Thomas Hobbes as the Janus of Jurisprudence - Essay Example

A Thomas Hobbes Study By: Insert your name here Date: 9th May 2009 Thomas Hobbes is the Janus of jurisprudence. With one face, he looks back to the classical natural law tradition; with the other, he looks forward to the concerns and themes of positivism. Indeed, although rarely exalted, what can be seen in Hobbes’s writing is that as much as he has a conservative side, he still looks at law from a dynamic perspective. He is aware that there will come a time when common law will have to be abandoned or in the least amended to conform to the complexities of cases that has been seen in the current past. In the book the elements of law natural and political, it is evident from his philosophical approach to justice that there was too much generalization of the wrongs that were being experienced then. The state of legal redress at the time was generally very minute and though people like Hobbes were always capable of coming up with natural law that could serve and precedent cases, they were not in a position to do so since there was a major hindrance that was war. When there was war, justice depended on who was stronger and the stronger entity was in charge of coming up with natural law however absurd it was and forcing the subjects to hum to their tunes. Apart from the antagonistic nature of legal redress then, the process of justice was simple and blunt and this made most of the people live in fear since there were hefty fines as the legislators then did not consider the magnitude of the case (Hobbes, 94). In his book Leviathan, he concentrated mainly on the basis that a government should employ while they want to have a well spelt out and streamlined form of government. This was like a manual of the legal approaches of social contracts. He writes that, “My main source of inspiration was derived from the urge of harmonizing the people into carrying out workable social contracts that would promote working together for common good and improvement of the state.” This is an indicator that he was driven into writing the book by the fact that he was aware that there was another generation that would require the steps that he was setting for an improvement of the state that was in its young age. He gives a conclusion that triggers the mind of the reader having a better understanding of the law that operated then and also makes the leader to keep expecting changes in the law in future. This is mainly because he was aware that there would come a time when the substance of natural law that operated then would not be substantial enough (Bowle, 51). In his Latino Book Elementa Philosophica, he concentrated on the wisdom that he had and that he collected from other wise leaders. He merged the wisdom with the course of justice and came up with even deeper meaning philosophies that he later explained and cited in other books (Hobbes, 04). In his book the Behemoth, he triggers the mind into thinking what the major cause of war was and questions the reason as to why man should live with fellow man in an antagonistic world that leads to killing during war. He tries to question why there cannot be an amicable way of solving problems and even basis his argument on the fact that man is always trying to be different and the selfishness that makes him die while getting what he is not meant to have. He portrays that as much as man could die while striving to achieve the best; it is not worth to do so in war. Instead, he argues that it should be a process that should be discussed and put to record so that there will never occur any more wars (Stephen, 04s). Although his dream of avoiding wars has come to be, there are principles that he had written that up to date have kept men musing and tasking their brains as to the deeper meaning behind them. These were mainly the questions that provoke a leader into thinking like the zealots who always wanted to keep fighting and grabbing the best for themselves. They were never satisfied with what they had and they never wanted to work hard. However, they always wanted to fight and practiced hard to do so. They eventually won most of the wars and Hobbes wonders in the book, why they always won while if justice was to be considered, they would have been the ones to lose. There could therefore be a reason behind which their principles of wining in the war always lay. In many countries and in many of the schools of jurisprudence, Thomas Hobbes ha been viewed as a legal Icon who has more sense that could be executed on the bar to make justice prevail. He wrote his work basing it on a nonpartisan platform that required the law to be for all and the judge to be for the law (Slomp, 00). Looking at the theme of positivism, Thomas Hobbes has highlighted some of the important issues that are studies in jurisprudence up to today. These are mainly issues to do with social contracts and agency where both parties violate or both parties act according to the law and there arises a dispute even with performance from both parties. This is mainly challenged by consideration where the parties were supposed to add more clauses to their agreement which they did not. In such a case where a stalemate could arise later in the execution of a contract, Hobbes applies positivism by showing both parties there is still light where there once was which is a very famous phrase that was used to settle various disputes in the past (Jessop, 60). This is mainly followed by an amendment in a way that suits both parties or by frustration and