Hobbes's Justification Of Force In Monarchy Creation And Resistance
Introduction
Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, a cornerstone of Western political philosophy, presents a compelling yet often perplexing argument for the social contract and absolute sovereignty. A central tension within Hobbes's work lies in his justification for the use of force in establishing a monarchy, while simultaneously denouncing the legitimacy of forceful resistance against that very monarchy. This apparent contradiction stems from Hobbes's core assumptions about human nature, the state of nature, and the purpose of government. To fully grasp Hobbes's reasoning, we must delve into his understanding of these foundational concepts and trace the logical pathways that lead him to his seemingly paradoxical conclusions. This article aims to explore this central contradiction within Hobbes's philosophy, providing a comprehensive analysis of his arguments and offering a nuanced understanding of his perspective. Understanding this paradox is crucial for anyone seeking to engage with Hobbes's complex and influential political thought. This article will unravel the intricacies of his arguments, shedding light on the rationale behind his stance on force, legitimacy, and the social contract. By examining his core concepts, we can appreciate the coherence of Hobbes's system, even if we ultimately disagree with its conclusions. This exploration is not merely an academic exercise; it's an opportunity to grapple with fundamental questions about power, authority, and the relationship between the individual and the state – questions that remain relevant in contemporary political discourse.
Hobbes's State of Nature and the Social Contract
To understand Hobbes's justification for force in the creation of a monarchy, it is crucial to first grasp his concept of the state of nature. Hobbes paints a grim picture of human existence without government, a "war of all against all" where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." In this state, individuals are driven by their self-preservation instincts and a relentless desire for power. There is no morality, no justice, and no common authority to enforce order. Every person has a right to everything, even to another's body, leading to perpetual conflict and fear. This bleak depiction of the state of nature serves as the bedrock for Hobbes's argument for absolute sovereignty. He contends that individuals, driven by a rational desire to escape this miserable condition, would willingly enter into a social contract, surrendering their individual rights to a sovereign power capable of maintaining peace and security. This surrender is not based on affection or trust but on a calculated assessment of self-interest. Each individual reasons that the protection offered by a sovereign, even an oppressive one, is preferable to the constant threat of violence and death in the state of nature. The social contract, in Hobbes's view, is not a pact between the people and the ruler, but rather an agreement among individuals to submit to a common authority. This distinction is vital because it means the sovereign is not bound by any obligations to the people. The sovereign's power is absolute and indivisible, necessary to effectively enforce the laws of nature and prevent a relapse into the chaotic state of nature. The sovereign's legitimacy, therefore, derives not from divine right or popular consent but from its ability to provide security and order. Without this absolute power, Hobbes argues, the social contract is meaningless, and society will inevitably collapse into anarchy.
The Legitimacy of Force in Establishing a Monarchy
Given Hobbes's description of the state of nature as a constant war, the establishment of a sovereign power necessitates the use of force, at least initially. In a situation where individuals are driven by self-interest and lack any inherent moral constraints, the only way to create a stable order is through the imposition of a power strong enough to deter aggression and enforce laws. According to Hobbes, the transfer of rights to the sovereign must be comprehensive and irrevocable. Any reservation of individual rights would weaken the sovereign's authority and potentially lead to instability. Therefore, the sovereign must have the power to compel obedience, even through the threat or use of force. This is not to say that Hobbes advocates for gratuitous violence or cruelty. Rather, he sees force as a necessary tool for maintaining order and preventing a return to the state of nature. The sovereign's power to punish, wage war, and control the means of coercion are all essential components of its authority. The legitimacy of the sovereign, in Hobbes's view, lies in its effectiveness in providing security and protecting the lives of its subjects. If a sovereign fails to fulfill this basic function, it loses its legitimacy, and individuals may be justified in seeking a new sovereign capable of providing protection. However, this right to seek a new sovereign does not extend to individual acts of resistance against a functioning sovereign. Hobbes is adamant that any form of rebellion or civil disobedience undermines the sovereign's authority and risks plunging society back into the state of nature. Thus, while force may be necessary to establish a monarchy, it is equally crucial for maintaining its authority and preventing the disintegration of society.
Why Resistance Against a Monarchy is Deligitimized
The crux of Hobbes's argument against resisting a monarchy lies in his unwavering belief that any challenge to the sovereign's authority risks a return to the state of nature. Once individuals have entered into a social contract and surrendered their rights to a sovereign, they cannot legitimately reclaim those rights. Hobbes argues that the social contract is a one-time agreement that cannot be revoked or renegotiated. To allow for resistance, even in cases of perceived injustice or tyranny, would create a constant state of instability and undermine the very purpose of the social contract, which is to escape the chaos of the state of nature. Furthermore, Hobbes contends that individuals cannot be the judge of whether the sovereign has violated the social contract. To allow individuals to make such judgments would inevitably lead to subjective interpretations and conflicting opinions, ultimately dissolving the sovereign's authority. The sovereign, in Hobbes's view, is the sole interpreter of the laws and the final arbiter of justice. While Hobbes acknowledges that a sovereign may act unjustly or oppressively, he maintains that the evils of tyranny are less severe than the horrors of the state of nature. He believes that even a bad government is preferable to no government at all. This is because any form of government, no matter how imperfect, provides a framework of order and security that is absent in the state of nature. The fear of punishment, even arbitrary punishment, is a more effective deterrent to violence and chaos than the absence of any authority. Therefore, Hobbes concludes that resistance against a sovereign, even a tyrannical one, is never justified. The potential consequences of such resistance – civil war, anarchy, and a return to the state of nature – far outweigh any grievances that individuals may have against the sovereign.
