hobbes

Essay on Hobbes’ Leviathan
by Charles Glenn

Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, attempts to make a case for monarchical government. He begins by explaining his view of human nature, which is highly constrained, and attempts to use the idea that people have certain alienable and inalienable rights to support his argument.

For Hobbes, humans are unlike the rest of nature. Nature, according to his interpretation, operates in accordance with a set system of natural laws. Animals, for example, do not possess the ability to stray from this natural law. In his arguments, he attempts to explain that natural law is inherently good, but that humans have strayed from it.

However, he does not blame this on human sinfulness, as did Augustine. Instead, he justifies it by identifying certain rights that are alienable and inalienable. Alienable laws are those rights that a person can give up, where inalienable rights are those which cannot be surrendered to another person.

He uses Augustine’s central idea that humans can coexist peacefully only by compromising their wills, or as Hobbes’ puts it, practicing the axiom of "do not do to others as you would not have done to you." He then points out that humans "should" adhere to an even higher standard, namely "do unto others as you would have done to you," but that such a lifestyle is not practical in a world full of other people who are willing to take advantage of this.

To alleviate this condition, Hobbes’ offers an alternative. In his argument, the ideal form of government is one in which each citizen agrees to "give-up" certain rights, on the condition that every other citizen does the same. In so doing, they are electing a single person to represent their interests.

He uses the metaphysics of Christianity to justify this, citing the similarities of the monarchy to the Christian ideal of a single God who represents the interests of all. In fact, he even goes so far as to use the words "mortal God" in reference to the monarch.

After revealing this, he then attempts to solidify his hypothetical monarch’s authority, which is where his argument begins to break down – for if all he said about human nature were true, then a mass of people putting their collective trust in one single individual will "naturally" lead to abuse of power.