UNIT 10 HOBBES: SOVEREIGNTY (PRESENTATION THEMES: STATE OF NATURE, LEVIATHAN, ATOMISTIC INDIVIDALS)⁎

Question 1

10.2 Hobbesian Sovereignty
10.2.1 Need for a Sovereign
10.2.2 Nature of Sovereignty
10.2.3 Types of Sovereign Power

Answer 1

Efficient Pointer Summary Using Keywords

1. Need for Sovereign: Ensures adherence to the social contract, prevents instability, and defends the state from internal and external threats.
2. Role of Fear: Both fear of the sovereign and fear of the state of nature play pivotal roles in creating and maintaining order.
3. Nature of Sovereignty: Absolute, perpetual, undivided, and beyond the contract; sovereign is the ultimate authority.
4. Types of Sovereignty: Monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy are viable forms, but monarchy is preferred for consistency and stability.
5. Legitimacy by Force or Consent: Sovereignty by institution (consent) and acquisition (force) both derive legitimacy from fear.

Mnemonic

N.R.N.T.L.

Need for Sovereign

Role of Fear

Nature of Sovereignty

Types of Sovereignty

Legitimacy by Force or Consent

Detailed Answer

Introduction

Hobbesian sovereignty is central to his political philosophy, emphasizing the need for a supreme authority to enforce the social contract and maintain order. Hobbes’ framework relies on human nature’s distrust and fear, culminating in the establishment of an all-powerful Leviathan.

Body

1. Need for a Sovereign

Despite voluntary social contracts, human nature’s power-hungry tendencies necessitate a sovereign to ensure adherence.

The sovereign enforces the contract, defends the state, and prevents instability caused by individual self-interest.

Fear of sovereign power ensures compliance, just as fear of the state of nature motivates individuals to form a commonwealth.

2. Role of Fear

Fear is foundational:

Fear of the state of nature prompts the creation of the social contract.

Fear of the sovereign sustains obedience and stability.

Without the sovereign’s power to instill fear, the social contract is ineffective.

3. Nature of Sovereignty

Absolute and Perpetual: Sovereign powers cannot be revoked, shared, or limited.

Above the Contract: The sovereign, not being a party to the contract, is not bound by it.

Ultimate Authority: Sovereign enacts and interprets laws, is above the law, and ensures justice.

Metaphorical Representation: Sovereignty is the “soul” of the Leviathan, with citizens forming its body and the sovereign acting as its head.

4. Legitimacy by Force or Consent

Sovereignty by Institution: Established by consent through a covenant, driven by mutual fear in the state of nature.

Sovereignty by Acquisition: Established by force, legitimized by subjects’ implicit agreement in exchange for security.

Hobbes equates the legitimacy of both forms, emphasizing fear as the common foundation.

5. Types of Sovereign Power

Monarchy: Sovereignty vested in one person; preferred by Hobbes for its consistency, secrecy, and avoidance of factionalism.

Aristocracy: Sovereignty in a small group; prone to internal divisions.

Democracy: Sovereignty with the people; risks factionalism and power struggles.

While Hobbes favors monarchy, his framework applies universally to all forms of sovereignty.

Conclusion

Hobbesian sovereignty underscores the necessity of absolute authority to maintain societal order. The Leviathan safeguards the commonwealth by channeling the collective fear of instability. Though Hobbes prefers monarchy, his theory accommodates various forms of governance, emphasizing that a strong, centralized power is vital for preventing anarchy.

Would you like a comparison of Hobbesian sovereignty with modern democratic governance or a critique of its absolutist elements?

Question 2

10.2.1 Need for a Sovereign
1. According to Hobbes, why is there a need to erect a sovereign in a
commonwealth?

Answer 2

Efficient Pointer Summary Using Keywords

1. Threat to Contract: Human nature’s power-hungry tendencies threaten adherence to the social contract, necessitating enforcement.
2. Covenant Adherence: Future adherence cannot be guaranteed without a central authority.
3. Fear as a Constructive Force: Fear of the violent state of nature drives the creation of the social contract; fear of the sovereign ensures compliance.
4. Guardian Role: The sovereign, established by the people, acts as the enforcer of the covenant.
5. Defending the Commonwealth: The sovereign protects the state from internal instability and external threats.

