While reading through the Hobbsian Vocabulary I found some of the ideals contradicting of each other. Hobbs states in his “Second Law of Nature” that equal amounts of rights between everyone must be given up, and in the “Contract” that there must be a mutual sacrificing of rights between people. Yet Hobbs also says in “Natural Passions” that people will be at war without a governing body, and in the “Subject” that the people must be ruled by the sovereign. To me these ideals compete. How can one say that all people must make sacrifices of their rights so that people can be equal while also saying that there is still someone who rules over all the people? What rights would the absolute ruler have given up to put him on the same level as other people, since he has power over all of the people?
I know the point is that there still needs to be someone with the responsibility to rule, as stated the Hobbsian Vocabulary as “Sovereign”, and to keep the people in order; but with one person ruling over all the people, then all people cannot be equal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you are right to point out this seeming contradiction. Knowing that Hobbes favored monarchy over democracy, his idea of a single "leviathan" makes sense but I think that it is important to explore the idea that the American (democratic, of course) constitution strongly resembles Hobbes' language and is seemingly informed by his ideas. For instance, the phrases "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature" and "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Hobbes declared personal safety the 1st *right* of nature, to seek peace the 1st law of nature, and to give up equal amounts of rights to achieve a state of peace the 2nd law of nature. Keeping in mind that rights are inherent but laws are established to defend those rights, I think that the laws are a necessary contradiction and that giving one man power over all (with the explicit consent of the governed) makes all people equal in rights —as one person does not have any more right to rule than another in Hobbes' view—and each person has equal right to have his rights defended. However, he also has the right to choose not to consent to be governed.
ReplyDelete