Cecily Zamora
Thomas Hobbes's political philosophy has intrigued and puzzled scholars, particularly concerning the circumstances under which disobedience to sovereign authority is permissible. Hobbes's theory of absolute sovereignty suggests that subjects must obey the sovereign's laws, which dictate right and wrong. However, he also ascribes certain inalienable rights, or true liberties of subjects, that seem to contradict his defence of absolute sovereignty. These include the right to self-defence, resistance when one's life or family is endangered, and even honour. Scholars have debated the apparent contradiction between Hobbes's notion of transferring private judgement to the sovereign and the possibility of resistance to preserve one's life. This tension between obedience and resistance in Hobbes's thought has sparked ongoing discussions and interpretations.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Human nature | Egoistic |
| Obedience to the sovereign | Commands must be obeyed |
| Self-preservation | Subjects retain the right to self-defence |
| Moral responsibility | Subjects are morally responsible for their actions |
| Natural law | Laws are given by nature, not God |
| Resistance | Subjects can disobey if their lives are in danger |
| Legal order | Disobedience is justified if it does not threaten stability |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Hobbes's view on natural law
In Hobbes's view, the state of nature is a primitive and chaotic condition where individuals have a "natural proclivity...to hurt each other" and a "right to everything, even to one another's bodies." This state of nature is characterised by a "warre of every man against every man," where human life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." To escape this state, individuals enter into a social contract, submitting to the authority of a sovereign who ensures peace and security.
The sovereign, according to Hobbes, has absolute authority and is not bound by the same moral obligations as individuals. The sovereign's laws dictate what is right and wrong, and subjects are generally expected to obey even if they believe the commands to be sinful. However, Hobbes does allow for certain exceptions where subjects may legitimately disobey the sovereign. These exceptions, which he calls the "true liberties of subjects," include the right to self-defence and resistance when their lives, families, or honour are at stake.
The tension between the transfer of private judgement to the sovereign and the retention of the right to self-protection has intrigued scholars. Some argue that Hobbes's concept of resistance undermines his defence of absolute sovereignty. Others, like May and Sreedhar, propose criteria for legitimate disobedience, suggesting that disobedience is justified if it does not significantly reduce the sovereign's power or threaten the stability of the legal order.
Hobbes's interpretation of natural law differs significantly from traditional natural law theories. He disregards the association of virtue with happiness and removes any notion of the promotion of the common good. Instead, he focuses on self-preservation and the avoidance of the state of nature. Hobbes's ideas influenced the development of legal positivism, with natural law being discovered by considering humankind's natural rights and the role of the sovereign in enforcing them.
Unlocking the Power of Bragg's Law: A User's Guide
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Hobbes's theory of responsibility
In the state of nature, Hobbes argues that individuals have a "right of nature," which is the liberty to preserve oneself. This right is unlimited in practice, as individuals can judge what is necessary for their preservation. As a result, conflict arises, leading to a “state of war." To escape this state, individuals enter into a social contract, agreeing to give up certain rights to a sovereign who will maintain peace and security.
The social contract, as outlined in Hobbes's "Leviathan," involves individuals "owning and authorizing" the sovereign's actions. This means that subjects are seen as giving the sovereign absolute authority and are morally responsible for their actions in obedience to the sovereign's commands. However, this raises a contradiction, as it suggests that subjects could be held responsible for immoral or harmful actions carried out under the sovereign's orders.
To resolve this, Hobbes distinguishes between external and internal actions. He argues that subjects can obey commands without internal approbation, and in such cases, the actions are those of the sovereign, not the subject. This allows subjects to follow commands they believe to be sinful without fear of divine punishment.
Despite the apparent absolutism, Hobbes does allow for certain resistance rights. He argues that subjects have a right to self-defence and can disobey or resist the sovereign when their lives, families, or honour are at stake. This presents a challenge to Hobbes's theory of responsibility, as it suggests that subjects can judge when disobedience is justified, contradicting the idea of unconditional obedience to the sovereign.
In summary, Hobbes's theory of responsibility revolves around the social contract, the role of the sovereign, and the rights and responsibilities of subjects. While subjects are generally expected to obey the sovereign, Hobbes allows for exceptions and acknowledges the potential for conflict between individual rights and sovereign power.
The CDC's Lawmaking Powers: How and Why
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The right to self-defence
Thomas Hobbes's moral and political philosophy is a complex and multifaceted topic that has been the subject of much scholarly debate and interpretation. While Hobbes is often associated with the idea of absolute sovereignty and obedience to the sovereign, he also acknowledges the existence of certain rights and liberties for subjects, including the right to self-defence.
In his work, Hobbes argues for the moral and political authority of the sovereign, asserting that obedience to this authority is in the best interest of individuals. He suggests that life under the sovereign is preferable to the "evils of the natural condition". However, Hobbes also recognises that there may be situations where individuals' self-interest conflicts with the commands of the sovereign. This conflict gives rise to the question of when one can justifiably disobey the law, even in a Hobbesian system.