Mnemonic

T.C.F.G.D.

Threat to Contract

Covenant Adherence

Fear as a Constructive Force

Guardian Role

Defending the Commonwealth

Detailed Answer

Introduction

Hobbes justifies the need for a sovereign even after the voluntary creation of a social contract. He argues that human nature and the inherent instability of agreements necessitate a central authority to enforce order and prevent regression into chaos.

Body

1. Human Nature and Threat to the Social Contract

Hobbes emphasizes that humans remain power-hungry and self-interested even after forming a social contract.

This poses a constant threat to the agreement’s stability.

2. Covenant and Adherence

Hobbes describes the contract as a covenant—a promise of future adherence.

Future adherence is unreliable without enforcement, leading to potential unpredictability and instability.

3. Fear as a Constructive Element

Fear of the State of Nature: Motivates individuals to leave the violent anarchy and form a social contract.

Fear of the Sovereign: Ensures compliance with the covenant, stabilizing society.

4. Sovereign as a Guardian

The sovereign is established by the people to protect the social contract.

This central authority ensures adherence and enforces order.

5. Defense Against Threats

Beyond internal stability, the sovereign defends the commonwealth from external threats, such as rival states.

Conclusion

Hobbes argues that a sovereign is essential for societal stability, acting as an enforcer of the social contract and a protector against both internal chaos and external aggression. The sovereign’s legitimacy is grounded in its ability to instill fear and maintain order.

Would you like a critique or further analysis of Hobbes’ reliance on fear in governance?

Question 3

10.2.2 Nature of Sovereignty

2. In Hobbes’ view, what are the chief characteristics of sovereignty?
   Explain them in brief.

Answer 3

Efficient Pointer Summary Using Keywords

1. Leviathan Metaphor:

The state is an artificial person (Leviathan): Sovereignty is its soul; the sovereign is the head, and citizens are its body.

Without sovereignty, the state cannot function, akin to a body without a soul.

2. Sovereign and the Social Contract:

Sovereign is created by the social contract but is not a party to it.

People surrender all rights (except self-preservation) to the sovereign, granting it absolute power.

3. Characteristics of Sovereignty:

Perpetual: Sovereignty lasts indefinitely.

Inalienable: Cannot be transferred or removed.

Undivided: Power is central and cannot be shared.

Absolute: The sovereign is not bound by laws or the contract.

4. Fear as a Foundation:

Fear of the state of nature motivates creating the contract.

Fear of the sovereign ensures compliance, acting as the ultimate binding force.

5. Two Types of Sovereignty:

By Institution: Sovereign created through agreement (consent-based).

By Acquisition: Sovereign established through force, legitimized by fear and security guarantees.

6. Ultimate Power of the Sovereign:

Sovereign decides natural law and justice.

The sovereign retains rights from the state of nature to preserve itself and the commonwealth.

Any state, even one maintained by cruelty, is preferable to the chaos of anarchy.

Mnemonic

L.S.C.F.T.U.

Leviathan Metaphor

Sovereign and Social Contract

Characteristics of Sovereignty

Fear as Foundation

Types of Sovereignty

Ultimate Power of Sovereign

Detailed Explanation

Introduction

Hobbes outlines the nature of sovereignty as central to the functioning of a stable state. He uses the metaphor of the Leviathan to emphasize the indispensable role of sovereignty in uniting individuals into a cohesive commonwealth.

Body

1. Leviathan as the State

The state is visualized as a body politic, where sovereignty serves as its soul and the sovereign as its head.

Without sovereignty, the state disintegrates into chaos, like a body without a soul.

2. Sovereign’s Relationship with the Social Contract

Although created by the people through the social contract, the sovereign is outside the contract.

Citizens surrender all rights (except self-preservation), granting the sovereign absolute authority for enforcement.

3. Characteristics of Sovereignty

Perpetual: Sovereignty cannot be dissolved.

Inalienable: Sovereign power cannot be transferred or shared.

Undivided: Central authority avoids rival power structures.

Absolute: Sovereign is above the law and contract to ensure order.

4. Fear as the Binding Force

Fear of the state of nature leads to the creation of the contract.

Fear of the sovereign’s power ensures obedience, maintaining the commonwealth’s stability.

