Thomas Hobbes: Politics, Philosophy and Social Contract

Thomas Hobbes, was a 17th-century philosopher who believed that without government, human life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” and argued for a social contract where individuals surrendered some freedoms in exchange for security and order.

Introduction

Thomas Hobbes, born on April 5, 1588, in England, is a key figure in Western political thought, particularly known for his views on human nature, political authority, and the need for an all-powerful sovereign. He was famously called the “Monster of Malmesbury” due to widespread criticism for atheism and impiety. Both Parliamentarians and Royalists disliked him, as his ideas challenged popular representation and the Divine Right of Kings.

Hobbes’ philosophical status wasn’t fully appreciated until the 19th century, when his ideas influenced English utilitarians and French Encyclopaedists. His philosophy combined mechanical materialism, radical individualism, and psychological egoism. Sir Frederick Pollock remarked that utilitarianism adapted Hobbes’ ideas, especially from his Leviathan. By the mid-20th century, Hobbes was recognized as a leading English political philosopher, with Michael Oakeshott calling Leviathan a masterpiece.

Hobbes developed the absolutist theory of sovereignty and contributed to the positivist theory of law. Though often seen as authoritarian, scholars like Gauthier found connections between Hobbes’ ideas and modern liberalism. His philosophy also influenced Marxist thought, with Karl Marx noting, “Hobbes was the father of us all.” Today, his ideas remain influential in political, ethical, and legal discussions.

Early Life of Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes, born prematurely on April 5, 1588, in Westport, near Malmesbury, England, came into the world during the looming threat of the Spanish Armada. He died in 1679, having lived through a period marked by significant political upheavals and scientific breakthroughs, referred to as the “century of genius.” His experiences during the English Civil War, and the events of that time, deeply shaped his political philosophy.

Educated at Oxford, Hobbes found the scholastic teachings, particularly those of Aristotle, uninteresting. In 1608, he became a tutor to the son of William Cavendish, the Earl of Devonshire, with whom he remained closely connected for many years. Through his travels across Europe, Hobbes encountered great minds like Galileo, Descartes, and Kepler, whose scientific ideas, particularly in geometry and mechanics, greatly influenced him. Hobbes became convinced that human behavior and political structures could be understood through the laws of motion.

In 1640, fearing for his life after the dissolution of Parliament, Hobbes fled to France, where he stayed for 11 years. During this time, he wrote De Cive (1642) and his masterpiece Leviathan (1651), which advocated for a strong, undivided sovereignty to prevent societal chaos. Though some believed Leviathan was written to flatter Cromwell, its philosophical reach went far beyond contemporary politics. He later returned to England in 1651, engaging in intellectual debates with figures like John Bramhall and mathematician John Wallis. In his final years, Hobbes wrote his autobiography and translated works like Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. He passed away in 1679, leaving behind a lasting legacy as one of the most influential political philosophers in history.

Major Works by Thomas Hobbes

Hobbes left a significant intellectual legacy through his major works:

• Thucydides’ History of Peloponnesian War (1628): Hobbes’ English translation of this work aimed to critique Athenian democracy. It was his first work.
• De Cive “On the Citizens” (1642): Anticipating themes in his later work “Leviathan,” this book discussed natural laws and the necessity of stable government. ‘War of all against All’, the famous phrase first appeared in this book.
• Elements of Law, Natural and Politic (1650): An exploration of legal and political concepts.
• Leviathan (1651): Considered one of his masterpieces, this work argued for the social contract and the rule of an absolute sovereign. The original source of Leviathan is “The book of Job”.
• De Corpore (1655): Explored concepts related to body and matter.
• De Homine (1658): Further elaborated on his ideas about human nature.
• Behemoth (1681): A comprehensive analysis of the causes of the English Civil War.

Thomas Hobbes’ Political Thoughts 

Hobbes’ political philosophy is grounded in his views on human nature and the state of nature.

