Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
How to escape the nasty, short, and brutish state of nature
Welcome to Originus. We share ideas from books that changed the world. New ideas every Sunday 🦦
If you haven’t subscribed yet, you can subscribe here:
Summary
In 1651, having witnessed the English Civil War between the King and Parliament, Thomas Hobbes published Leviathan. In this book, he set out to explore, “to what extent should the people of a country be ruled over by a sovereign?”
Hobbes first considers the case where there is no sovereign or ruling power, which he called ‘the state of nature’. In this state, everyone has a right to self-preservation – to defend themselves from being killed. However, without law and order, self-preservation is threatened as people have to fight for survival. Life in this state would be ‘nasty, brutish, and short.’
To uphold this right to self-preservation, people in a ‘state of nature’ must come together and achieve peace. According to Hobbes, people do this out of fear and reason. Fear and reason lead to Hobbes’ Laws of Nature. These laws are not real laws backed by a court. They are laws that everyone would agree upon, based on reason.
The first law is “[t]hat every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he can hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps and advantages of Warre.” Simply put, everyone should seek peace, but if this is not possible, then they may resort to war. This law is consistent with the right of self-preservation. Peace ensures that self-preservation is upheld, however, if there is no possibility of peace, then people may resort to violence to protect their individual rights to self-preservation.
The second law states that everyone should be willing to give up some of their rights, to achieve peace. For example, I will give up my right to kill you, if you give up your right to kill me. Again, this is consistent with self-preservation.
The third law states that it is not enough to come to an agreement (the second law). Instead, people should be incentivized to uphold this contract. For Hobbes, this is necessary because everyone has a desire for power. As a result, people are likely to renege on their agreements if they have the opportunity to do so.
The only way for people to uphold their agreements is if there is someone to enforce it. For Hobbes, this should be a sovereign power that rewards those who uphold the contract and punishes those who don't.
But what form of sovereign power is best? Should it be a monarchy, aristocracy, or a democracy? For Hobbes, monarchy was the most suited for the job for a few reasons. First, there is incentive alignment between a king and his subjects. A king wants to get rich and the only way that he can get rich is if his people are rich. Second, as a king is a single person, there will be consistent direction. (This prevents the scenario we see in the US when the Democrats enact a law and the Republicans reverse it 8 years later, or vice versa.)
As a sovereign has been put in power, either because by choice or by force, their principal role is keeping peace. This was so important that the sovereign should be allowed wide-ranging power, bordering on totalitarianism, so long as they upheld the peace between people. They could squash protests, ban certain forms of literature, and many more things that infringed on the freedom of their people.
According to Hobbes, the only time when the people could disobey a sovereign is if the sovereign threatened to take away their right to self-preservation. In this case, people would be justified in their decision to resist. However, if their lives were not threatened, then they should obey their sovereign so much so that they should see the actions of the sovereign as their own.
So… to what extent should the people of a country be ruled over by a sovereign?
Completely. (As long as the sovereign in question – ideally a monarch – upholds peace and prevents a return to the ‘state of nature’ where life is ‘nasty, brutish, and short’.)
In a Hobbesian society, the right to self-preservation rules above all else. Our view of society (and government) today is wildly different from the Hobbesian model, at least in the West. It functions to protect the people and their right to life, liberty, and property. (At least, this is how it's supposed to function anyway).
Peace and self-preservation-protecting-monarchy Love,
Safwaan + Elly
Sources and further reading:
[1] Thomas Hobbe’s Leviathan (1651)
[2] YouTube Video: Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan | Political Philosophy
Disclaimer: We open track rates
If you enjoyed this, hit the like button below and forward this to your friends!