PY1104 Tom Waddington
Continous Assesment Essay
Do we need Hobbes’s sovereign if we are to escape the state of nature?
_____________________
In Hobbes’s Leviathan, the idea of the State of Nature is one of the cornerstones in his reasoning.
The State of nature is time before society, where groups and communities have not formed, and
long before any laws or state control. There are many viewpoints on what life would be like in this
State of Nature (SoN), and even wheather it existed in history or not. For Hobbes, the State of
Nature was exceedingly unpleasant. He envisaged theiving, fighting, and no punishment for crime.
His SoN was not specifically pre-social, and encompassed situations in which there was great
disagreement over political control, such as civil war, conquest, rebellion and similar scenarios.
Hobbes based these very strong views on the SoN on two pieces of reasoning. Firstly, goods are
scarce, and always will be. Although people want different things, confilcts will always arise. If a
good can be split, it is often difficult to do so perfectly evenly. Many goods could have multiple
assumed ownership - a plant can be planted by a person, nurtured by another, and harvested by
a third - but all will want their share. Also, scarcity is desirable in itself - luxuries like jewelry, gold, and
gems are all desirable, based largely on the fact that there is not enough to go round. Secondly,
Hobbes argues that people are equal, and none are infallible. If it is assumed that the strongest
person would be better off by force in the SoN, it has to be remembered that they must sleep. No
matter how strong, they can be outwitted, or outnumbered. Putting these two pieces together
forms Hobbes main argument for a sovereign - as rule by force and equality through distribution will
fail, then the third way is to have a leader.
Up to this point, Hobbes’s argument is very strong, although there are some objections. The main
objection is that it is often claimed the SoN is being imagined incorrectly, or cannot be imagined at
all. This would have profound implications - if the SoN was more pleasant, and people had
instinctive moral judgement (to give to the needy, to share and protect each other and maintain
survival), then this line of thinking wouldn’t lead anywhere.
The implementation of this soverign is where Hobbes’s gains strongest critisism. Hobbes envisaged a
leader that would control over any other power, such as parliament or commitee, judge and jury.
He argued that, since humans by nature will disagree, that there needed to be a judgement that
could not be refuted. To protect the subjects of the soverign, Hobbes explained a social contract.
The soveign must keep living standards better than that of life in the SoN. If life is not improved,
citizens are able to disobey the sovereign, for he has broken the contract. However, if life is better,
then the soverign has access to military and policing to ensure that the will of the soveriegn is
imposed on all people. Hobbes argues that the percieved anarchy of the SoN would dissapear if
crimes were resonably punished, and law enforcement was such that commiting crime would
never be beneficial to citizens.
Hobbes brings the point home by showing that any laws imposed on the soverign, or rulership
through committee cannot happen, as to resolve disputes or enforce law, there must always be a
higher power - effectivley an absolute soveriegn. This makes a very convincing argument in favour
of an absolute soveriegn.
However, a stumbling block for Hobbes’s idea that a soverign is the only way to escape the SoN is
in the social contract argument. Hobbes argues that obedience of the soverign must be in the
citizens’ best interests. However, in the case of military conscription, a subject could refuse to go to
war on the grounds of self-preservation - although this could lead to the death penalty being
imposed by the sovereign! There are situations like this which, under Hobbesian soverignty, reach
deadlock.
Another argument against Hobbes deals with the implemetation of the soverign. It can be argued
that the soveriegn does not control absolutley, as obedience is determined by his subjects. A
soverign is only in power when subjects obey punishments. These punishments must be in the
citizens best interests.. Therefore, the soveriegn does not decide absolutley on moral and
fundemental questions of obedience, because this is decided by society as a whole. Because of
this, the soveriegn does not have the complete power argued by Hobbes Ôto secure peace and
harmony’. The soverign is in effect a mouthpiece of society as a whole.
Finally, despite a soverign being in place, there are still huge chances of uprising, tyranny and
rebellion. If a soverign acts on behalf of a marginal majority, then it is possible that this could trigger
a return to a state of nature, as many may consider the social contract breached. This is especially
true in survival and self-preservation. In a situation of a water-shortage, water may be prioritised to
citiesk, and diverted from the country. Though this may serve a majority better, the chances of
uprising are large - a military force, however feasably large could not control a state absolutley.
In conclusion, a soverign is one of the strongest arguments for a move from the state of nature. The
inital arguments of Leviathan are exceptionally convincing, showing the need to move to a
controlled state due to scarcity of goods and that no human could rule by force. However,
Hobbes’ implementation of a soverign is less than perfect, and leaves doors open for a return to
the state of nature.