besides being the holder of absolute power. The other main point is that such an action would be referred to as injury or injustice, and is against Natural Law and God. Many philosophers disagree with Hobbes supporting the notion that a Commonwealth comes into existence only in the presence of an absolute sovereign. In the light of this argument, M.M. Goldsmith (1980) observed that Hart and Kelsen argue that a Commonwealth can still be set up without an absolute sovereign; only in the presence of the set of rules. But on the contrary, Goldsmith himself agrees with Hobbes that a civil society can be unified, if power is given in the hands of an absolute sovereign holding absolute power and states that Hobbes argument is ‘logical’ and ‘sole remedy for warfare in natural state’ .2
Hobbes discusses about “rational” beings appointing the sovereign body. It may be argued that there would be no ‘state of nature’ if human beings were rational. They would have lived peacefully even in absence of an absolute sovereign. Thus, this marks a flaw in Hobbes’ idea of the ‘state of nature’. But J.S. McCllenand equally defends Hobbes’ stand and states that if people living in state of nature decided mutually to set up a Commonwealth, and choose a sovereign to rule over them, they may be relatively rational, and thus subdues the opposition. In support to the rationality to agree with Hobbes’ position to consent to an absolute power, Hobbes defends his position by allowing limitations to one’s political obligations to the political authority. Thus, if a sovereign is not working in the best interests of his subjects, the subjects have the full right to disregard the sovereign and go back to live in the state of nature. The subjects even have the right to refusal and right to defend themselves from any harm, and can act in any way as long as it is not against the law. But, Hobbes says that it would be better to live under a bad sovereign than going back to the state of nature.
To conclude, Hobbes argument to submit to an absolute sovereign gives an impression to be rational and its need in the natural state with no common power does prove true. If men resort to live a peaceful life where they stay safe and with no fear of uncertainty, then living under an absolute sovereign looks justified. Also, Hobbes’ limitations to political obligations makes his argument easier to accept yet contradicts his own theory of an absolute sovereign. Though his argument may be seen as irrational in modern times, but in the state of nature, it holds a strong position, because to evade such a condition, it is important to create a sovereign who holds the power and authority, that can overawe people and compel them to live peacefully.