The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes - Book Report/Review Example

WHERE THERE IS NO COMMON POWER, THERE IS NO LAW: WHERE NO LAW, NO INJUSTICE.” ............................................................................................................................ 1. INTRODUCTION Thomas Hobbes was the most self- conscious modernizer of all times. All other natural law theorists assumed that man was by nature a social animal but Hobbes assumed otherwise. Coming to Hobbes masterpiece, Leviathan or “The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common-wealth Ecclesiastical and Civil” was the new and modern approach to philosophy was based on what is known as “resolutive – compositive” method1. Armed with this scientific approach Hobbes sought the answer to the question “what can we say with scientific certainty about the nature of man?” His answer brings us to the core of political theory and chapter 13 of Leviathan. It’s in here where he also points to this thoughtful philosophy of “where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice.” Generally speaking this statement is a conclusion that can be drawn from the analysis of his two theory “state of nature” and “social contract”. This statement means that individuals are equal in all respect. The nature has made them this way that one cannot overpower the other, thus none of them is mighty enough to stand tall out of the mass and declare a certain code of conduct or “law”. Since there is nothing called law and there is nothing to distinguish right from wrong, everything which men did was right from his subjective opinion and hence no injustice could be done while a man does what he knows not be wrong. Thus in this situation of equality, a mutual consenting common power has to be established to make up law determining a common definition of right and wrong and thus establishing a system of justice and injustice. However such concepts of justice, injustice, redressal, damage, right and wrong have no meaning unless there is a proper machinery to define them and implement them. Now in the mass where no one is mightier enough to impose its might, such an institution has to be made by mutual consent of equal forces. Therefore a common power is needed to make law. 2. HOBBES LEVIATHAN THEORY This statement determines perfectly Hobbes idea on what the state of nature. According to Hobbes, in the state of nature there is no common power and men are at constant war with each other. In the absence of any common power to awe them all they are in a state of isolation. There is no force, no obligation and no rule to bind them together to follow some discipline and thus there is absolutely no concept of the idea of society and most importantly there is no law. Law is something that is imposed upon people by a government and in the state of nature there is no government. According to Hobbes, nature has made all men equally both in the faculties of body and mind. Hobbes agrees that there may be differences between men in the form of more physical strength in body or intelligence, yet on an overall analysis the difference between men is nullified by each other. He contemplates that physical strength cannot be the criteria for inequality because a weaker man might be able to hurt a stronger man by skills and conspiracy whilst prudence comes with experience which equal period of time equally bestows on all men. Hobbes then continues that [“From this equality of ability arises equality of hope in attaining their ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end endeavour to destroy or subdue one another”]2. Thus we see that its mainly a fight between man to man and not between one man possessing a convenient seat and others are probably coming prepared with united forces to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life or liberty3. Now when all the men are equal in respect of power, they would be hesitant to do draw each other’s wrath, because they don’t overrule each other in anyway and in the absence of any concentration of power there would not be any need for them to secure themselves against that one common power great enough to endanger them. So Hobbes points out those men are not happy in this state of equality because men always aspire for glory. Finally men overcome by this desire of glory endeavors, as far as he dares, to extort a greater value from his contemnors’, by way of damage; and from others, by the example. Hereby it is apparent that during the time when men live without a common power to keep them all in trepidation, they are in always in a state of war. They are making a constant use of violence to make themselves masters of other mens possessions like their wives, cattle, for defence purposes and finally for a recognition. Therefore Hobbes design a civilization where every man is an enemy to every man, they live without any security except their own strength and wits. there is no industries, [because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short]4. The desires, and other passions of man, are in themselves no sin and therefore the actions that proceed from those passions and desires are also not sin till they have a law forbidding them. Hobbes asserts that human beings do act selfishly and given the right circumstances will do anything to further their ends. Hobbes’s peers had witnessed as civil war gripped England as law and order crumpled down. It is this law and order what Hobbes describes as the “power to keep people at awe”. Therefore we see that in the absence of a common power, indeed there is no law and any atrocities done during this period is not punishable because in the absence of any law, nothing can be against the law. Now in this constant state of war, men are inclined to peace due to the fear of death by other equal fellow men but there will be a constant insecurity and suspicion. Hobbes says that in this war among men nothing can be unjust and had done away with the notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice because according to him, “where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice”. To be precise, when something is done that is prohibited by law, only then it becomes unjust and illegal and where such action has no express prohibition of law, it is perfectly valid. Under such a situation of “might is right or take what you can”, it is only natural that [‘there be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine distinct; but only that to be every mans that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it’]5. 2.1. CRITICISM The opening paragraph of Hobbes leviathan says that nature has made all men equal, which can be brought under severe criticism. As a matter of fact, nature has made all the men differently and that’s what ‘individualism” is all about. In the state of nature there might be possibility that few of the individuals who were more intelligent or stronger than the others, subjugated the weaker ones. Secondly what Hobbes asserts as law is not clear. 