Human Nature by Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes viewed human beings as inherently selfish, isolated, and egoistic, motivated by self-interest, pleasure-seeking, and pain-avoidance. His concept of “Moral relativism” emphasized that what pleases an individual is good. Hobbes referred to the continuous fulfillment of desires as “Felicity,” a constant pursuit of what individuals deem beneficial. He explained that humans operate based on two types of voluntary motions: appetite (moving towards something) and aversion (moving away from something). People, in his view, were driven by bundles of these appetites and aversions. Though humans possessed reason, Hobbes emphasized that no one’s reason is absolute, thus creating the need for an arbitrator or judge to resolve conflicts.

State of Nature by Hobbes

Hobbes’ theory of the state of nature is central to his political thought. He described the state of nature as a pre-political condition where humans lived without civil laws or political authority. In this condition, life was marked by perpetual conflict, insecurity, and a constant state of warfare. There were no laws to prevent individuals from taking advantage of each other, leading to a world where each person was an enemy of everyone else. As Hobbes famously characterized it, life in the state of nature was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.“

According to Hobbes, individuals in the state of nature were motivated by the desire for power, a relentless pursuit that only ceased with death. He noted, “individuals have a desire for power after power that ceases only in death,” leading to what he termed a “war of all against all.” In such a chaotic situation, self-preservation becomes the driving force behind human actions.

The Role of Power and Conflict

Hobbes viewed human behavior through a mechanistic lens, seeing people as primarily driven by two kinds of motion: vital motion (involuntary, physiological processes) and voluntary motion (actions initiated by external stimuli). The voluntary motions, driven by external stimuli, caused internal sensations, which Hobbes described as desires and aversions. He connected these motions to emotions like hope, diffidence, glory, courage, and more. Pleasure and pain were tied to desire and aversion.

Hobbes argued that power was central to human nature, claiming that all desires and actions were linked to the pursuit of power. Without power, individuals could not secure the goods they desired. He emphasized that once power was acquired, it had to be continually augmented to prevent it from dissipating, which explained the endless struggle for power. This struggle, coupled with the natural fear, insecurity, and pride of individuals, resulted in constant competition and conflict.

Hobbes identified three main causes of conflict in the state of nature:

1. Competition: Individuals fought for gain.
2. Diffidence: People sought security.
3. Glory: Individuals sought reputation.

Hobbes summarized this as a “perpetual and restless desire of power after power,” which only ends with death. The fundamental contradiction of power lies in the fact that those who possess it must constantly seek more to prevent losing it. Thus, individuals were trapped in a cycle of power accumulation that could never truly be satisfied.

Natural Rights and Morality

In the state of nature, Hobbes introduced the concept of natural rights, which he defined as the liberty of each individual to use their own power to preserve their life. This natural right allowed individuals to do anything they deemed necessary for self-preservation. Hobbes’ notion of natural rights was distinct from traditional morality. It was not rooted in virtue or law but rather in the individual’s ability to preserve themselves.

Hobbes’ approach to natural rights was groundbreaking for modern political theory, marking a departure from earlier views that saw the state as natural to humans (as in Aristotle’s view). Hobbes argued that natural right was about self-preservation and that in the state of nature, it was precarious, as everyone had the right to everything, even to each other’s lives.

Criticisms and Interpretations

While Hobbes’ theory of psychological egoism has been widely accepted, some scholars challenge this view, arguing that Hobbes also acknowledged altruistic virtues such as sympathy, kindness, and benevolence. Though Hobbes stressed the selfish nature of humans, critics like John Plamenatz have noted that Hobbes did not fully dismiss the possibility of altruistic actions. Others, such as Bernard Gert, have argued that Hobbes’ emphasis on desires for things beneficial to one’s life does not necessarily imply selfish motives.

Hobbes’ theory also made a clear distinction between right and might, though not in a purely moral sense. His concept of natural right was seen as legal rather than moral, distinguishing it from traditional natural law, which was often linked to virtue. However, Hobbes was not entirely consistent in his use of the term “natural right,” at times equating it with power, while at other times associating it with liberty or the absence of obligations.

Theory of Natural Laws by Hobbes

In his seminal work, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes presents the Laws of Nature as a pivotal mechanism to persuade individuals to exit the chaotic State of Nature. According to Hobbes, the State of Nature is characterized by a perpetual war of “every man against every man,” where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes argues that the only way out of this state of constant fear and violent death is through the creation of a civil society governed by a powerful sovereign. The foundation of this escape lies in the Laws of Nature, which Hobbes defines as rational principles that guide human beings toward peace and self-preservation.

