Paste your essay in here…The social contract theory proposed by Hobbes aims move society from its state of nature (s.o.n.) which, for Hobbes, is a state of war and to ultimately bring about a greater level of peace on both a domestic and international level between states. Having been published soon after the end of the English Civil War in 1651, his Leviathan may be regarded as outdated when applied to modern society however many of the ideas outlined are still both relevant and useful in political discussion. The problem that Hobbes and other political philosophers have faced is deciding on the type of government that most successfully removes humans from their natural, chaotic, state and brings about a society that is capable of flourishing in peace. The solution reached by Hobbes is that all members of a given society should totally submit to a single political authority that is unrestricted in its power to act as it wills, this political authority is named the ‘sovereign’ of the state. This form of state is to be constructed via use of social contract and dubbed the ‘Leviathan’. Others including the likes of John Locke have tackled the same problem but arrived at starkly different conclusions to Hobbes and so I will compare the ideas of these thinkers where appropriate.
The s.o.n. i.e. a primitive, government-less state is a very bleak place for Hobbes, every person would be completely free to act as they will. There is no normative system of morality that says we ought to do ‘x’ in situation ‘y’ thus, if or when disputes between humans arise each person will act in a manner which benefits themselves and those immediately linked to them. In principle, it is said that each person has a right to act in a manner which advocates self-preservation. This, of course, is unhelpful as an individual could justify almost any act with the justification of it being in favour of preserving their own life. To illustrate this, we could take the example of a man murdering someone who he suspects is plotting against him but has no evidence to support such a belief. He can justify his action by arguing that without it his own life would have been in danger. His justification, however is not necessary as he has no authority to answer to in this s.o.n. In this case, all people have a “right to all things”. This results in common distrust between individuals would then lead to anarchy and widespread violence. In practice, then, the s.o.n. is a state of war and does not have to be on a localised scale between individuals, it is also the case that if group of nations have a civilised, government-run, society on a domestic level they can still be in a s.o.n. with one another. Distrust on this level would lead to constant fear of invasions between neighbouring states and poor international relations in general. We only have to look to the countless conflicts across history, especially those where empires have invaded and conquered other states, to confirm that there is truth in Hobbes’ account.
Whilst Hobbes’ analysis of the consequences of living in the s.o.n. that he describes are sound it is based upon the contentious analysis of what the s.o.n. would actually be like. Humans are made out to be no more than the sum of their passions and survival instincts with the absence of any reason-influenced sense of morality. This varies greatly from the s.o.n. described by Locke who offers an interpretation that is reliant upon the theological theory of natural moral law. Locke argues that humans are free to act within limits implemented by God and ought to act in a dutiful way in accordance to God’s image, we should act in a manner that promotes self-preservation but does not hinder others. Of course, this may not always be possible as outlined by his predecessors such as Thomas Aquinas who proposed the Doctrine of Double Effect whereby we must use our reason to make compromises where duties conflict. Unlike Hobbes, Locke is not opposed to the s.o.n., it is not a state of war and is more fair than a conventional hierarchical government system. Locke’s opinion is governed by the belief that humans are autonomous beings that deserved to be treated equally, prima facie this seems like a safe position to make until we question the justification of such beliefs in a secular society. Hobbes would reject any theological, normative natural moral law as he believes the s.o.n. is amoral despite the evils that are present in it.
Having explained why the s.o.n. must be escaped to achieve the elimination of war, disorder and violence across society, Hobbes now speaks of his practical “Lawes of Nature”, specifically the idea that “peace is good” and that for peace to be brought about people must surrender their complete freedom or ‘right to all things’ and show obedience to some political authority. This relinquishment of rights and freedom is central to the idea of a social contract theory; the people give up something they own -freedom- to gain something that they desire –peace. Two issues arise here; first we have the reluctance of people to hand over their freedom to an authority. Autonomy is central to the ethics of various scholars i.e. Locke and his alternative social contract theory or to Kant in his moral argument. It can also be argued that, separate from theoretical works, freedom is the most desirable of attributes for humans. By taking an away a person’s right to act as they will the person inevitably loses their sense of identity which, in turn, makes individuals dispensable and reduces them to automata. Hobbes’ response to this is that the subject retains his/her absolute freedom so long as there are no physical constraints placed upon their actions, the subject may be a slave to the sovereign but this was agreed by both parties prior to the enslavement hence the lack of liberty is, in fact, artificial. In addition to this Hobbes argues that this supposed lack of freedom is still favourable to life in the s.o.n. where any true freedom is unattainable due to the constant fear of danger from others. Hobbes’ idea of freedom is heavily confused in that it totally ignores the freedom of an individual to decide on their own system of morality as this job is taken by the authority as soon as the subject leaves the s.o.n. The second major issue is related to consent, those who do not agree to this covenant are excluded and will remain in a s.o.n. with other people creating a fragmented and ideologically segregated society. Hobbes however, argues that people will (and should) agree to the social contract as they’re naturally inclined to act in a way which assures self-preservation.