5. Types of Sovereignty

By Institution: Sovereign created through voluntary agreement, driven by fear of mutual harm.

By Acquisition: Sovereign established by force; subjects accept it in exchange for security, legitimizing even conquest.

6. Unlimited Powers of the Sovereign

The sovereign defines natural law and justice, enforcing laws without being constrained.

Retaining powers from the state of nature ensures self-preservation, equating the sovereign’s survival to that of the state.

Conclusion

Hobbes’ conception of sovereignty as absolute and indivisible is central to avoiding the anarchy of the state of nature. Fear serves as the foundation of compliance, making sovereignty a binding force for societal stability, regardless of its origin—consent or conquest.

Question 4

10.2.3 Types of Sovereign Power

Answer 4

Efficient Pointer Summary Using Keywords

1. Three Types of Sovereign Authority:

Monarchy: Power held by a single person.

Aristocracy: Power held by a small group of people.

Democracy: Power held collectively by the people.

2. Hobbes’ Preference for Monarchy:

Better Counsel: Monarch can seek private advice, ensuring openness without fear.

Consistency: Decisions made by one individual are more uniform than those by groups.

Avoids Factionalism: Eliminates internal rivalries and power struggles seen in assemblies.

Simplified Succession: Monarch decides the process or successor, reducing disputes.

3. Flexibility of the Theory:

While Hobbes prefers monarchy, his theory of sovereignty remains applicable to aristocracy or democracy.

Mnemonic

M.A.D. Preference:

Monarchy

Aristocracy

Democracy

Detailed Explanation

Introduction

Hobbes categorizes sovereign authority into three types, arguing for monarchy as the most effective. His reasoning emphasizes practicality, stability, and the minimization of conflict.

Body

1. Types of Sovereign Authority

Monarchy: Power concentrated in a single ruler.

Aristocracy: Sovereign power resides with a small, select group.

Democracy: Power distributed among the general populace.

2. Reasons for Preference for Monarchy

Private Counsel:

A monarch can consult advisors privately, promoting candid and effective discussions.

Assemblies in aristocracy or democracy often stifle open dialogue due to fear of judgment.

Decision-Making Consistency:

A single ruler provides steady governance, avoiding contradictions or delays inherent in group decisions.

Avoidance of Factionalism:

Democratic and aristocratic assemblies are prone to internal divisions, leading to rivalries, inefficiency, and possible civil war.

Simplified Succession:

Monarchs decide their successor or the process, reducing the risk of disputed leadership transitions common in other systems.

3. Flexibility in Application

Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty is not exclusive to monarchy.

Sovereignty’s absolute and undivided nature applies equally to aristocracies or democracies if established through a social contract.

Conclusion

Hobbes’ endorsement of monarchy stems from its simplicity and resistance to internal instability. However, his sovereign model accommodates other systems, provided they adhere to the principles of absolute, indivisible authority.

Question 5

10.3 Powers and Privileges of the Sovereign
10.3.1 Liberty of the Subjects
10.3.2 Right to Self-Preservation
10.3.3 Religion and the Sovereign

Answer 5

Efficient Pointer Summary Using Keywords

1. Powers & Privileges of the Sovereign

Unlimited Power: Sovereign has supreme authority across all spheres—law, knowledge, war, and governance.

No Accountability: Sovereign cannot be punished, removed, or deemed unjust.

Lawmaking Authority: Sole interpreter and enactor of laws, above all legal constraints.

Judicial Authority: Ultimate adjudicator in all matters, including scientific and philosophical debates.

Military & Foreign Affairs: Sole authority to declare war or make peace.

2. Liberty of the Subjects

Definition of Liberty: Freedom to act according to one’s will without physical hindrance.

Consent-based Restriction: Social contract limits liberty, but it is based on subjects’ consent.

Fear vs. Freedom: Fear of the sovereign is consistent with liberty—better than the fear-driven liberty of the state of nature.

Practical Freedom: Subjects enjoy freedom as long as the sovereign does not explicitly forbid actions.

3. Right to Self-Preservation

Unalienable Right: Individuals retain the right to protect their life.

Sovereign’s Limitations: Sovereign cannot demand self-harm or compel actions that jeopardize life.