Hobbes explains that the Laws of Nature exist even in the absence of formal authority, as they are discovered through reason. However, they are often disregarded because, in the State of Nature, individuals are primarily driven by their passions, such as fear, greed, and distrust, rather than by reason. Hobbes defines a Law of Nature (or lex naturalis) as “a precept or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same.” This definition emphasizes self-preservation as the ultimate goal of these laws.

Hobbes outlines 19 Laws of Nature in Leviathan. Among these, three are of utmost importance for escaping the State of Nature:

1. The First Law of Nature states that every individual should seek peace as long as they have hope of obtaining it, but when peace is unattainable, they should defend themselves by all means possible. Hobbes describes this as the “first and fundamental law of nature,” which advocates for peace, while the second part represents the “right of nature,” allowing for self-defense.
2. The Second Law of Nature builds on the first by advocating that individuals should be willing to relinquish their natural right to all things in order to achieve mutual peace. Hobbes asserts that people must be content with the same amount of liberty they are willing to allow others. This law is aligned with the Biblical Golden Rule: “Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them.”
3. The Third Law of Nature emphasizes the necessity of keeping covenants or promises. According to Hobbes, without the fulfillment of covenants, society would revert to chaos, as trust and cooperation would break down. He insists that honoring contracts is essential for maintaining peace and order.

In addition to these fundamental laws, Hobbes also outlines several others that promote moral behavior conducive to peace, such as justice, equity, humility, and the rejection of arrogance and pride. The Nineteenth Law is particularly significant, as it prohibits individuals from being judges in their own cases. Hobbes believed that allowing self-judgment would lead to partiality and conflict, further undermining peace.

Hobbes acknowledges a paradox: in the State of Nature, rational laws are ineffective as individuals, driven by fear and self-interest, often disregard them. He differentiates between “obligation in foro interno” (the internal desire for peace) and “in foro externo” (external actions driven by fear). This dilemma is illustrated by the Prisoner’s Dilemma, where rational individuals may betray each other despite mutual cooperation yielding better outcomes.

The Earl of Clarendon critiques Hobbes, questioning how he can describe the State of Nature as disordered yet propose immutable natural laws to guide individuals toward peace, stating, “How comes it to pass that Mr. Hobbes… would… set down a body of laws prescribed by Nature itself, as immutable and eternal?”

Critics like Adam Smith argue Hobbes’ doctrine lacks moral authority, suggesting that right and wrong are mere constructs of civil authority. Conversely, scholars like Howard Warrender and A.E. Taylor interpret Hobbes’ Laws of Nature as commands from God, thus possessing moral force. David Gauthier counters this divine interpretation, viewing Hobbes’ natural law as a rational dictate for self-preservation. Critics note that without a sovereign, individuals may resort to preemptive strategies. Ultimately, Hobbes contends that only sovereign power can enforce these laws, as reason alone cannot quell human distrust.

The Social Contract and the Sovereign by Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes proposed that individuals, in the chaotic State of Nature, collectively abandoned their natural state through a single contract, which led to the formation of a civil society and a sovereign authority. This social contract required every individual to come together, surrendering their rights to a sovereign in exchange for peace, security, and order. Hobbes emphasized that the sovereign authority was established through “legal sovereignty” because it was legitimized through this social contract.

Hobbes described this social contract as a mutual agreement where individuals authorized and surrendered their self-governing rights to the sovereign, with the condition that others would do the same. He expressed this idea in Leviathan: “I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or to this assembly of men, on the condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner.” This contract led to the formation of an all-powerful and undivided sovereign, a “Mortal God,” to ensure peace and defense.

Crucially, the sovereign created by the contract was not a party to it but rather a beneficiary. All individuals became subjects of the sovereign, and the sovereign had no reciprocal obligations toward them. This meant that individuals surrendered their natural rights permanently, except for the right to self-preservation, which was the core reason for creating a civil society. Hobbes warned that if individuals reclaimed their rights or tried to overthrow the sovereign, society would collapse into the dangerous and lawless State of Nature once again.

