Kara Sears
Thomas Hobbes's views on when individuals can disobey the law are complex and have been the subject of much scholarly debate and interpretation. Hobbes's political philosophy emphasizes the transition from a state of nature to civil society, in which individuals submit to sovereign power to avoid the evils of the natural condition. While Hobbes generally advocates for absolute obedience to the sovereign, he acknowledges certain exceptions where individuals may legitimately disobey or resist sovereign authority. These exceptions, which Hobbes refers to as the true liberties of subjects, include the right to self-defense, preservation of life, and resistance to assault or imprisonment. Scholars have interpreted these exceptions as a recognition of natural law or eternal principles that govern human conduct, independent of religious or divine authority. However, the compatibility of these exceptions with Hobbes's overall defense of absolute sovereignty remains a subject of discussion and interpretation among scholars.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Natural Law | Governs human conduct independently of religious or divine law |
| Obedience to Sovereign | Citizens owe absolute obedience to the sovereign |
| Social Contract | Citizens enter a covenant to obey the sovereign |
| Resistance | Citizens have a right to resist if the sovereign's command falls outside the social contract or endangers their lives |
| Self-Defense | Subjects retain the liberty to disobey or resist when their lives or honor are at stake |
| Preservation of Life | Citizens have a right to preserve their lives and resist harm or imprisonment |
| Freedom | Citizens have freedoms necessary to "live well," including freedom of movement |
| Private Judgment | Citizens can exercise private judgment to determine if a sovereign's command can be legitimately disobeyed |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Hobbes says natural law doesn't justify disobedience to actual laws
- Self-defence and self-preservation are legitimate reasons to disobey
- Resistance is allowed when commands fall outside the social contract
- Subjects retain liberty to disobey some government commands
- Hobbes says we should avoid the state of nature
Hobbes says natural law doesn't justify disobedience to actual laws
Hobbes's views on the relationship between natural law and actual laws made by a government have been a subject of much discussion and interpretation. While some argue that Hobbes's theory allows for resistance to sovereign authority in certain cases, particularly when it comes to self-preservation, others assert that he does not provide scope for criticising or disobeying the laws of the state.
Hobbes's concept of the "state of nature" is central to understanding his position on natural law and its relationship to government laws. The state of nature, according to Hobbes, is a condition of "mere nature", where individuals are in a state of perfectly private judgment, without any recognised authority to arbitrate disputes or enforce decisions. This state, he argues, is undesirable as it lacks the basic security necessary for a comfortable and civil society.
Hobbes's transition from the state of nature to civil society involves individuals giving up their "right of nature" and authorising a sovereign to dictate what is permitted and to punish those who do not obey. This sovereign power, according to Hobbes, is necessary to protect individuals from the evils of the natural condition. He writes, "no man in the Institution of Sovereign Power can be supposed to give away the Right of preserving his own body; for the safety whereof all Soveraignty was ordained". This implies that the purpose of sovereignty is to ensure the right to life and preservation of the self.
However, despite this apparent concession to individual rights, Hobbes maintains that the sovereign power has absolute authority. He writes that "whatsoever is commanded by the Soveraign Power, is as to the Subject ... justified by the command". This suggests that subjects are obligated to obey the sovereign's commands, regardless of their content. In fact, Hobbes goes so far as to say that the sovereign breaches no contract by commanding what the subject cannot perform, such as ordering someone to kill themselves.
While Hobbes does acknowledge the right of self-defence against the sovereign power, he limits this right to cases where an individual's life is in danger. He writes, "no man in the Institution of Sovereign Power can be supposed to give away the Right of preserving his own body". This right to self-preservation is extended to include the freedoms necessary to "live well", such as the right to resist assault, imprisonment, and self-incrimination.
In conclusion, while Hobbes does allow for some exceptions to absolute obedience, his overall argument seems to be that natural law does not justify disobedience to actual laws. He maintains that the sovereign power has the ultimate authority to dictate what is permitted and that subjects are obligated to obey, regardless of their personal judgments or the content of the commands.
How to Sponsor Your Son-in-Law to Canada
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Self-defence and self-preservation are legitimate reasons to disobey
Hobbes's stance on when individuals can disobey the law has been a subject of much discussion and interpretation. While he asserts that governments hold absolute authority, he also acknowledges the existence of certain liberties that justify disobedience.
One of these liberties is the right to self-defence and self-preservation. Hobbes writes that individuals have the right to "preserving his own body; for the safety whereof all Soveraignty was ordained". This right extends beyond physical safety to encompass the freedoms necessary for a good life, such as the right to resist assault, the right to refuse self-harm, and the right to basic necessities like air, water, food, and freedom of movement.
The interpretation of Hobbes's work suggests that individuals can legitimately disobey the sovereign's commands when their lives or well-being are threatened. This interpretation is supported by the idea that the purpose of sovereignty is to ensure the safety and preservation of its subjects. Thus, when a command contradicts this purpose, individuals can justifiably disobey to protect themselves.
However, this interpretation of Hobbes's philosophy has been a subject of debate. Some scholars, like Steinberger, argue that Hobbes's acknowledgment of resistance rights creates an apparent contradiction that casts doubt on the overall coherence of his political thought. This contradiction arises from the tension between the transfer of private judgement to the sovereign and the retention of the right to self-protection.
To reconcile this tension, some interpretations of Hobbes's natural law theory suggest that the natural law prohibits the breaking of covenants once a contract with the sovereign has been entered. This interpretation places a moral obligation on subjects to obey the sovereign, as they have the sole authority to judge whether a covenant has been broken. However, Hobbes also seems to allow for cases where the sovereign's command falls outside the terms of the social contract, creating a nuanced discussion around Hobbesian resistance.