Competency of Sovereign: If the sovereign fails to protect citizens’ lives, they have the right to defend themselves.

4. Religion and the Sovereign

Private vs. Public Beliefs: Individuals may hold personal religious beliefs, but public religious practice must align with the sovereign.

Religious Control: The sovereign must have authority over public religious expressions to prevent religious factions from competing with the state.

True Religion & Reason: Religion must be compatible with reason, with the sovereign maintaining supremacy even in religious matters.

Mnemonic

P.R.I.S.M. Powers:

Powers of the sovereign (law, knowledge, war).

Right to self-preservation.

Interpretation of laws and religion.

Sovereign as the supreme authority.

Materialist view on religion.

Detailed Explanation

Introduction

Hobbes articulates the extensive powers of the sovereign in his political theory. The sovereign’s authority is designed to maintain peace, order, and security, ensuring the survival of the commonwealth. However, this immense power raises questions about the liberty of subjects, which Hobbes addresses by comparing it to the freedom experienced in the chaotic state of nature.

Body

1. Powers and Privileges of the Sovereign

The sovereign possesses absolute power in all areas, including lawmaking, judicial authority, military command, and the power to control religious practices.

The sovereign is not answerable to any law or entity; their commands are above reproach, and subjects must obey without question.

There is no check on the sovereign’s authority. They are the ultimate decision-maker, even in matters of knowledge, as they dictate which scientific and philosophical truths are to be accepted.

2. Liberty of the Subjects

Liberty for Hobbes means the absence of physical hindrance to one’s will. In contrast to the state of nature, where freedom is tainted by constant fear, subjects under a sovereign are relatively free—free to act within the limits set by the sovereign.

Hobbes differentiates between fear of the sovereign (based on consent) and the chaotic fear of the state of nature.

Citizens in a commonwealth are still free to act as long as they do not violate the sovereign’s laws or commands. The fear of punishment in a civil society is seen as more constructive than the fear of death in the state of nature.

3. Right to Self-Preservation

Despite the sovereign’s absolute authority, individuals retain the right to self-preservation. This right overrides any orders from the sovereign that would jeopardize one’s life.

If the sovereign is unable to protect the citizens or is incompetent (e.g., failing to quell rebellion), citizens may protect themselves. This shows that the commonwealth cannot be sustained if the sovereign fails in their duty.

4. Religion and the Sovereign

Hobbes argues that while people are free to hold personal religious beliefs, the public practice of religion must be under the sovereign’s control to avoid conflicts and competition with the state.

This was especially directed at the Catholic Church in his time, which he saw as a rival authority that threatened the sovereign’s control.

The sovereign becomes the ultimate authority in religious matters, ensuring that religion is in line with reason and philosophy, to prevent the rise of competing power structures.

Conclusion

Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty establishes the sovereign as an unchallengeable force, whose absolute power is necessary for maintaining peace and order. While the sovereignty limits individual freedoms, it is far less oppressive than the chaotic liberty in the state of nature. The sovereign’s absolute authority is justified by the necessity of self-preservation and the protection of the commonwealth.

Would you like a more detailed comparison with modern political systems regarding the sovereign’s control?

Question 6

10.3.1 Liberty of the Subjects

Answer 6

Efficient Pointer Summary Using Keywords

1. Definition of Liberty

Liberty = ability to act according to one’s will without physical hindrance (e.g., chains, imprisonment).

Sovereign does not physically hinder, hence subjects have absolute liberty.

2. Social Contract as “Artificial Chains”

Social contract and laws = artificial chains; limit subject’s actions, but consented to by individuals.

Consent: subjects, either implicitly or explicitly, agreed to these limitations.

3. Fear and Liberty

Fear = consistent with liberty; Hobbes argues fear does not restrict freedom if individuals act voluntarily, even under duress (e.g., paying debts out of fear of imprisonment).

Example: throwing goods into the sea to prevent sinking, done out of fear, but willingly chosen.

4. State of Nature vs. Sovereign Rule

In the state of nature, fear of death or powerful others restricted freedom, despite complete liberty.

Under sovereign rule, fear of the sovereign is based on consent, thus providing true freedom in comparison to the chaos of the state of nature.

Freedom in civil society: Subjects are free to act as long as sovereign law doesn’t prohibit it. Silence of law = more freedom.