Hobbes sharply diverged from Aristotle, who believed that the state was a natural institution. Aristotle argued that humans are political animals, and the state naturally arises from human social instincts. In contrast, Hobbes believed the state was “mechanical” in nature and had to be artificially established through the social contract. He viewed the state not as a natural outcome of human nature but as a necessary construct to avoid the chaos of the State of Nature.

One of Hobbes’ central ideas was his rejection of the right to revolt. He believed that once the social contract was formed, it could not be undone, and individuals had no right to overthrow the government. Any attempt to do so would lead to the destruction of society and a return to anarchy. This concept is known as “unlimited political obligation,” where individuals have an unbreakable obligation to obey the sovereign authority.

Hobbes made a distinction between a contract and a covenant. A contract, in his view, was the mutual transferring of rights, whereas a covenant implied a promise and trust between parties regarding future performance. He explained that a covenant is when “one of the contractors may deliver the thing contracted for on his part, and leave the other to perform his part at some determinate time after, and in the meantime be trusted.” This concept of trust was essential in Hobbes’ theory, as it underlined the idea that individuals had to trust the sovereign to uphold the terms of the social contract. However, critics such as Samuel Pufendorf and modern commentators like Jean Hampton have downplayed the philosophical significance of Hobbes’ distinction. Hampton argued that the concept of trust and keeping promises was already embedded in Hobbes’ arguments.

Through the social contract, individuals not only surrendered their rights but also established a third party, the sovereign, to enforce the contract. The sovereign had the power to use force to ensure compliance, as Hobbes famously remarked that “covenants without the sword are mere words and of no strength to secure a man at all.” For Hobbes, fear of punishment by the sovereign was a crucial factor in maintaining social order. He argued that without this fear, society would fall back into the chaos of the State of Nature.

Some scholars, like David Gauthier, have argued that Hobbes’ political theory is less about the social contract itself and more about the concept of “authorization.” Gauthier believed that “authorization, rather than covenant, is the dominant metaphor in Hobbes’ political thought,” suggesting that individuals authorized the sovereign’s actions on their behalf. However, Jean Hampton critiqued Gauthier’s interpretation, claiming it made Hobbes appear closer to John Locke, who emphasized limited government and individual rights. Hampton argued that Hobbes’ theory remained focused on absolute authority and unbreakable political obligation, far removed from Locke’s ideas.

Hobbes also discussed a second type of sovereignty, which he referred to as “sovereignty by acquisition” or conquest. In this form, a commonwealth is established not through mutual agreement but through force. Individuals, driven by fear, submit to the rule of a conqueror in exchange for security. Hobbes emphasized that fear was a valid basis for political obligation, stating that “fear is no less a basis of obligation than free consent.” The conquered individuals enter into a contract with the conqueror, exchanging obedience for protection, much like in a commonwealth established by institution.

Hobbes’ overall argument suggests that without a powerful sovereign to keep individuals in awe, society would descend into chaos and war. He famously stated that “the bonds of words are too weak to bridle man’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions, without the fear of some coercive power.” For Hobbes, the ultimate foundation of civil society lay in the coercive power of the sovereign to enforce laws and maintain order. Some critics have questioned whether this emphasis on fear undermines the importance of the social contract itself, reducing it to a “contract in a Pickwickian sense,” as some have put it.

Rights and Duties by Thomas Hobbes

Hobbes articulated a modern conception of liberty as the “absence of external impediments to motion,” framing individual rights in relation to liberty and property. He argued that individuals are free to act in all matters except those explicitly prohibited by the laws of the Sovereign. Thus, liberty is defined by what the law permits and remains silent on. Hobbes describes freedom as the private pursuit of the individual, where all existence is understood as matter in motion.

Individual liberties encompass various aspects, including property transactions, trade, dietary choices, education of children, private beliefs, and rights of conscience. While the Sovereign possesses absolute authority over its subjects, there is a fundamental limitation: the right of self-preservation. Hobbes famously stated that “fear is my twin brother,” emphasizing that the right to self-preservation is the sole absolute right of individuals. The Sovereign cannot infringe upon an individual’s right to life, as the primary motivation for submitting power to the Sovereign is the assurance of self-preservation. If the Sovereign fails to protect an individual’s life, that individual retains the right to resist the Sovereign’s authority.

