The following piece Essays

The following piece Essays The following piece Paper The following piece Paper Essay Topic: Leviathan In this essay, I intend to analyse the following piece of Leviathan: The Obligation of subjects to the Sovereign, is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect them. For the right men have by Nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no Covenant be relinquished. The Soveraignty is the Soul of the Common-wealth; which once departed from the Body, the members doe no more receive their motion from it. The end of Obedience is Protection; which, wheresoever a man seeth it, either in his own, or in anothers sword, Nature applyeth his obedience to it, and his endeavour to maintaine it. And though Soveraignty, in the intention of them that make it, be imortall, yet is it in its own nature, not only subject to violent death, by foreign war; but also through the ignorance, and passions of men, in hath in it, from the very institution, many seeds of a naturall mortality, by Intestine Discord. (chap. 21, p.153). This extract can be found in Leviathans Part 2, Of Common-wealth. It is preceded by Of Man, in which after having described men, their defining features, (such as the use of words, reason, judgement), Hobbes concludes that because men are born equal, but at the same time differ immensely in their opinions, and in the objects of their passions, no man can assume that his own judgement is better than that of one other, and, in dubious situations, men cannot come to any kind of agreement on what is good or bad; right or wrong. The solution Hobbes provides for this ethical relativism constitutes his political theory, and is developed in Part 2: because in the state of nature the only rule for mens actions is The Right of Nature i.e., the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himselfe, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own Judgement, and Reason, hee shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto. (Chap. 14, p. 91), this state of nature can only be one of permanent war of all against all, for peoples independent judgements on what is good for them will inevitably lead to clashes among them. Thus, Hobbess conclusion is that clearly, such natural right to seek self-preservation is self-defeating, and men in the state of nature will come to realise that only rational thing to do in order to escape such a state of permanent fear and diffidence is to renounce their right of private judgement over what is to count as dangerous, and accept for themselves the judgement of a common authority and because no man can pretend to be a better judge than one other, than the choices made by that sovereign on behalf of the people are not likely to be worse than the ones one would take for oneself, their value relies on the fact that they bring agreement and peace: the main role of the sovereign, therefore, and his only obligation, is to guarantee that people are out of danger. The Obligation of subjects to the Sovereign, is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect them. From this obligation to make sure that his people are safe, it follows that the sovereign should be, according to Hobbes, fully empowered to maintain peace by whatever means, and, for instance, it is directly annexed to the Soveraignty, to be Judge of what Opinions and Doctrines are averse, and what conducing to Peace; and consequently, on what occasions, how farre, and what, men are to be trusted withall, in speaking to Multitudes of people; and who shall examine the Doctrines of all bookes before they be published. For the Actions of men proceed from their Opinions; and in the well governing of Opinions, consisteth the well government of mens Actions, in order to their Peace, and Concord. And though in matter of Doctrine, nothing ought to be regarded but the Truth; yet this is not repugnant to regulating of the same by Peace []. (ch ap. 18) Such a restriction of ones liberty of thought, for the sake of peace might seem shocking to us nowadays, and remind us of totalitarian regimes. However, one should not forget that Hobbes was writing in the seventeenth-century, and by writing this he intended to make sure that the sovereigns power would be above that of churches, since religion was the cause of most civil wars across Europe, and the only means to control the power of such institutions was to fully allow the sovereign to determine a public doctrine. However, as Tuck notes, this was mainly a negative role: to align opinions, not to work hard in order to secure the acceptance of any particular point of view. (R. Tuck, Hobbes, 1989 p.75) Thus, one can see that there are limitations to the sovereigns power: he should only restrict peoples liberty of choice to that extent he judges necessary in order to prevent civil war, and not any beyond that. However, these limitations are rather moral duties upon the sovereign than rights which his subjects can enforce against him: not until he threatens their lives can they legitimately break his rule: For the right men have by Nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no Covenant be relinquished. Nonetheless, Hobbes does recognise that a sovereign who neglects his duties to such extent that he no more satisfies peoples basic needs, though not directly threatening their lives, will probably be unable to keep his authority for a long time: The Soveraignty is the Soul of the Common-wealth; which once departed from the Body, the members doe no more receive their motion from it. It is, however, clear in Hobbess account that in the relationship of representation the sovereign embodies the people, and they are to accept his decisions as if they were their own: thus there is no interaction between subjects and sovereign, and indeed, the people can only act through the person of the sovereign; in the state of nature, they are but a ghost, incapable of acting because incapable of finding any ground for agreement. Paradoxically enough, Hobbes, in the above quote, seems to recognise that the people have indeed some power: but it is only the power of agreeing on overthrowing the ruler on extreme situations, when temporary factors bring agreement among them (for instance, if the sovereign is so neglectful as to let a majority of people suffer from hunger). However all they can do after overthrowing the ruler is return to state of nature, in which they will see the necessity of establishing a new contract and a new ruler: The narrowness of the rights of the right which the citizen possesses against the sovereign [] is thus a function of the general narrowness of the rights which people possess under any circumstances; and that in turn, as we have seen, is a function of the impossibility of finding an agreed, coherent, and compelling moral theory of any elaborateness or complexity. (R. Tuck, Hobbes, 1989 p. 75)