Mnemonic

C.L.A.S.S.

Consent to artificial chains (social contract).

Liberty = absence of physical hindrance.

Action based on fear = voluntary freedom.

State of nature vs. civil society.

Sovereign = true freedom through consented fear.

Detailed Explanation

Introduction

Hobbes addresses concerns regarding the liberty of individuals under his absolutist theory of sovereignty. Critics may argue that the sovereign’s extensive control over subjects reduces their freedom, but Hobbes counters this by redefining liberty and positioning fear as a natural component of human freedom.

Body

1. Definition of Liberty

Hobbes defines liberty as the ability to act according to one’s will without physical restrictions such as imprisonment or chains. Since the sovereign does not physically constrain subjects, they remain free in Hobbes’ view.

2. Social Contract as “Artificial Chains”

Although the social contract and sovereign laws impose restrictions on individuals, Hobbes argues these are not actual violations of liberty because subjects voluntarily consented to them. This consent—whether implicit or explicit—means individuals accepted these “artificial chains” of their own free will, making it morally unjust to claim they infringe on their liberty.

3. Fear and Liberty

Hobbes discusses the compatibility of fear and liberty by providing examples where fear does not restrict freedom but rather works alongside it. For instance, a person might throw their goods into the sea out of fear of a sinking ship, but the choice is still voluntary—they are not physically hindered.

Similarly, paying debts out of fear of imprisonment is still an act of liberty because it is a willing decision even if fear influences it.

4. State of Nature vs. Sovereign Rule

In the state of nature, where no sovereign exists, humans may have complete liberty but are constantly restricted by the fear of violent death or stronger individuals. The fear is uncontrollable and leads to a life of insecurity and chaos.

In contrast, under a sovereign, the fear of punishment is based on consent and provides true freedom. Citizens can act freely within the limits set by the sovereign, which Hobbes sees as a far more productive and secure form of liberty than the fear-based chaos of the state of nature.

Conclusion

For Hobbes, freedom under an absolutist sovereign is far superior to the freedom in the state of nature, which is constrained by uncontrollable fears. The social contract establishes a system where liberty is defined not by the absence of restrictions but by the absence of physical hindrance and the voluntary nature of the fear that subjects experience.

Would you like further analysis on how Hobbes’ idea of liberty compares to other political theorists like Locke or Rousseau?

Question 7

10.3.2 Right to Self-Preservation

Answer 7

Efficient Pointer Summary Using Keywords

1. Right to Self-Preservation

Self-preservation: The one inalienable right not surrendered to the sovereign.

Individuals are not obliged to obey a sovereign’s order to harm themselves.

Sovereign may use force to enforce decisions, but individuals can defend their right to life.

2. Sovereign’s Duty

Sovereign’s competence: If the sovereign fails to protect the subjects’ right to life, their authority collapses.

Example: If a sovereign cannot stop a rebellion threatening citizens, the commonwealth is in crisis and akin to the state of nature.

3. State of Nature & Rebellion

When the sovereign loses power to protect citizens, the right to self-preservation allows individuals to defend themselves by any means necessary.

Mnemonic

S.O.S.

Sovereign competence is key.

Obedience is not required when self-preservation is at risk.

Self-defense is justified if the sovereign fails.

Detailed Explanation

Introduction

Hobbes, while granting unlimited powers to the sovereign, acknowledges the fundamental right of individuals to preserve their own lives. This right to self-preservation remains inviolable, even when the sovereign’s demands conflict with it.

Body

1. Right to Self-Preservation

Hobbes emphasizes that self-preservation is the one right that citizens do not surrender when entering into the social contract.

If the sovereign commands a person to harm or kill themselves, the individual is not obligated to comply, as this would violate their inherent right to preserve their life.

Even if the sovereign deems someone a threat to the peace of the commonwealth and orders their execution, the individual has the right to self-defense.

2. Sovereign’s Duty

The sovereign’s role is to protect the right to life of the subjects. If the sovereign fails to fulfill this duty, their authority becomes invalid.

For example, if the sovereign is unable to quell a violent rebellion that threatens citizens, the commonwealth’s integrity collapses, and the system enters a state similar to the state of nature—where each person has the right to defend themselves.