Hobbes posits that sovereignty is absolute, indivisible, inalienable, and perpetual, meaning the Sovereign is not limited by the rights of subjects or customary and statutory law. Although the Sovereign is expected to adhere to Natural Law, Hobbes claims it is the sole interpreter of this law. Since justice, in his framework, involves acting in accordance with promises and the Sovereign has made none, its actions cannot be deemed unjust or injurious. Subjects authorize the Sovereign’s actions as their own, existing in a perpetual state of nature.

The Sovereign’s authority includes declaring war, making peace, levying taxes, and exercising ultimate administrative, legislative, and judicial power. Hobbes defines law as the command of the Sovereign that dictates right and wrong. Natural law and customs gain their authority only when endorsed by the Sovereign, a significant departure from medieval traditions, particularly Sir Edward Coke’s advocacy for the supremacy of common law.

While Hobbes allows for the Sovereign’s absolute authority, he acknowledges the right to self-preservation. Subjects are not obligated to obey commands that would lead to their death, such as orders for suicide. The establishment of civil society aims to protect life, and although the Sovereign may impose capital punishment for the common good, subjects retain the right to refuse life-ending orders. Hobbes defines liberty as “the silence of the law,” suggesting that individuals are free to act in ways not explicitly commanded or prohibited.

Hobbes firmly rejects any general right to disobedience or rebellion. The Sovereign’s authority is irrevocable; resistance is self-contradictory because subjects have authorized the Sovereign to act on their behalf. Disobedience risks returning society to the State of Nature, where rights and wrongs do not exist. However, Hobbes notes that the obligation of subjects lasts only as long as the Sovereign can ensure their protection. If a rebellion succeeds in establishing a new regime that provides security, that regime becomes the legitimate authority. This perspective helps justify Oliver Cromwell’s rule, emphasizing that effective power is crucial for legitimate governance. Hobbes contends that the quest for justice or liberty often leads to confusion or hypocrisy, underscoring the necessity of upholding the Sovereign’s power to prevent anarchy.

The Church and the State in Hobbes’ Political Thought

In the 17th century, the interplay between religious freedom and the relationship between the Church and the State was a pivotal theme in political discourse, and Hobbes devoted a substantial portion of his work, Leviathan, to this issue. He acknowledged the importance of freedom of religious belief, recognizing that individuals cannot be coerced in matters of conscience. However, Hobbes asserted that the public expression and practice of religion—specifically, worship and the propagation of faith—are matters of public concern that fall under the jurisdiction of the political sovereign.

Hobbes criticized the notion of the Church as the “Kingdom of God,” deeming it a cardinal error that was as irrational and harmful as the metaphysical idea of non-material substances. He argued that such abstract notions contributed to the obscurantism and superstition prevalent in society, which often led to divisions among people and conflict. His nominalist theory of knowledge rejected these abstract concepts, dismissing ideas of “spirits” and “ghosts” as mere figments of the imagination that misled individuals into a “Kingdom of Darkness.”

For Hobbes, the Church was merely a corporation, akin to any other association that operates within the framework of the commonwealth. He contended that no profession of faith could be considered lawful unless it received the sovereign’s sanction. This view placed religious authority firmly in the hands of the sovereign, undermining any competing authority that might challenge the state’s power.

Hobbes was particularly critical of the Papacy, which claimed authority over the subjects of sovereign states in ecclesiastical matters. He dismissed the Papacy’s influence as the “ghost of the deceased Roman Empire,” implying that it was an obsolete power attempting to exert control in a modern political landscape. This critique reflects Hobbes’ broader aim to establish the supremacy of the sovereign over all aspects of public life, including religion.

Political Obligation in Hobbes’s Philosophy

Thomas Hobbes, a prominent philosopher of his time, presented a compelling argument for unwavering political obligation towards an absolute sovereign. He provided several reasons to support this notion. 

