Prompt: Some critics have claimed that Hobbes’s political theory betrays his science (if we are so rational, for example, why is the best government an absolute monarchy?) Is this claim true or false? Or is it true in part and false in part?
I. Introduction
i. Opening remarks
Thomas Hobbes is by far and large considered to be the founding father of modern political philosophy. Any political conflict can be assimilated into elements that have roots in his ideas. He was a part of a ‘new breed’ of political thinkers who eschewed their works from theological platforms, unlike prior Aristotelian thinkers. A special feature of his work is his incorporation of a scientific style to study human nature. Hobbes gets his evidence from introspection, …show more content…
The rights in the common-wealth are surrendered to the ‘Leviathan’ implying that all the citizens are compelled to follow the sovereign’s commands pertaining to their defense (121). A key argument that Hobbes makes here is that in a situation where a man is severely displeased with his government, and if he begins acting in a way that is countercurrent to the wishes of the monarch (he is specific about the type of sovereign body in this case), the results shall be more detrimental to the society, as the good fortune of every man in a sovereign body aggregates to the prosperity of the monarch, therefore guaranteeing that there can be no situation where a monarch acts in such an oppressive manner (128). To Hobbes, the worst case scenario is “a Civill warre; or that dissolution condition of masterlesse men, without subjection to Lawes, and a coercive power to tye their hands from rapine, and revenge” (128). It is easy to see where Hobbes is coming from, in that his thought experiment would ideally make sense, and his argument of the monarch wanting his greater good to a greater extent is what happens even in reality. But if we were to consider Hobbes’s words as Gospel, then should society willingly surrender large portions of their income and go down to bare necessity level just because they know that the alternative is worse? Should society give up their right to protest and disagree just …show more content…
“A free man, is he, that in those things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to doe what he has a will to” To tie up Hobbes’s idea of ‘freedom’, they can be termed as ‘non commitment’ and ‘non obstruction’.
ii. Relationship between fear and liberty
“Fear and liberty are consistent (146)”. “ So a man sometimes pays his debt, only for feare of Imprisonment, which because no body hindered him from detaining, was the action of a man at liberty.(146)”. Hobbes says that one is only truly free when he has surrendered his fear and power to the Leviathan, otherwise he lives in the state of nature fear is prevalent. The subjects should not have fear since the Leviathan should protect them. It is important to note here, that in reality the Leviathan is not divine, therefore it is impossible for it to completely protect its subjects, why does Hobbes not acknowledge that? iii. Extent of liberty
“When the words free and liberty are applied to anything but bodies, they are abused (146)”. “Every act of mans will, and every desire and inclination proceedeth from some cause, and that from another cause, in a continuall chaine, they proceed from
I. Introduction
i. Opening remarks
Thomas Hobbes is by far and large considered to be the founding father of modern political philosophy. Any political conflict can be assimilated into elements that have roots in his ideas. He was a part of a ‘new breed’ of political thinkers who eschewed their works from theological platforms, unlike prior Aristotelian thinkers. A special feature of his work is his incorporation of a scientific style to study human nature. Hobbes gets his evidence from introspection, …show more content…
The rights in the common-wealth are surrendered to the ‘Leviathan’ implying that all the citizens are compelled to follow the sovereign’s commands pertaining to their defense (121). A key argument that Hobbes makes here is that in a situation where a man is severely displeased with his government, and if he begins acting in a way that is countercurrent to the wishes of the monarch (he is specific about the type of sovereign body in this case), the results shall be more detrimental to the society, as the good fortune of every man in a sovereign body aggregates to the prosperity of the monarch, therefore guaranteeing that there can be no situation where a monarch acts in such an oppressive manner (128). To Hobbes, the worst case scenario is “a Civill warre; or that dissolution condition of masterlesse men, without subjection to Lawes, and a coercive power to tye their hands from rapine, and revenge” (128). It is easy to see where Hobbes is coming from, in that his thought experiment would ideally make sense, and his argument of the monarch wanting his greater good to a greater extent is what happens even in reality. But if we were to consider Hobbes’s words as Gospel, then should society willingly surrender large portions of their income and go down to bare necessity level just because they know that the alternative is worse? Should society give up their right to protest and disagree just …show more content…
“A free man, is he, that in those things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to doe what he has a will to” To tie up Hobbes’s idea of ‘freedom’, they can be termed as ‘non commitment’ and ‘non obstruction’.
ii. Relationship between fear and liberty
“Fear and liberty are consistent (146)”. “ So a man sometimes pays his debt, only for feare of Imprisonment, which because no body hindered him from detaining, was the action of a man at liberty.(146)”. Hobbes says that one is only truly free when he has surrendered his fear and power to the Leviathan, otherwise he lives in the state of nature fear is prevalent. The subjects should not have fear since the Leviathan should protect them. It is important to note here, that in reality the Leviathan is not divine, therefore it is impossible for it to completely protect its subjects, why does Hobbes not acknowledge that? iii. Extent of liberty
“When the words free and liberty are applied to anything but bodies, they are abused (146)”. “Every act of mans will, and every desire and inclination proceedeth from some cause, and that from another cause, in a continuall chaine, they proceed from