In such a crisis, the citizens are no longer obligated to obey the sovereign.

3. State of Nature & Rebellion

If the sovereign cannot protect its people, it loses authority, and individuals are free to act as they would in the state of nature, where they had no higher authority and could self-preserve by any means necessary.

This provides a justification for rebellion when the sovereign fails to ensure the basic right to life.

Conclusion

For Hobbes, while absolute sovereignty is crucial for maintaining order, the right to self-preservation cannot be overridden, even by the sovereign. This limits the sovereign’s power, especially in cases where the right to life is threatened. If the sovereign fails in this regard, citizens have the right to protect themselves by any means necessary, effectively returning to the state of nature.

Would you like to explore how Hobbes’ view of rebellion contrasts with other political thinkers, like Locke, who allow for more justified dissent?

Question 8

10.3.3 Religion and the Sovereign
2. According to Hobbes, what should be the relationship between religious
authorities and the sovereign in his commonwealth?.

Answer 8

Efficient Pointer Summary Using Keywords

1. Religion & Sovereign Power

Private beliefs: Individuals are free to hold personal religious beliefs.

Public religion: Sovereign controls public religious practices.

Hobbes criticizes religions, like Catholicism, that seek authority over citizens, competing with the sovereign.

2. Sovereign’s Role in Religion

Sovereign must be the undisputed head of religious affairs.

Religious practices must align with the sovereign’s control to avoid destabilization.

3. Materialist View on Religion

Hobbes applies materialist principles to critique religious beliefs like miracles and ghosts.

True religion, according to Hobbes, is compatible with reason and philosophy, and thus must support the absolutist sovereign.

Mnemonic

P.U.R.E.

Private beliefs are free.

Under sovereign control in public.

Religion must align with reason.

Exclusively subject to sovereign authority.

Detailed Explanation

Introduction

Hobbes addresses the complex relationship between religious authority and sovereign power, recognizing it as a crucial issue of his time. His key assertion is that religion should not undermine the sovereign’s authority, especially in public matters.

Body

1. Private vs. Public Religion

Hobbes acknowledges that individual beliefs related to religion belong to the private conscience and cannot be compelled by the sovereign. People are free to believe what they wish.

However, Hobbes draws a critical line: public religious practices and institutions must be under sovereign control.

He critiques religions that compete with the sovereign’s authority over public life, with specific focus on the Roman Catholic Church, which claimed power over its followers regardless of state boundaries.

For Hobbes, this was a direct challenge to the idea of a unified sovereign power because a Leviathan must not have two heads—religion and sovereignty cannot be divided.

2. Sovereign as Head of Religious Affairs

Hobbes argues that the sovereign should be the undisputed leader in all matters, including religious affairs.

While citizens may hold private religious beliefs, any public exercise of religion must comply with the sovereign’s direction to maintain order and avoid social instability.

3. Materialist Critique of Religion

Hobbes uses his materialist philosophy to debunk widely accepted religious beliefs of his time, such as faith in miracles, ghosts, or supernatural occurrences.

For Hobbes, true religion aligns with reason and philosophy. Since reason comes from God, true religion should support the sovereign’s absolutist power, as the sovereign is guided by reason and philosophy.

Conclusion

In Hobbes’ view, religion and sovereignty must be unified to ensure order in society. Public religious practices must be subjugated to the sovereign’s authority, while personal religious beliefs remain a matter of private conscience. This is in line with Hobbes’ broader vision of an absolutist sovereign, which has ultimate control over both secular and religious life.

Would you like to explore how Hobbes’ religious views compare to other political philosophers like John Locke, who allows for more religious freedom in the context of sovereignty?

Question 9

10.4 LEGACY OF HOBBES’ IDEAS ON
SOVEREIGNTY

Answer 9

Efficient Pointer Summary Using Keywords

1. Criticism of Hobbes’ Sovereignty

Macpherson (1962): Perpetual sovereignty, irreversible contract, no societal control.

Strauss (1936): Political obligation based on self-interest, fear of punishment.

2. Defense of Hobbes’ Sovereignty

Warrender (1957): Sovereign’s civil law = natural law, political obligation is moral.

Oakeshott (1975): Physical, rational, and moral obligations combine in political duty.