• First, Hobbes believed in using sanctions and punishments to ensure individuals’ compliance with the sovereign’s authority. 
• Second, he emphasized the importance of individuals respecting their contractual agreements, as these contracts formed the bedrock of a functioning society. 
• Third, Hobbes considered the sovereign as the representative of individuals since they voluntarily vested power and authority in this figure. 
• Finally, he posited that civil law and the law of nature were intertwined, both stemming from divine commands. 

Thus, Hobbes grounded political obligation in morality, providing a solid foundation for the sovereign’s authority. Hobbes’s theory of political obligation ultimately strengthened the position of the sovereign, reinforcing the need for an absolute authority in maintaining societal order.

Women and the Gender Question in Hobbes’s Philosophy

In his exploration of human nature and society, Hobbes also delved into the role of women and gender dynamics. He held that in the state of nature, women who gave birth held a unique position as both mothers and authorities over their children. Their authority derived from the act of protection and nurturing that childbirth necessitated.

However, as societies evolved into civil societies, Hobbes observed a shift in the status of women. They became subordinated and were denied the right to participate in the political process. Despite being an advocate for human equality in principle, Hobbes did not grant equal authority to both men and women. He defended the prevailing patriarchal structure by granting fathers exclusive jurisdiction within the family unit. Hobbes’s belief that males possessed greater wisdom and courage led him to endorse this patriarchal system further. Even in the broader context of the commonwealth, Hobbes assigned succession solely to male children, citing their natural fitness to rule.

Hobbes’s stance on gender equality remained complex. While he acknowledged the idea of gender equality, he did not overtly challenge or oppose the prevailing patriarchy of his time.

Comments on Thomas Hobbes

• ‘The leviathan is the greatest perhaps the sole master of Political Philosophy written in English Language’ – Oakeshott
• ‘Hobbes was the first one to lay down the science of Power Politics and also he is the spokesperson of Bourgeois morality’ – Machpherson
• ‘Hobbesian conception of human nature was libel on individuals for he characterized them worse than bears and Wolves’. – Bramhall
• ‘Hobbesian State is authoritarian’ – William Ebinstien
• ‘Hobbesian state of nature is classical example of “Prisoner’s dilemma of game” – John Rawls

Important quotes by Hobbes

• ‘Fear and I were born twins’. 
• “Curiosity is the lust of mind’. 
• ‘It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a law’. 
• ‘Force and Fraud are in War the two cardinal virtues’. 
• ‘In the State of Nature, Profit is the measure of right’. 
• ‘No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent deaths: and the life of man, Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short ‘.
• ‘Science is the Knowledge of Consequences from Philosophical Reasoning’.
• ‘Even the worst form of government is better than anarchy

Conclusion

In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes made significant contributions to political philosophy by constructing a systematic theory encompassing absolute sovereignty, the laws of nature, human nature, and political obligation. His philosophy emphasized the necessity of a sovereign authority to prevent perpetual war and conflict. Hobbes considered self-preservation a fundamental law of nature and believed that the state’s primary role was to ensure peace, order, and security, in contrast to Aristotle’s concept of the state as a granter of a good life.

Hobbes’s political thought was a response to the changing conditions of 17th-century England, addressing political conflicts, the demand for religious virtue, and economic restructuring. He began with the notion of natural rights but ultimately constrained them within a viable civil society. While he restricted the natural liberty of individuals, he did not endorse the idea of individuals having the right to curtail the authority of the state. Hobbes’s philosophical legacy continues to shape our understanding of politics and society, shedding light on both enduring and evolving aspects of his ideas.

Read More

• India’s Strategic Rise Through BRICS: Diplomacy, Economic Goals, and Global South Leadership
• Putin Declares BRICS as the Future of Global Economic Growth, Counterweight to Western Dominance
• India and Pakistan’s Diplomatic Shift at the 2024 SCO Summit: A New Approach Amid Historic Tensions
• 21st ASEAN-India Summit 2024: PM Modi’s 10-Point Plan for Strengthening India-ASEAN Relations
• India and Canada at a Crossroads: Unpacking the Nijjar Controversy and Historical Roots