How Presidents Can Enact Laws Legally
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Resistance is allowed when commands fall outside the social contract
Hobbes's stance on when individuals can disobey the law is a complex and much-debated topic. While he asserts that governments hold absolute authority, he also acknowledges the right of subjects to disobey or resist certain commands that fall outside the terms of the social contract.
Hobbes's concept of the "'state of nature'" is crucial to understanding his perspective on law and disobedience. In this state, individuals possess natural rights, and there is no overarching political authority. However, Hobbes argues that this state is inherently unstable due to human egoism and the constant threat of violence.
To escape the "state of nature," individuals enter into a social contract, agreeing to transfer their rights to a sovereign power that will maintain order and enforce laws. This transition from the "state of nature" to civil society is a fundamental aspect of Hobbes's political philosophy.
However, Hobbes recognizes that there may be instances where the sovereign's commands conflict with the terms of the social contract. In such cases, he allows for resistance or disobedience. Specifically, Hobbes writes that individuals have the right to self-preservation and the freedoms necessary to "live well." This includes the right to resist assault, imprisonment, or any command that may endanger their lives.
Additionally, Hobbes extends these resistance rights to situations where one's family or honor is at stake. These "true liberties of subjects," as Hobbes calls them, seem to contradict his defense of absolute sovereignty. Scholars have debated the interpretation of these rights and their compatibility with Hobbes's overall political theory.
In conclusion, while Hobbes generally advocates for obedience to sovereign power, he does allow for resistance or disobedience when commands fall outside the social contract or threaten individuals' well-being, family, or honor. These exceptions highlight the nuanced nature of Hobbes's political philosophy and continue to be a subject of scholarly discussion.
Canadian Laws: Uniformity Across the Provinces and Territories?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Subjects retain liberty to disobey some government commands
Hobbes's stance on the individual's right to resist sovereign authority is nuanced. While he asserts that governments hold absolute authority, he also acknowledges that subjects retain the liberty to disobey certain government commands. This apparent contradiction has intrigued scholars studying Hobbes's work.
Hobbes's concept of the "true liberties of subjects" includes the right to self-defence, allowing subjects to disobey or resist when their lives are endangered. He extends this right beyond physical preservation to encompass the freedoms necessary to "live well". This includes the right to resist assault, imprisonment, or any command that may result in self-harm. Additionally, individuals have the right to refuse to incriminate themselves or others whose loss would negatively impact their lives.
Hobbes's interpretation of natural law further complicates the discussion. He argues that human reason can discern eternal principles to govern conduct, independent of religious or divine influence. These natural laws, according to Hobbes, prohibit the breaking of covenants once entered into, creating a moral obligation for subjects to obey their sovereign. However, he also acknowledges the residual possibility of resistance to preserve one's life, suggesting a potential contradiction in his political thought.
The transition from the state of nature to civil society is a central theme in Hobbes's work. He describes a scenario where individuals surrender their natural rights and authorize a sovereign to enforce laws and maintain order. However, Hobbes concedes that this transition is challenging and often involves force and fraud rather than collective agreement. This contradiction between the idealized social contract and the reality of government formation further adds to the complexity of interpreting Hobbes's position on obedience and disobedience.
In summary, while Hobbes generally advocates for obedience to sovereign power, he also recognizes exceptions where subjects retain the liberty to disobey government commands, particularly when their lives, families, or honour are at stake. These exceptions, or "true liberties of subjects," present a nuanced perspective on the relationship between individual rights and governmental authority in Hobbes's political philosophy.
Helping Your Mother-in-Law: Navigating Legal Status
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Hobbes says we should avoid the state of nature
Thomas Hobbes's political philosophy is centred on the transition from the state of nature to civil society. In his view, the state of nature is a fearsome and chaotic place, where human beings act egoistically and are driven by self-interest. To escape this state of nature, Hobbes argues that individuals must transfer their rights to a sovereign power, who will have absolute authority and be obeyed by all. This transfer of rights is known as the social contract.
However, Hobbes also acknowledges that there may be cases where the sovereign's command falls outside the terms of the social contract, and individuals may have the right to resist or disobey. For instance, Hobbes writes that individuals have the right to self-defence and to resist any assault on their bodies or freedoms. They also have the right to disobey any command that they deem inconsistent with the purpose of sovereignty, such as a command to kill or maim themselves. These rights, which Hobbes calls the "true liberties of subjects", seem to contradict his defence of absolute sovereignty.
Hobbes's position on when individuals can disobey the law has been the subject of much scholarly debate and interpretation. Some argue that Hobbes's concept of natural law, which he believed could be discerned by human reason, prohibits the breaking of covenants once a contract has been entered. This places subjects under a moral obligation to obey their sovereign. However, others interpret Hobbes as saying that we have a moral duty to avoid the state of nature and that we should end it if possible. This interpretation raises questions about the source and obligatoriness of these moral obligations.
Overall, while Hobbes generally argues for absolute obedience to the sovereign, he does allow for exceptions where individuals may legitimately disobey or resist the sovereign's commands, particularly when their lives or freedoms are at stake.
Peace Officer HIPAA Violations: Texas Law and Consequences
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Hobbes says that citizens can disobey the law when the sovereign's command falls outside the terms of the social contract.
Hobbes writes that citizens have the right to self-defence, to resist assault, and to disobey or resist when their lives are in danger.
Hobbes believes that citizens have the right to disobey any command they deem to be inconsistent with the purpose of sovereignty.
Hobbes writes that sovereignty is ordained for the "safety and preservation" of the body, and extended to include the freedoms necessary to "live well".
