It can be difficult to establish a new political system, but even more so when you are trying to prop up the old system in new ways and with new invigoration. The democracy of Ancient Greece was long ago replaced by the Caesars of Rome, fortifying power into a singular man. The tyrant or monarch had ruled the vast majority of counties for some time now, and the people had become discontent with their rulers. Seeing the civil unrest about him, Thomas Hobbes saw issues and opportunity. Hobbes, in an effort to win his countrymen, published a treatise which kicked off the next iteration of political philosophy. In his book, Leviathan, Hobbes reasoned and gave his opinion of man, government, and the play between them. He considered how both these two entities functioned on their own as well as together and how they both maximize their productivity and longevity in a synergistic function. He looked at man as a political creature, needing civilization in order to have even the basic structure of morality. He saw the necessity of contracts between rational creatures for the building blocks of any kind of polis and morality. Then he gave his solution for generational political structure within the construct of a commonwealth based upon contracts. This work is the starting point for the next generation of political thought and theory.
To start off, Hobbes begins at the necessary point of consideration: man. He starts by setting man into his place within all things. “For men measure, not only other men, but all other things, by themselves” (50). This statement is not a new one within philosophy, but it is an interesting one to be made by a man claiming to be a Christian. It is troubling because it removes the objective truth of the Bible and God and sets everything to being objective under man’s thoughts. Hobbes is consistent with himself throughout his work. He does make man out to be the measure of all things, including morality. He sets forth a new standard of morality, one that is based upon the collective commonwealth and not the individual. This can be seen by considering how he speaks about virtue. “Virtue generally, in all sorts of subjects, is somewhat that is valued for eminence; and consisteth in comparison. For if all things were equally in all men, nothing would be prized” (66). Virtue here is more along the lines of how Plato or Aristotle would refer to the Greek word “Arete” which is common translated as virtue and means “excellence in action.” So, excellence is valued, and all men cannot all perform or function at the same level in everything, which leads to hierarchies within society. This is interesting because he does see that there is a balance within life.
Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself. (84)
While men are not created equal, there is still an equality that happens within society at large that does make an allowance for all men to have value and a purpose. Throughout his work, he does not reference those of lesser abilities or disabilities, so the layering of giftedness within society is unclear.
On a related note, he does set forth an interesting play between the virtues or attributes of power, honor, and worth for man’s usefulness within a society to help understand how to set up society. To give his definitions of these things in the order that he gave them, “The power of a man, to take it universally, is his present means to obtain some future apparent good” (72). While “honour consisteth only in the opinion of power” (75). Yet, “Worthiness is a thing different from the worth or value of a man, and also from his merit or desert, and consisteth in a particular power or ability for that whereof he is said to be worthy; which particular ability is usually named fitness, or aptitude” (76). So, power is the ability to do a future good within society and only those who can do those things are worthy of honor, but to ascribe worth to a person is to measure their fitness or aptitude of doing a task. There was more at stake here though because these attributes are also what caused men to follow other men. “Again, men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all” (85). Men want to be lead and captivated by those who are better than them. Hobbes could see that they wanted a leader. A leader to what end though? The end that Hobbes believes that man should be aiming for can be found by starting from his right of nature: “The right of nature, which writers commonly call jus naturale, is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto” (86). Each man has the right to protect his life from those who would take it. This is the basis, the starting point, for Hobbes’ existence of man. He does not stop there though for from life should come peace. “that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war” (86). When a life is threatened, one has the right to defend it. What if one is not strong enough to defend himself from those who would take his life? Now from one perspective, Hobbes had a very low view of man before society based upon the history that he was looking at that made the need for defense real, “Also amongst men, till there were constituted great Commonwealths, it was thought no dishonour to be a pirate, or a highway thief; but rather a lawful trade, not only amongst the Greeks, but also amongst all other nations; as is manifest by the histories of ancient time” (75). If this was the normal way of life before the Commonwealth, what hope did man have but to live by force and violence?
