On Thomas Hobbes Leviathan From A History of Western Philosophy: The reason that Hobbes gives for supporting the State, namely that it is the only alternative to anarchy, is in the main a valid one. A State may, however, be so bad that temporary anarchy seems preferable to its continuance, as in France in 1789 and in Russia in 1917. Moreover, the tendency of every government towards tyranny cannot be kept in check unless governments have some fear of rebellion. Governments would be worse than they are if Hobbess submissive attitude were universally adopted by sub- jects. This is true in the political sphere, where governments will try, if they can, to make themselves personally irremovable ; it is true in the economic sphere, where they will try to enrich themselves and their friends at the public expense; it is true in the intellectual sphere, where they will suppress every new discovery or doctrine that seems to menace their power. These are reasons for not thinking only of the risk of anarchy, but also of the danger of injustice and ossification that is bound up with omnipotence in government. The merits of Hobbes appear most clearly when he is contrasted with earlier political theorists. He is completely free from super- stition ; he does not argue from what happened to Adam and Eve at the time of the Fall. He is clear and logical; his ethics, right or wrong, is completely intelligible, and does not involve the use of any dubious concepts. Apart from Machiavelli, who is much more limited, he is the first really modern writer on political theory. Where he is wrong, he is wrong from over-simplification, not because the basis of his thought is unreal and fantastic. For this reason, he is still worth refuting. Without criticizing Hobbess metaphysics or ethics, there are two points to make against him. The first is that he always considers the national interest as a whole, and assumes, tacitly, that the major interests of all citizens are the same. He does not realize the importance of the clash between different classes, which Marx makes the chief cause of social change. This is connected with the assumption that the interests of a monarch are roughly identical with those of his subjects. In time of war there is a unification of interests, especially if the war is fierce; but in time of peace the clash may be very great between the interests of one class and those of another. It is not by any means always true that, in such a situation, the best way to avert anarchy is to preach the absolute power of the sovereign. Some concession in the way of sharing power may be the only way to prevent civil war. This should have been obvious to Hobbes from the recent history of England. Another point in which Hobbess doctrine is unduly limited is in regard to the relations between different States. There is not a word in Leviathan to suggest any relation between them except war and conquest, with occasional interludes. This follows, on his principles, from the absence of an international government, for the relations of States are still in a state of nature, which is that of a war of all against all. So long as there is international anarchy, it is by no means clear that increase of efficiency in the separate States is in the interest of mankind, since it increases the ferocity and destructiveness of war. Every argument that he adduces in favour of government, in so far as it is valid at all, is valid in favour of international government. So long as national States exist and fight each other, only inefficiency can preserve the human race. To improve the fighting quality of separate States without having any means of preventing war is the road to universal destruction. {While the work is imperfect in its details of what the optimal state is, the central premise seems beyond reproach. While life in a state of nature might appeal to simplicity, beauty and romance its ultimately cruel and indifferent, as is Natural Selection. Destruction and extinction is common. Large animals down to insects kill and eat each other to survive. Parasites and disease run ever rampant. Investigations reveals that human life, as bad as things have gotten in them at various times, was much shorter and more violent before states. Various homo sapiens and other hominids may have managed to live somewhat peacefully, but in a state of nature, its difficult to see this being the universal norm. It is within the state that natural tribalism has declined, the sphere of empathy has expanded, and a confluence of mind and energy has been made possible which has so advanced mankind, knowledge and quality of life. However,who knows, at some later time we may evolve naturally or systems artificially beyond any need for any state. L.H.}
Posted on: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:43:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015