Hobbes then proposes that the authority must be unlimited and absolute in its power, the best option then is to have a sovereign that is in complete control of all affairs of the state such as the justice system, taxation and international relations. This so-called sovereign would not necessarily be an individual but if it was to be a group of people they would act as a single body. The sovereign then, is the only member of the society (which, collectively, is known as the Commonwealth) that does not give up their “right to all things” although there is some exception to this rule; the sovereign cannot infringe upon the necessary right of all members of the commonwealth to self-preservation and self-defence. This clearly seems to undermine the sovereign’s omnipotence however Hobbes then explains that there is no motivation for individuals to consent to the submission to an authority if it does not strengthen their security, if the sovereign were to constantly instil fear into the Commonwealth then the s.o.n. may be preferable or, even, no different as it at least offers freedom to accompany the constant fear for one’s safety.
Hobbes’ first hand experiences of the English Civil War had hugely influenced his anti-war agenda that is present in his subsequent works and it is likely that this lead him to focus on the Leviathan being a realm of peace and caused him to become ignorant to wider issues. By this I mean that Hobbes offers no guidance as to how sovereigns ought to act toward neighbouring states thus the s.o.n. is still present on an international level giving no solution to preventing wars. Bertrand Russell highlighted that Hobbes’ proposal of a sovereign is too radical and would have to be implemented by force, Hobbes fails to entertain arguments for alternatives, the significant of which being democracy. Hobbes dismisses democracy by declaring it as impractical and unstable as it relies on the easily swayed feelings of the masses and the premise that all decisions however minor must be accepted by the majority. By presenting to us the weakest form of democracy and then dismissing the whole ideology Hobbes greatly reduces the strength of his own claim that the sovereign is the best solutions escaping the s.o.n.
It is also necessary to analyse further impracticalities of Hobbes’ own proposal such as the dilemma of how the sovereign state is initially established and who is to be elected as sovereign. Hobbes offers some suggestion to these issues; he says that a legitimate seizure of power may stem from agreement by members of the commonwealth or simply that people are willing to offer their obedience to some individual when under immediate threat from some neighbouring state. These have been respectively labelled sovereignty by “institution” or by “acquisition” but Hobbes is, in fact, quite disinterested in the process of sovereignty being established. So long as the person in power is competent they have a legitimate claim to their role, per Hobbes. Since the publications of Hobbes there have been a multitude of authoritarian states, many of which i.e. Nazi Germany have resulted in far more devastation than peace; whilst it would be unfair to criticise Hobbes for his lack of foresight is fair to argue that the sovereign-style government is not the solution to escaping the state of war.
provides us with a different perspective; he sees nature as inherently good and believes that a democratic government is necessary only to reinforce the laws embedded in nature, liberty and property rights are fundamental to Locke’s theory which essentially relies upon individuals sharing resources between the commonwealth to maximise the preservation of the population. Locke is arguably too optimistic in his views on human nature and assumptions that people would if given the opportunity act in the best interest of the commonwealth, in modern society there are huge inequalities in wealth and many people that have resources to share choose not to.
For the sovereign to become a useful model for building a peaceful society one must start with a view of the s.o.n. that is as pessimistic as Hobbes’, otherwise it becomes an unnecessarily brutal path to take. If nature is, however, as Hobbes depicts it to be he fails in demonstrating why the sovereign is better than alternatives such as a democratic state. Recent history would tell us that authoritarian states are no stranger to wars (both civil and international) which counts as further evidence against his argument. This does not mean to say that Locke’s proposal is the solution the Hobbes’ problem, it also relies on equally ungrounded assumptions on what the s.o.n. would be like. Ultimately the sovereign is not a sound idea and doesn’t seem to work in practice.