It's a fascinating book, though the social contract theory that has been built on it is quite problematic.
Coincidentally, this week's instalment of Existential Comics features Hobbes, and is both funny and incisive:
On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
11–20 of 29 posts
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#12If Syria has taught is anything I hope it is that Hobbes is right -- however bad you think your current government is, civil war or revolution is worse.
Syria tells us nothing, there are many, many governments feeding that war.
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#13If Syria has taught is anything I hope it is that Hobbes is right -- however bad you think your current government is, civil war or revolution is worse.
I think the difficulty with this as a general proposition is that not all rebellions/coups/revolutions end up like Syria. With the benefit of hindsight it seems clear that almost everyone would have been better off leaving Assad be. But this can't be universally true for two reasons.
First, not all revolutions end up like Syria. Relatively bloodless coups are common, and even many civil wars with fighting are much less bloody and disruptive than the Syrian civil war - the US war of independence might be one example.
The second is simply that if no revolution is justifiable, there's nothing to make a despotic monarch give any attention to the needs of their people - as the people will 'sensibly' not revolt anyway. So on the one hand Germans shouldn't resist the holocaust, or Cambodians the killing fields, and on the other you get figures like Charles I and various French Louis' making tensions in their countries far worse because they believe their position is secure. Neither is a template for a happy society.
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but I think the point trying to be made by that last sentence is that in a world ruled by a Hobbesian Sovereign, no single individual has the right to oppose the sovereign. Such rebellion in a Hobbesian world should and would be a punished as a capital offence.
I read it more as OP meaning the social contract is not a suicide pact. Which is correct: a contract must be beneficial to both parties.
a contract must be beneficial to both parties.
Except this isn't Hobbes' position. In his system, the benefit to the populace as a whole occurs only once: at the time the sovereign is invested with authority, ending the "war of all against all".
Once the sovereign has been given power, that's it. In Hobbes' system there are no further responsibilities on the sovereign's part to wield that power for a good purpose. There is no concept of power retained by the people, or power to overthrow the sovereign in the event the sovereign fails to provide what the people desire. In fact, such an idea is a contradiction in terms in Hobbes' system; there can be no power other than that which is possessed by the sovereign, because in Hobbes' system all power is ceded permanently and irrevocably to the sovereign.
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Hobbesian sovereign has only one source of authority, keeping the peace. To the degree multi-nationals keep the peace they have legitimate claims to Hobbesian sovereignty. I'm not saying that Hobbesian sovereignty is a good thing, just pointing to the philosophical mileposts. Locke != Hobbes The only time an individual has the right to oppose the Hobbesian Sovereign is on their way to the gallows. Otherwise, the…
I didn’t understand the last paragraph.
[deleted]
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but I think the point trying to be made by that last sentence is that in a world ruled by a Hobbesian Sovereign, no single individual has the right to oppose the sovereign. Such rebellion in a Hobbesian world should and would be a punished as a capital offence.
I read it more as OP meaning the social contract is not a suicide pact. Which is correct: a contract must be beneficial to both parties.
Yes.
*A Mans Covenant Not To Defend Himselfe, Is Voyd*
A Covenant not to defend my selfe from force, by force, is alwayes voyd.
For (as I have shewed before) no man can transferre, or lay down his
Right to save himselfe from Death, Wounds, and Imprisonment, (the
avoyding whereof is the onely End of laying down any Right,)
and therefore the promise of not resisting force, in no Covenant
transferreth any right; nor is obliging. For though a man may Covenant
thus, "Unlesse I do so, or so, kill me;" he cannot Covenant thus "Unless
I do so, or so, I will not resist you, when you come to kill me." For
man by nature chooseth the lesser evill, which is danger of death in
resisting; rather than the greater, which is certain and present death
in not resisting. And this is granted to be true by all men, in
that they lead Criminals to Execution, and Prison, with armed men,
notwithstanding that such Criminals have consented to the Law, by which
they are condemned.
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it more as OP meaning the social contract is not a suicide pact. Which is correct: a contract must be beneficial to both parties.
a contract must be beneficial to both parties. Except this isn't Hobbes' position. In his system, the benefit to the populace as a whole occurs only once: at the time the sovereign is invested with authority, ending the "war of all against all". Once the sovereign has been given power, that's it. In Hobbes' system there are no further responsibilities on the sovereign's part to wield that power for a good purpose. Th…
The ongoing benefit of the social contract is that the sovereign keeps the peace. If the sovereign fails to keep the peace, the sovereign is no longer sovereign (in the Hobbesian sense of 'sovereign'). As Dennis the Peasant says "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses." [1] That's why Leviathan's frontspiece [2] depicts the body sovereign as comprising many individuals rather than solid.
[1]: "not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leviathan_by_Thomas_Hobbe...
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t understand the last paragraph.
Not OP, but I think the point trying to be made by that last sentence is that in a world ruled by a Hobbesian Sovereign, no single individual has the right to oppose the sovereign. Such rebellion in a Hobbesian world should and would be a punished as a capital offence.
Not what I meant, see my comments further down. Opposition is a superior right when faced with certain death at the direction of the sovereign. This has implications in terms of the relationship of Hobbes to political anarchy in cases where politcal anarchy opposes conscription as oppression by the state. [1] Then it becomes a matter of the degree to which death is certain.
[1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DiYlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT180&lpg=...
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but I think the point trying to be made by that last sentence is that in a world ruled by a Hobbesian Sovereign, no single individual has the right to oppose the sovereign. Such rebellion in a Hobbesian world should and would be a punished as a capital offence.
Not what I meant, see my comments further down. Opposition is a superior right when faced with certain death at the direction of the sovereign. This has implications in terms of the relationship of Hobbes to political anarchy in cases where politcal anarchy opposes conscription as oppression by the state. [1] Then it becomes a matter of the degree to which death is certain. [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DiYl…
Glad you could clear that up! My inability to interpret your comment is only surpassed by my inability to interpret Hobbes ;)
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#20If Syria has taught is anything I hope it is that Hobbes is right -- however bad you think your current government is, civil war or revolution is worse.
The American Civil War suggests the opposite may be true when the "your" in "your government" starts to become unpacked. "All civil wars are bad" produces logical contradictions such as both the rise and the fall of the Soviet Union were bad.