Addressing the Apparent Contradiction
The apparent contradiction in Hobbes's philosophy – legitimizing force in the creation of a monarchy but deligitimizing it in resistance – can be resolved by understanding his overarching concern with social order and stability. Hobbes is not necessarily endorsing the morality of force, but rather acknowledging its practical necessity in establishing and maintaining a functioning society. In the state of nature, force is the only language that individuals understand. The creation of a sovereign power capable of enforcing laws requires a concentration of force that can overawe all potential challengers. This initial use of force, in Hobbes's view, is not inherently unjust but rather a necessary means to escape a far worse situation. However, once a sovereign has been established and a social order created, the calculus changes. The continued use of force by individuals or groups against the sovereign undermines the very foundation of that order. Resistance, even in the name of justice or liberty, risks a return to the state of nature, where life is a constant struggle for survival. Hobbes's emphasis on order and security above all else leads him to prioritize the stability of the sovereign over individual rights or freedoms. He believes that a strong, undivided sovereign is the best guarantee of peace and that any challenge to that authority is inherently dangerous. This is not to say that Hobbes is indifferent to the suffering caused by tyrannical rulers. He acknowledges that some sovereigns may be unjust or oppressive, but he argues that the risks of resistance are too great. The potential for widespread violence and chaos outweighs the harm caused by even the worst sovereign. Therefore, while Hobbes may appear to contradict himself by justifying force in one context but not another, his position is ultimately consistent with his fundamental commitment to social order and the prevention of anarchy.
Criticisms and Interpretations of Hobbes's Argument
Hobbes's arguments have been subject to numerous criticisms and interpretations throughout the centuries. One common criticism centers on his pessimistic view of human nature. Critics argue that Hobbes's depiction of individuals as inherently selfish and power-hungry is overly simplistic and fails to account for the human capacity for cooperation and altruism. If humans are not as inherently violent as Hobbes suggests, then the need for an absolute sovereign to maintain order may be less pressing. Another criticism focuses on Hobbes's justification for absolute sovereignty. Some argue that his emphasis on order and security comes at the expense of individual rights and liberties. They contend that an absolute sovereign, unchecked by any legal or constitutional constraints, is prone to tyranny and oppression. Critics point to historical examples of authoritarian regimes to support their argument that unchecked power is a dangerous thing. Furthermore, some scholars question Hobbes's claim that resistance against a sovereign is always unjustified. They argue that there may be circumstances, such as cases of extreme tyranny or human rights violations, where resistance is morally permissible, even if it carries the risk of social unrest. These critics suggest that Hobbes's fear of the state of nature leads him to overstate the dangers of resistance and underestimate the importance of individual liberty. Despite these criticisms, Hobbes's work remains highly influential in political philosophy. His concept of the social contract has been adopted and adapted by numerous thinkers, and his arguments about the nature of sovereignty continue to be debated today. Different interpretations of Hobbes's work emphasize different aspects of his thought. Some scholars focus on his realism and his emphasis on the practical necessities of governance. They see Hobbes as a pragmatic thinker who understood the harsh realities of power and the need for strong leadership. Others emphasize the more radical aspects of Hobbes's thought, such as his materialism and his rejection of traditional religious and moral justifications for political authority. These scholars see Hobbes as a precursor to modern secular political thought.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the seeming contradiction in Hobbes's legitimization of force in establishing a monarchy while simultaneously deligitimizing resistance against it is resolved when viewed through the lens of his overarching concern for social order and the avoidance of the state of nature. Hobbes's philosophy, grounded in a pessimistic view of human nature, prioritizes security and stability above all else. The initial use of force to establish a sovereign is justified as a necessary evil to escape the horrors of the state of nature, while resistance is deemed illegitimate because it threatens to unravel the social contract and plunge society back into chaos. While Hobbes's arguments have been subject to criticism, particularly regarding his views on individual rights and the potential for tyranny, his work remains a powerful and influential contribution to political thought. His insights into the nature of power, the social contract, and the challenges of governance continue to resonate in contemporary political debates. By carefully examining Hobbes's reasoning and considering the context in which he wrote, we can gain a deeper understanding of his complex and often controversial ideas. This understanding is crucial not only for engaging with his work but also for grappling with the enduring questions about the relationship between the individual, the state, and the use of force in society. Hobbes's legacy is one of both admiration and contention, but his profound impact on the development of Western political thought is undeniable.