getting a new contract all together. In a case where both parties have violated social contracts, Hobbes argues that the wrongs settle each other. This should therefore be followed by performance of the contract as the terms state and then there should be discussion of how the benefits should be divided (Mace, 79). In response to persuasive response, Hobbes shows an optimistic attitude towards legal redress in the book elements of natural law where he states that there is always a right intention of both parties in social contracts. This shows that both parties should get a way of solving their conflicts amicably with guidance from natural law (Hobbes, 81). Thomas Hobbes, having been among the pioneer principals of law, has played a major role in the streamlining of common law. This is mainly evident in the book Leviathan where he has philosophically illustrated that the best way to handle civil cases is by ensuring performance regardless of the current conditions. This has been a girder in the formation of law since most of the law implementers have always counted on the toughness that is exhibited by law. This is especially evident since the law has been used since time in memorial as the basis of governing by all the world leaders. They have supported it largely because it is from the law that they derive their power and sovereign security (Hobbes, 94). A closer look at the book shows that all the time when there was war and the minority party was looking like they would concede, they could not give up since there were strict measure that were contained in the law that made the soldiers to carry on even when situations were desperate. Such illustrations are useful in the illustration of positivism of law since they not only show how serious the law is in dealing with defaulters but it also makes it mandatory for all people who are governed by a certain leader to follow the law regardless of their faith (Mintz, 70). As much as people would like to ignore the idea of exalting Thomas Hobbes, he has played a major role in the development of law. This is mainly in regards to the way his concepts were developed with a mind that they would once be used when he will be gone. He was a great man in the analysis of coexistence and this made him to have brilliant idea that he put down and they are in use up to date. Hobbes is also a major player not only in jurisprudential matters but also in philosophical arguments that are the basis from which law derives its genuity. Hobbes has highlighted the theme of positivism in a major way too and his works have been used endless times in campaigns against cruelty on humans (Sharon, 02). This is a major step towards fighting social evils like racialism and discrimination of the poor in society. Hobbes could therefore be termed as a great light on a tower in the society that brings forth understanding to humans that all people should be treated with equity that comes along with the elements of natural law that he has developed in his quest to ensure that man lives peaceful with fellow man. The issue of coexistence without a crisis is a major problem in the current world but if all the decisions in which the course justice and legal redress follow are based on the arguments that were brought forth by Thomas Hobbes, there could be a major difference in the campaign against social evils. Although the idea of communism and socialism could have promoted laziness and dependency in society, the way that Hobbes had looked at it would have eliminated poverty across the world if it was put into practice. This is because it was meant to offer each and every individual a chance to enjoy the wealth that was supposed to have made by collective effort (Macpherson, 01). The positivism of Hobbes could have portrayed him as an individual who did not have enemies at all due to his ability to solve issues in society in an amicable way. However, this was not the case with him. He also rode rough for the time he spent out of his door. This is because many people envied what he did and they too wanted to have a go at development of jurisprudence. They therefore wanted Hobbes to show them how they went about the development of the principles of natural law so that they could also become as famous as he was and also reap from his lawns. However, being wise and always having the sixth sense intact, he could philosophically wiggle his way out of situations where envious people wanted to corner him (Sharon, 02). This went on until he created enemies among his friends. The notable enemies of Thomas Hobbes were mainly John Bramhall and John Wallis who worked day and night trying to look for flaws in the creative philosopher’s work. This however did not cower off the man who was destined in ensuring that there was a system that had norms that was followed by humans for better coexistence (Lantz, 96). The enmity lasted till the elderly days of these men and they were notable criticized for their jealousy against the man who set the pace for the English course of justice when the world was all kaput in terms of legal affairs and more so redress. From the time that Thomas Hobbes brought about jurisprudence, the world was no longer the same in terms of respect and attitude to one another. All in all Hobbes still maintained his positivity towards all humans and this made his legacy to live on long after he was gone. This mostly happened when Hobbes introduced a bill against atheism and profaneness (Chappell, 99). It even took the intervention of the king to ensure that Hobbes was safe. This