• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 291 0

self-interest, is it not in man’s self-interest to coexist? Hobbes acknowledges that man is also inclined to pursue peace, but he insists his primary motivation is the fear of war. But experience proves time and again that man can and does work cooperatively and peacefully, where property rights and voluntary arrangements are respected and enforced, not out of trepidation but affirmative free will. Man is influenced by love, loyalty, logic, and a wide spectrum of interests, rationales, beliefs, and emotions. He develops customs and traditions that lend themselves to an orderly civil society. Of course, fear exists among men in the state of nature. And it is a legitimate motivating factor, but it is not necessarily paramount or exclusive. Indeed, is not an all-powerful Sovereign, which is Hobbes’s answer, a greater and more certain threat to the individual?

Furthermore, if man in the state of nature is subjected to “continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (76), then why, as Hobbes insists, would men voluntarily unite and contract with each other to form a government? How can each trust the other to live up to his commitments and join together in a commonwealth?

Having united with each other Hobbes contends men will mutually transfer all their rights and liberties in the state of nature to a third party—that is, they will surrender the ability to govern themselves to the Sovereign, and primarily out of fear. But will they? And in the Leviathan, why would they? Although Hobbes insists that the Subjects will be treated equally under the law and their rights protected in a stable and secure society, the Sovereign—whether one person or an assembly of persons—possesses absolute power. He is not to be questioned or challenged in a way that might be perceived as weakening the Commonwealth. The Sovereign may also use terror and coercion to enforce the law, for the greatest fear is the potential for strife, conflict, and civil war. Consequently, the individual would be surrendering his rights and liberties to an all-powerful, centralized mastermind who Hobbes argues will behave prudently and judiciously—a benevolent dictator, if you will. Again, history suggests otherwise. Such regimes wield power in a manner that serves their own purposes, not the best interests of their Subjects. Is not the Sovereign to be feared? Moreover, it is difficult to reconcile Hobbes’s distrust for the individual with his confidence in the altruistic nature of the individual or individuals who will oversee and control the Leviathan. Are not the latter also of flesh and blood? Hobbes seems to be saying that man’s nature cannot be trusted but the nature of a ruler or a ruling assembly of men can be trusted. How so?

Hobbes creates a false choice between polar opposites. Either live in anarchy or live under despotism. He assumes most will choose despotism. Furthermore, once he surrenders his rights and liberties to the Sovereign, the individual has no way out unless his life is threatened. Is the Sovereign, who threatens the individual’s life, going to be amenable to his disobedience or departure? Individuals are not drones. Hobbes acknowledges the obvious—that people reason, think, and learn. But in Leviathan he forbids even mild dissent. If tormented and abused by the all-powerful Sovereign, but without effective civil recourse, is it not possible—if not probable—that some portion of the population, dissatisfied and disaffected with their circumstances, will become radicalized, resist the Sovereign’s rule, and even resort to violence in hopes of overthrowing him? If so, the peace and stability Hobbes promised would give way to the discord and conflicts he feared. In Leviathan, the Sovereign would be obliged to unleash all force necessary to protect the Commonwealth. Compromise or accommodation would seem out of the question, for the diminution of the Sovereign’s absolute power would, in Hobbes’s formulation, diminish the tranquility and survivability of the Commonwealth. As in the Republic