Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher, is best known for his work Leviathan (1651), where he presents a radical and influential theory of human nature and political authority. Hobbes’ political philosophy is grounded in his understanding of human nature, which he believes is inherently selfish and driven by fear, desire, and self-preservation. His theory of sovereignty, where a powerful sovereign authority is necessary to maintain peace and security, stems directly from his view of human beings and the chaos they would create without such authority.
Hobbes’ View of Human Nature
Hobbes’ conception of human nature is rooted in the idea that humans, in their natural state, are driven primarily by self-interest. He argues that, in the absence of a higher authority or governing body, individuals would act based on their instinctual desires, particularly those of self-preservation. Hobbes is a materialist, meaning he believes that all human actions can be explained by physical causes, including desires, emotions, and behaviors.
He famously describes the natural state of mankind as a condition of war, where life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” According to Hobbes, without the constraints of a sovereign power, individuals would be in constant conflict with one another as they each pursue their own interests, leading to a “state of nature” that is chaotic, violent, and insecure. This pessimistic view of human nature stems from his belief that humans are fundamentally equal in their ability to harm one another and are motivated by the same desires for security and resources.
In Hobbes’ view, humans are not naturally social or cooperative, but instead are driven by fear of death, the desire for material goods, and the quest for self-preservation. The natural state is one where there are no laws, no property rights, and no guarantee of personal safety. It is a state of constant uncertainty and potential violence, where individuals are in competition for the same limited resources.
The State of Nature and the Social Contract
Hobbes argues that in the state of nature, individuals would be in a constant state of fear and insecurity, unable to trust one another. To escape this chaos, individuals enter into a social contract, agreeing to give up certain freedoms in exchange for security and protection. The social contract, for Hobbes, is not a voluntary or moral agreement but a rational choice driven by the fear of death and the desire for peace.
According to Hobbes, the social contract entails individuals surrendering their natural rights to a sovereign authority, which he refers to as the Leviathan—a powerful, centralized entity with absolute authority. This sovereign, in Hobbes’ view, must have unlimited power to ensure peace and prevent the return of the state of nature. The social contract is thus a way to create a civil society that guarantees order, security, and protection from violence.
Hobbes’ social contract is unique because, unlike later theorists such as John Locke or Jean-Jacques Rousseau, he argues that the social contract does not necessarily involve the consent of the governed or the idea of a democratic government. For Hobbes, the main objective is security, and any form of government, whether monarchical or aristocratic, is legitimate as long as it can ensure peace and prevent disorder. Therefore, the sovereign’s authority must be absolute and unchallengeable, as even a small division of power would lead to instability and a breakdown of social order.
Hobbes’ Theory of Sovereignty
The concept of sovereignty is central to Hobbes’ political philosophy. The sovereign is the ultimate authority in Hobbes’ system and is entrusted with the power to maintain peace, enforce laws, and defend the state from internal and external threats. Hobbes argues that in order to prevent the collapse of society into anarchy, the sovereign must have absolute power over all aspects of the political and legal system.
- Absolute Sovereignty: According to Hobbes, once individuals consent to the social contract, they transfer all their rights to the sovereign, making the sovereign above the law. The sovereign has the right to impose laws, taxes, and even decide matters of life and death. This absolute sovereignty is essential to maintaining social order and ensuring that the state can effectively exercise its power to prevent civil war and ensure security.
- Centralized Authority: Hobbes advocates for a strong, centralized government, ideally in the form of a monarchy, though he allows for other forms of rule such as an aristocracy or democracy. Regardless of the specific form, the sovereign must be undivided and indivisible in order to exercise effective authority. A divided sovereignty, in Hobbes’ view, would lead to conflict and weaken the state.
- No Right of Resistance: One of the most controversial aspects of Hobbes’ theory is his rejection of the right of resistance. Once individuals have surrendered their natural rights to the sovereign, they have no right to challenge or resist the sovereign’s decisions, no matter how tyrannical or unjust the ruler may seem. For Hobbes, obedience to the sovereign is essential for the preservation of order and security. The sovereign must be obeyed even if they act immorally or oppressively because the alternative is the chaos of the state of nature.
Criticism of Hobbes’ Views on Human Nature and Sovereignty
While Hobbes’ theories are foundational to modern political thought, they have been subject to significant criticism from both liberal and republican thinkers.
- Pessimistic View of Human Nature: Hobbes’ view of human nature has been criticized for being overly pessimistic and reductive. His assumption that humans are primarily driven by fear, self-interest, and desire for power has been challenged by thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argued that humans in the state of nature are not inherently selfish but are instead cooperative and peaceful. Critics also argue that Hobbes fails to account for the capacity for altruism and moral behavior that can exist in human societies.
- Authoritarianism and Absolute Sovereignty: Hobbes’ theory has also been criticized for justifying authoritarian rule. His support for absolute sovereignty, where the ruler has unchecked power, has been seen as a justification for tyranny and the suppression of individual freedoms. In modern democratic theory, the idea of absolute, unchallengeable authority is seen as incompatible with the principles of popular sovereignty and individual rights.
- Denial of the Right to Resistance: Hobbes’ assertion that citizens have no right to resist the sovereign has been widely criticized. Modern political philosophers, particularly those in the liberal tradition, argue that citizens must always have the right to rebel against unjust rulers. The idea of a right of revolution has been central to democratic theory, and many argue that Hobbes’ theory fails to recognize the moral obligation of citizens to resist tyranny.
- Lack of Moral Consideration: Hobbes’ emphasis on security and order over moral values has led some to critique his work for lacking a moral compass. By focusing solely on the survival of the state, Hobbes seems to neglect the importance of justice, fairness, and the protection of human dignity.
Conclusion
Hobbes’ views on human nature and sovereignty represent a foundational contribution to modern political philosophy. His theory of the state of nature, the social contract, and the necessity of a powerful sovereign has shaped the development of political thought. Although his ideas are often criticized for their pessimism and authoritarian implications, Hobbes’ work remains a key text in understanding the nature of power, authority, and the role of the state in regulating human behavior. Hobbes’ insistence on absolute sovereignty and the need for a powerful central authority has had a lasting influence on theories of authoritarianism and state power, while his view of human nature continues to spark debates about the role of fear, self-interest, and cooperation in human societies.
Leave a Reply