did not deter Hobbes from plunging forward for his dream to come true. He went on and ensured that the bills were negotiated and this did not please the enemies and the communities that were tightly holding onto atheism at the time. Hobbes wanted them to believe in a supreme being and he had enough reasons to make them believe in a god. This made the people who were following atheist rules angered by the bill and they feared that when it sailed into law, they would have to follow it regardless of whether they were for or against it. This did not come into being (Leijenhorst, 02). After close consultations and many threats, they decide to offer freedom of worship from the House of Commons and this was recorded as a major step towards more freedom from the people who were ruled in a hierarchy that had vested all the ruling powers on it. The people who were elected to assist in the ruling were mainly the people who were close to the Royal family and the choosing criterion was on the basis of who knows who. This was mainly written down in law and it was to be followed by all the people who sat on the King’s throne (Rogers, 00). The concerns of positivism are mainly in compromise where there were people who turned sympathetic once they broke the law (Hobbes, 1949). They always pleaded for mercy and at times they had facts that supported their argument. This brought about advocacy where there were attorneys who studied the elements of natural law and they were able to interpret it differently to show that the people they represented had acted according to the law based on a different interpretation from that of common law. This brought about more difference and Hobbes could keep on encouraging the people to follow the standard norms that were put down as law in ensuring that all people got equity. It was from the elements of natural Law that the Maxims came into being after the maxim school of though decided to interpret the law in a way that all could easily understand and in a way that decisions were predictable. The maxims too triggered some disturbance and antagonism at first from the people who wanted to manipulate the interpretation of law from their own perspectives and they were eventually forced to follow what was set at the beginning by Thomas Hobbes (Tuck, 02). In conclusion, it is evident that Thomas Hobbes was a major pillar in Jurisprudence and played a major role in making the people to follow his way of interpretation that always had a positivism attitude. This has been followed since the time that the books that Hobbes wrote were produced and the information has accessed all places in the world. The widely read Hobbes series has made impact not only in the schools of law but also in the corridors of justice having precedents set all over the world from the elements of natural law. If the legendary Hobbes was alive today he would see that his vision was really planned to come into being. This is because all along, people have looked at his worked for references in law school and for confirmations of how the law operates in certain situations. Bibliography 1. Academy, T. R. (n.d.). The Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Retrieved 5 9, 2009, from The Radical Academy: http://radicalacademy.com/philfthomashobbes.htm 2. Bowle, J. (1951). Hobbes and His Critics. London: Jonathon Cape. 3. Chappell, V. (1999). Hobbes and Bramhall: On Liberty and Necessity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 4. G. A.J. Rogers, T. S. (2000). Hobbes and History. London: Routledge. 5. Hobbes, T. A. (1981). Computatio, Sive, Logica: Logic. New York: Abaris Books. 6. Hobbes, T. (1904). Leviathan: Or, the Matter, Forme & Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiasticall and Civill. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 7. Hobbes, T. (1994). The Correspondence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 8. Hobbes, T. (1994). The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 9. Jessop, T. E. (1960). Thomas Hobbes. London: Longmans, Green. 10. Lantz, B. (1996). Thomas Hobbes: Fascist Exponent of Enlightement Science. Retrieved May 9, 2009, from The Schiller Institute: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/961_fascist_hobbes.html 11. Leijenhorst, C. (2002). The Mechanisation of Aristotelianism: The Late Aristotelian Setting of Thomas Hobbes' . Boston: Brill. 12. Mace, G. (1979). Locke, Hobbes, and the Federalist Papers: An Essay on the Genesis of the American Political Heritage. CArbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 13. MacPherson, C. B. (2001). The History guide: Lectures on mordern European Intellectual History. Retrieved 5 9, 2009, from http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/hobbes.html 14. Malcolm, N. (2002). Aspects of Hobbes. Oxford: Clarendon. 15. Mintz, S. I. (1970). The Hunting of Leviathan: Seventeenth-Century Reactions to the Materialism and Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 16. Sharon A. Lloyd, S. S. (2002, Feb 12). Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy. Retrieved 5 9, 2009, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ 17. Slomp, G. ( 2000). Thomas Hobbes and the Political Philosophy of Glory. Houndmills, England: Macmillan. 18. Stephen, L. (1904). Hobbes. London: Macmillan & Co.. 19. Thomas Hobbes, S. P. (1949). De Cive; Or, the Citizen. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts . 20. Tuck, R. (2002). Hobbes: A very short introduction. OXFORD: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS. Read More