Malcolm X Vs. Hobbes And Political Legitimacy

1556 Words 7 Pages
In many ways, the psyche of Malcolm X and Hobbes are very contrastive. But, there were many clear similarities between the two respective philosophers. Political Legitimacy is elaborated upon by each philosopher immensely in each piece of writing. The main differing idea on political legitimacy between the two philosophers was their opinion regarding the government. Malcolm, who grew up experiencing institutional and personal racism, had many critiques of the government. Hobbes is completely opposite; as he believes in the establishment of an absolute sovereign. Malcolm X would interpret Hobbes’ idea of political legitimacy as illegitimate because Hobbes believed in infinite power for the government (tyranny), which was something Malcolm passionately opposed. Thomas Hobbes had a tremendous amount of faith in the government. He believed in the …show more content…
His argument is derived from the idea that a society without government will become a battlefield. The government provides peace through enforcing the law. He feels that regardless of the abuse of authority by the government, the people must abide and never rebel. As a result, the government is always legitimate. As he stated in Leviathan, the state of nature is a state of war. In Hobbes’ idea of the state of nature, everyone is governed by their own desires and will do whatever it takes to acquire what they desire (Leviathan, P. 80). Essentially, Hobbes’ argument to Malcolm would be to accept the injustice that his community faces because a corrupt government is more beneficial than no government. Hobbes would probably feel that that inequality/oppression would be the least of society’s problems if it was lacking government. Hobbes believed a monarchy/aristocracy was the ideal method of governance because of the importance of upholding the law and peace in

Related Documents