3. HOBBES SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY The motto of the state of nature by Thomas Hobbes was “kill whom you can and take what u can”6. Now this social contract theory of Hobbes was like a solution to this anarchy. Hobbes said that people themselves would take this step to establish a state or civil society and a government by making one contract among themselves. This contract is between all the men amongst themselves to protect their life, property and maintain peace and security. Hobbes pleads for an absolute monarchy where People had to completely surrender their right to the sovereign and the will of the sovereign is the law. This ruler or sovereign is however not a party to the contract and is not bound by it. He might be unjust, tyrannical or inefficient but the people had no right to rebel against him because the sovereign is responsible to god and not to people. CRITICISM Hobbes social contract theory is historically false, legally unsound and practically dangerous. There is no such historical evidence over the same and moreover a contract cannot be oral in nature. Secondly its fictitious because it doesn’t explains how men who are completely uncivilized and have no knowledge of political organization suddenly think of state and proceed to form it7. Thirdly contracts have a stipulated time period and Hobbes contract is permanent and irrevocable. And lastly Hobbes can be severely criticized on the point that he opines that fear is the basis of state whereas history testifies that a state can be made only on the basis of goodwill and cooperation. 4. STATE OF NATURE ACCORDING TO LOCKE According to Locke men are equal and are free to act as they deem fit, within the bounds of law of nature. These independent men enjoyed the inalienable natural rights of life, liberty and property and everyone respects the right and liberties of the other fellow men. Locke postulates that among these natural rights, right to property is the most important of all and here the property is the one created by mere application of labour to the gift of nature and thus one cannot be deprived of his rightfully owned property8. Locke’s state of nature was not one like Hobbes “state of war” rather his state of nature was based on law, reason and equality, but there was no such recognised definition of natural law and most importantly no authority which could define, interpret and enforce law of nature. In the absence of such common authority, individual’s subjective opinions on right and wrong used to clash and thus a pressing need for such an authority was felt. 4.1. LOCKE’S SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY As we discussed in the Locke’s state of nature, that people felt this pressing need for a common authority to interpret and define this right and wrong over individual subjectivity and thus enforce it accordingly. It was from this thread that his theory of social contract was drawn. People in the state of nature wanted certainty and security to their lives, liberties and properties and this led them to make two contracts, namely social and political contracts to ensure the same9. The social contract was made between people inter se wherein they surrendered some of their rights like right to interpret between right and wrong and right to enforce their interpretation in the community as a whole, to establish a civil society. The political contract is between the people and the rule. Unlike the Hobbes sovereign who was absolute and cannot be even questioned, Locke’s sovereign is a limited sovereign and can be overthrown if it fails to fulfill the purposes enumerated in the contract10. 4.2. CRITICISM Locke’s theory is not supported by historical evidence and is thus just a hypothesis. His contract too is an unwritten contract and does not clear at all what precisely the limits of contract or its terms and conditions. [Locke clearly considered that his contract could stretch a long way, but is equally clear that modern twentieth century governments are substantially breaking it, for the majority of disputes that an ordinary citizen finds himself involved in are disputes with the state]11. Also Locke can be criticized on his statement that men enjoyed rights even before the origin of states which is not possible because the concept of ‘right” is attached to the formation of state. HOBBES VERSUS LOCKE Hobbes and Locke differ quite a lot when it comes to defining Human nature. According to Hobbes “Man is not by nature a social animal and society cannot exist except by the power of the state”, whereas Locke views Man by nature to be a social animal. According to Hobbes, the state of nature is a “no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Whereas Locke portrayed it as “men mostly kept their promises and honored their obligations, and, though insecure, it was mostly peaceful, good, and pleasant. Hobbes postulated that “men cannot know good and evil, and in consequence can only live in peace together by subjection to the absolute power of a common master, and therefore there can be no peace between kings12. On the other hand for Locke “We can and should live together in peace by refraining from molesting each other’s property and persons”. The social contract of Hobbes constitutes an absolute sovereign and no matter what he does, it does not constitute violation of the contract. On the contrary Locke’s social contract constitutes people giving up their rights to themselves to [extract retribution for crimes in return for impartial justice backed by overwhelming force]13. The Grolier encyclopedia says that according to Locke, [men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of Nature. But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war]14. Hobbes, on the contrary, affirms that without subjection to a common power, men are necessarily at war. Hereby it is manifest that till the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe; they are in a condition of constant war called “Warre15. 5. CONCLUSION Hobbes conclusion in Leviathan sets the scene for the next part of his theory in which he effectively brings the state of nature to an end. Hobbes continuously refers to his solution to the problem of natural liberty and human nature as some coercive power or a power to keep them at awe and that natural liberty and equality are just not compatible with “commodious and peaceful living”, rather they lead to competition and fear. To Hobbes, in the state of nature there is no common power and it is the war of each against all16.  Because there is no common power, there is no law.  Law is something that is imposed upon people by a government and in the state of nature there is no government and when there is no law there is also no injustice because justice, for Hobbes, does not exist outside of law. SOURCES Bibliography: 1. Andrew Hacker, Political theory: philosophy, ideology, science (Surjeet Publications, Delhi, 2006) 2. F. J. E. Woodbridge, Hobbes: Selections (Charles Scribners Sons, 1958). 3. Peri Roberts and Peter Sutch, An Introduction to Political Thought (Edinburgh University Press, Atlantic Publishers And Distributors, Delhi, 2005) 4. Thomas Spragens, The Politics of Motion: The World of Thomas Hobbes (University Press of Kentucky, 1973). Webliography: 1. accessed 26 April 2010 2. accessed 26 April 2010 3. accessed 26 April 2010 4. accessed 28 April 2010 5. jamesd@echeque.com, ‘Locke versus Hobbes’ < http://jim.com/hobbes.htm> accessed 28 April 2010 6. Rit Nosotro, ‘Hobbes and Locke; the men of influence’ accessed 28 April 2010 7. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy accessed 1 May 2010 8. accessed 1 May 2010 Read More