Hobbes could see that man’s only hope would be to unite against a common foe. The thing that Hobbes saw as binding men together were contracts, under so many names: “and then the contract on his part is called pact, or covenant”(88). He starts off by defining contracts: “The mutual transferring of right is that which men call contract” (87). This transferring of rights is the foundation of his whole system as can be seen in the next section. It is bartering in the simplest sense. Someone who is too weak to protect themselves hires someone to protect them. In return, the protected would do something for the protector. He has staunch beliefs in covenants and gave several rules for them. A few of them being vastly important for his system to work. First off, how to get out of them, “Men are freed of their covenants two ways; by performing, or by being forgiven” (89). This ties into another of his rules: “that men perform their covenants made” (91). He had no room for men who could not keep their word. A contract also could not go against the laws of nature, “A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void” (90). A man could not agree to not defend himself against attack. This he saw as a basic human instinct that could not removed. Finally, “A former covenant makes void a later” (90). The making of a new promise would not negate the ones of old. Hobbes’ idea of covenant directly ties into his system of morality as well, “As justice dependeth on antecedent covenant” (93). This idea of justice depending upon covenant does not sit well for if there is no covenant between people, then there could be no injustice between them. This seems to fall short of the current understanding of “justice for all”. He does define justice a little differently that does seem to help with this trouble, “justice is the constant will of giving to every man his own” (91). The point of justice is to make man whole again, giving to him what he is due. If this is his definition of it, then one could argue that the only thing owed between men who are unknown to each other is their lives. Property laws are null and void and must be established between each neighbor. As seems to be clear, there are some problems here, and they do not stop here. Here is the giant hole that is in his idea that justice is dependent upon contracts: it is that morality then becomes relative. The first section to consider is this:
And the science of them is the true and only moral philosophy. For moral philosophy is nothing else but the science of what is good and evil in the conversation and society of mankind. Good and evil are names that signify our appetites and aversions, which in different tempers, customs, and doctrines of men are different: and diverse men differ not only in their judgement on the senses of what is pleasant and unpleasant to the taste, smell, hearing, touch, and sight; but also of what is conformable or disagreeable to reason in the actions of common life. Nay, the same man, in diverse times, differs from himself; and one time praiseth, that is, calleth good, what another time he dispraiseth, and calleth evil: from whence arise disputes, controversies, and at last war. (96)
He has set up that good and evil are both human constructs and vary from culture to culture. If this is true, morality is truly relative. Yet two paragraphs before this, Hobbes says this, “The laws of nature are immutable and eternal; for injustice, ingratitude, arrogance, pride, iniquity, acception of persons, and the rest can never be made lawful” (95). If these moral issues are immutable and eternal, how can they be dependent upon the culture? This is the troubling part about basing morality upon contracts and covenants.
Hobbes’ idea is to build a society upon covenants and contracts in order to unite men together and to stop them from warring.
The final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as hath been shown, to the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants, and observation of those laws of nature set down. (99)
Men need leadership in order for them to live together. There has to be something that binds them all together. Hobbes also believed that there must also be something that keeps them together: “Lastly, the agreement of these creatures is natural; that of men is by covenant only, which is artificial: and therefore it is no wonder if there be somewhat else required, besides covenant, to make their agreement constant and lasting; which is a common power to keep them in awe and to direct their actions to the common benefit” (100). A promise to keep and a power to keep in check. This is what sets up his Leviathan. Hobbes put forth a covenant for all men to live by under a commonwealth. This is the oath to be sworn:
I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a Commonwealth; in Latin, Civitas. This is the generation of that great Leviathan, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence. (100)
All men within a society, according to Hobbes, was to give up all of his right unto the leader of the commonwealth, thus forming the Leviathan. This is where one would give up their rights in order to come under those who rule. This would be the transfer of rights for justice to be needed or fulfill from earlier. The followers would transfer their rights to the Leviathan for protection and leadership and the Leviathan would do just that. The Leviathan would be the protector, judge, and executioner of the laws of the land. Through the Leviathan, or Commonwealth, society would take its shape.
But as men, for the attaining of peace and conservation of themselves thereby, have made an artificial man, which we call a Commonwealth; so also have they made artificial chains, called civil laws, which they themselves, by mutual covenants, have fastened at one end to the lips of that man, or assembly, to whom they have given the sovereign power, and at the other end to their own ears. These bonds, in their own nature but weak, may nevertheless be made to hold, by the danger, though not by the difficulty of breaking them. (113)
Laws become the chains that hold men up to the standard that is set within society by the Leviathan, and man must obey the laws under the pain of the Leviathan. This is the new flow of justice. The level of freedom and life would be dependent upon the Leviathan to set as Hobbes was one to follow the letter of contracts. “As for other liberties, they depend on the silence of the law. In cases where the sovereign has prescribed no rule, there the subject hath the liberty to do, or forbear, according to his own discretion” (116). As long as there was no law against an action, it was free for the common citizen to do.
Hobbes had a fairly normal view of man within the cosmos, but the view is interesting within the Christian worldview that he ascribed. Seeing man as the judge and measure of all things around him puts man into an interesting position. Seeing the importance of contracts within society does make perfect sense for several reasons. Men should be men of their word. It also gives an order to life that is easy to transfer to the next generation. Ordering life under the rule of the Leviathan is potentially the hardest pill for an American to swallow. His lack of appeal to the divine right of kings is interesting. The simplicity of a totalitarian government is appealing, except for the fact that it has always led to the oppression of at least a portion of the society.
Works Cited
Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan, Or, Matter, Form, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil. Great Books of the Western World. Ed. Mortimer J. Adler, Philip W. Goetz, and Nelle Fuller. Second Edition. Vol. 21. Chicago: Robert P. Gwinn; Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 1990. Print.