Hobbes's concept of the "true liberties of subjects" includes the right of self-defence. He argues that subjects retain the liberty to disobey or resist the sovereign when their lives, families, or honour are at stake. This right of self-defence is an exception to the general principle of obedience and indicates that Hobbes allows for a degree of individual agency and judgement in his system.
However, Hobbes's position on the right to self-defence is nuanced and has been the subject of interpretation and debate. While he acknowledges this right, he also recognises the potential threat that widespread disobedience could pose to the social order. As such, he is cautious about explicitly granting subjects the liberty to judge when it is right to disobey. This tension between individual rights and the authority of the sovereign is a central feature of Hobbes's political philosophy and continues to be a subject of scholarly analysis and interpretation.
Common-Law Wives and SSI: Eligibility and Benefits
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The role of the sovereign
In Hobbes's political philosophy, the sovereign plays a crucial role as the ultimate authority. According to Hobbes, individuals in a state of nature voluntarily surrender their rights and freedoms to a sovereign power, creating a social contract. This contract establishes the sovereign's absolute authority and the subjects' obligation to obey. The sovereign's primary purpose is to maintain peace and security, ensuring that individuals are protected from the evils of the natural condition, such as conflict and insecurity over property.
The sovereign, according to Hobbes, has the sole authority to interpret and enforce the laws of nature, which are independent of religious commandments or natural law. These laws dictate what is right and wrong, and the sovereign's interpretation of them is final. Hobbes argues that the sovereign's power is necessary to prevent individuals from acting solely in their self-interest, which could lead to conflict and instability. By granting the sovereign this power, individuals can be held accountable for their actions, and the sovereign can enforce punishments for those who disobey.
However, Hobbes also acknowledges that there may be exceptional circumstances in which subjects have the right to disobey or resist the sovereign. These exceptions, known as the "true liberties of subjects," include the right to self-defence and resistance when one's life, family, or honour are at stake. This apparent contradiction between absolute sovereignty and individual rights has been a subject of debate among scholars. Some argue that these rights to resistance are incompatible with Hobbes's defence of absolute sovereignty, while others suggest that they can be reconciled through interpretations of Hobbes's theory of responsibility.
In conclusion, the sovereign in Hobbes's political philosophy is an absolute authority figure who maintains peace and security through the interpretation and enforcement of laws. While subjects generally owe obedience to the sovereign, Hobbes acknowledges exceptions where resistance or disobedience may be justified. The tension between absolute sovereignty and individual liberties has been a persistent topic of discussion and interpretation in Hobbesian scholarship.
Federal Court Interpretation: State Laws and Boundaries
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The stability of the legal order
Hobbes's political philosophy has been a subject of debate, particularly his views on the stability of the legal order and the conditions under which disobedience to sovereign power is justified. Hobbes's Leviathan account presents a complex dynamic between the sovereign and the subjects, where subjects "own and authorize" the sovereign's actions while also retaining certain liberties to disobey.
One perspective on the stability of the legal order in Hobbes's thought is that disobedience is permissible when it does not threaten the overall peace. May, in defence of Hobbes, argues that if breaking a law does not threaten the stability of the legal order, "then it may be justified to break even valid laws". This perspective highlights the importance of maintaining social order and peace, suggesting that disobedience that undermines the legal system or endangers the sovereign's ability to ensure peace is unjustified.
However, Hobbes also acknowledges the "true liberties of subjects," including the right to self-defence and resistance when their lives, families, or honour are at stake. This presents an apparent contradiction in Hobbes's philosophy, where subjects have a duty to obey the sovereign yet retain certain rights to disobedience. Scholars such as Steinberger and Sreedhar have noted this tension, with Sreedhar referring to it as a "genuine puzzle."
To reconcile this tension, some interpretations suggest that Hobbes's idea of authorization does not necessarily carry along responsibility for the act authorized. In other words, while subjects may authorize the sovereign's actions, they are not morally responsible for every obedient action they perform in response to sovereign commands. Additionally, Hobbes's concept of the "laws of nature" or "natural law" plays a crucial role in understanding the conditions for disobedience. According to Hobbes, the sovereign's ability to secure peace requires them to have the authority to determine how the laws of nature, or principles of self-preservation, apply to specific cases.
In summary, Hobbes's position on the stability of the legal order and disobedience is nuanced. While he emphasizes the importance of maintaining peace and respecting the sovereign's authority, he also recognizes certain liberties of subjects to disobey, particularly when their fundamental rights are at stake. Interpreting Hobbes's philosophy requires navigating these complexities and considering the broader context of his political and moral thought.
The Law: Your Ally and Advocate
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Hobbes does not believe that natural law allows criticism or disobedience of actual laws made by a government, even if they are immoral.
Hobbes argues that subjects have a right to self-defence and can disobey or resist when their lives, families, or honour are at stake.
Hobbes states that subjects can obey commands they believe to be sinful without fear of divine punishment. However, subjects must judge whether disobeying a command is consistent with the covenant of obedience and will not threaten the stability of the legal order.
Hobbes defends absolute sovereignty, where the sovereign has the power to interpret and enforce the laws of nature, which are necessary for overall peace.