3. Hobbes’ Sovereign

Sovereign must rule in subjects’ interests, avoid interference in private affairs.

Even a cruel sovereign is better than anarchy.

4. Hobbes’ Impact on Sovereignty

Hobbes differed from royalists, sovereignty based on covenant of consent.

Delinked sovereignty from mystical origins, establishing a rational foundation.

5. Hobbesian Individuals

Citizens are rational, equal, self-interested; consent based on self-preservation.

Atomistic conception of individuals influenced liberal theory.

Criticism: Individuals seen as asocial, mechanistic.

Mnemonic

C.D.S.W.O.H.I.S.

Criticism: Deepened contract, Self-interest.

Warrender: Obligations of Hobbes, Individuals, Sovereign.

Main Answer (with Pointers)

Introduction

Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty has greatly influenced debates on sovereignty and political obligation.

Critics argue that Hobbesian sovereignty is too absolute, while defenders emphasize its rational basis.

Hobbes is seen as a modern thinker who delinked sovereignty from its mystical origins and proposed it based on a rational social contract.

Body

Criticism of Hobbes’ Sovereignty

Macpherson (1962) criticized Hobbes for a perpetual sovereignty, meaning the social contract once made, cannot be revised or reformed.

This creates a situation where society has no control over the sovereign, which is a key point of critique.

According to Strauss (1936), Hobbes’ justification for political obligation is grounded primarily in self-interest and the fear of punishment.

This implies that citizens are compelled to obey due to fear, rather than moral or rational considerations.

Defense of Hobbes’ Sovereignty

Warrender (1957) argues that the civil law enacted by the sovereign is actually natural law interpreted in a new form, making the political obligation not just rational, but moral.

The sovereign’s role is not simply as a rule enforcer but as a moral guide who interprets natural law.

Oakeshott (1975) presents a middle path in defending Hobbes’ theory.

He argues that political obligation arises from three sources:

Physical obligation: Force is involved in maintaining peace.

Rational obligation: Driven by self-interest and a desire for peace.

Moral obligation: Stemming from the consent given to the sovereign by citizens.

Hobbes’ Vision of Sovereignty

Hobbes does not advocate for a cruel sovereign but believes that even a cruel sovereign is better than the anarchy of the state of nature.

He argues that a sovereign should act in the interest of the subjects, ensuring peace while not interfering in private matters like economics.

Hobbes’ theory differs significantly from the divine right theory espoused by royalists of his time.

While royalists based the legitimacy of sovereignty on divine will, Hobbes grounded it in a covenant of consent, which was a more rational foundation for political authority.

Hobbes’ Influence on Modern Sovereignty and Political Theory

Hobbes was among the earliest thinkers to delink sovereignty from its mystical roots and rationalized its legitimacy based on consent.

This laid the foundation for modern political philosophy, where authority stems from mutual consent rather than divine or hereditary right.

Hobbes’ concept of sovereignty also left an important legacy in the development of liberal political theory.

His emphasis on the self-interested, rational individual paved the way for a liberal understanding of political subjects.

However, his view of individuals as atomistic and mechanistic has drawn criticism for being asocial, neglecting the social nature of humans.

Hobbesian Individuals

Hobbes described citizens as rational, equal, and self-interested, with each person consenting to the social contract primarily for the purpose of self-preservation.

This made individuals holders of inherent rights to self-preservation.

Critics argue that Hobbes’ atomistic conception of individuals is asocial and mechanistic, reducing people to isolated, self-interested agents.

This model is often seen as neglecting the interdependence of individuals within society.

Conclusion

Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty remains a cornerstone of political philosophy, influencing discussions on political obligation, sovereignty, and individual rights.

While critics highlight the absolute nature of the sovereign and the reliance on self-interest, defenders argue for its rational and moral underpinnings.

His legacy as a modern thinker stems from his rational foundation for sovereignty, which remains a key influence in liberal political theory, even as his conception of the individual has faced criticism.

Question 10

10.4 LEGACY OF HOBBES’ IDEAS ON
SOVEREIGNTY

Answer 10

Efficient Pointer Summary Using Keywords

1. Criticism of Hobbes’ Sovereignty

Macpherson (1962): Perpetual sovereignty, irreversible contract, no societal control.

Strauss (1936): Political obligation based on self-interest, fear of punishment.

2. Defense of Hobbes’ Sovereignty

Warrender (1957): Sovereign’s civil law = natural law, political obligation is moral.

Oakeshott (1975): Physical, rational, and moral obligations combine in political duty.

3. Hobbes’ Sovereign

Sovereign must rule in subjects’ interests, avoid interference in private affairs.

Even a cruel sovereign is better than anarchy.

4. Hobbes’ Impact on Sovereignty

Hobbes differed from royalists, sovereignty based on covenant of consent.

Delinked sovereignty from mystical origins, establishing a rational foundation.

5. Hobbesian Individuals

Citizens are rational, equal, self-interested; consent based on self-preservation.

Atomistic conception of individuals influenced liberal theory.

Criticism: Individuals seen as asocial, mechanistic.

Mnemonic

C.D.S.W.O.H.I.S.

Criticism: Deepened contract, Self-interest.

Warrender: Obligations of Hobbes, Individuals, Sovereign.

Main Answer (with Pointers)

Introduction

Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty has greatly influenced debates on sovereignty and political obligation.

Critics argue that Hobbesian sovereignty is too absolute, while defenders emphasize its rational basis.

Hobbes is seen as a modern thinker who delinked sovereignty from its mystical origins and proposed it based on a rational social contract.

Body

Criticism of Hobbes’ Sovereignty

Macpherson (1962) criticized Hobbes for a perpetual sovereignty, meaning the social contract once made, cannot be revised or reformed.

This creates a situation where society has no control over the sovereign, which is a key point of critique.

According to Strauss (1936), Hobbes’ justification for political obligation is grounded primarily in self-interest and the fear of punishment.

This implies that citizens are compelled to obey due to fear, rather than moral or rational considerations.

Defense of Hobbes’ Sovereignty

Warrender (1957) argues that the civil law enacted by the sovereign is actually natural law interpreted in a new form, making the political obligation not just rational, but moral.

The sovereign’s role is not simply as a rule enforcer but as a moral guide who interprets natural law.

Oakeshott (1975) presents a middle path in defending Hobbes’ theory.

He argues that political obligation arises from three sources:

Physical obligation: Force is involved in maintaining peace.

Rational obligation: Driven by self-interest and a desire for peace.

Moral obligation: Stemming from the consent given to the sovereign by citizens.

Hobbes’ Vision of Sovereignty

Hobbes does not advocate for a cruel sovereign but believes that even a cruel sovereign is better than the anarchy of the state of nature.

He argues that a sovereign should act in the interest of the subjects, ensuring peace while not interfering in private matters like economics.

Hobbes’ theory differs significantly from the divine right theory espoused by royalists of his time.

While royalists based the legitimacy of sovereignty on divine will, Hobbes grounded it in a covenant of consent, which was a more rational foundation for political authority.

Hobbes’ Influence on Modern Sovereignty and Political Theory

Hobbes was among the earliest thinkers to delink sovereignty from its mystical roots and rationalized its legitimacy based on consent.

This laid the foundation for modern political philosophy, where authority stems from mutual consent rather than divine or hereditary right.

Hobbes’ concept of sovereignty also left an important legacy in the development of liberal political theory.

His emphasis on the self-interested, rational individual paved the way for a liberal understanding of political subjects.

However, his view of individuals as atomistic and mechanistic has drawn criticism for being asocial, neglecting the social nature of humans.

Hobbesian Individuals

Hobbes described citizens as rational, equal, and self-interested, with each person consenting to the social contract primarily for the purpose of self-preservation.

This made individuals holders of inherent rights to self-preservation.

Critics argue that Hobbes’ atomistic conception of individuals is asocial and mechanistic, reducing people to isolated, self-interested agents.

This model is often seen as neglecting the interdependence of individuals within society.

Conclusion

Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty remains a cornerstone of political philosophy, influencing discussions on political obligation, sovereignty, and individual rights.

While critics highlight the absolute nature of the sovereign and the reliance on self-interest, defenders argue for its rational and moral underpinnings.

His legacy as a modern thinker stems from his rational foundation for sovereignty, which remains a key influence in liberal political theory, even as his conception of the individual has faced criticism.