Thomas Hobbes' Theory about State and Power in Leviathan - Book Report/Review Example

The Rational Egoist Introduction In Thomas Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’, he mentions how “no man is bound…either to kill himself, or any other man and…the obligation a man may sometimes have, upon the command of the sovereign to execute any dangerous, or dishonorable office, dependeth not on the words of our submission; but on the intention, which is to be understood by the end thereof. When therefore our refusal to obey, frustrates the end for which the sovereign is ordained; then there is no liberty to refuse; otherwise there is” (p. 142). In essence, the dilemma created by Hobbes revolves around situations when the sovereign state needs to call upon the strength of its citizens to provide the state and its people the protection it needs. In dangerous situations, a rational egoist would most likely not risk his life for the protection of the sovereign state. However, if such protection is not provided by the citizens, then the state will revert to a state of nature. And, our lives would be forfeit if the orders of the state are not followed and protection is not provided to the state by the rational egoist. This paper shall be a critical analysis paper on Hobbes’ previously mentioned statement. This analysis shall clarify the position being examined, shall elaborate arguments for or against the position in question, shall carefully assess the adequacy and strength of the arguments by considering possible responses, counter-arguments, or counter-examples, and offer this student’s own assessment of where the arguments for and against the position being considered leave us – and is we should accept, reject, or remain neutral regarding this orientation or position. Clarification of position The dilemma in Hobbes’ statement is on how to bring consistency into his argument or if consistency is even possible in his statement. If consistency is to be brought to his statement, is a state of nature inevitable? Hobbes seems to be advocating that a rational man is not obligated to render service to the state in order to help protect sovereign interests. The dilemma in Hobbes statement can be phrased in the question – why would a rational egoist surrender his sovereignty in the state of nature? (Stanford University Press “Social Order”). A rational egoist would work through the logic of risking his life and limb in order to protect the state. He would deliberate and ask himself if his sacrifice would be worth the imposed danger on his life. The egoist in him would do everything to avoid danger and pain. He would be thinking of ways to save himself, to spare himself the pain and danger. The rational egoist would also likely think that other people can make the sacrifice for the state. However, his rationality would also eventually force him to consider that if he would not heed the call of the sovereign for protection, then the state would be left defenseless and in ruin. There is a logical inconsistency to the question. The selfishness of the rational egoist would definitely dominate the state; as a result, the society would fall into disorder without a central authority telling them what to do and what not to do. From an empirical perspective, Hobbes statement is dubious, expensive, and oppressive. The state has to go to great and expensive lengths to convince the rational egoists to contribute for the good of the state. However, up to what point can this logically continue without the expenses for the state’s defense becoming too burdensome to support? And still, the rational egoist cannot logically continue to enjoy peace in his state without contributing to the nation’s peace efforts. The lingering argument would still be whether or not the rational egoist would set aside his selfishness in order to produce a peaceful and orderly society without the prompting of a central figure. Selfishness cannot co-exist alongside an orderly society that has no central authority. The rational egoist cannot produce order in society without being ordered by a central authority. Concerted and united efforts are needed in order to produce good and lasting results for the state. Most people have the capacity to weigh the costs and benefits of a scenario or of their actions; and they actually do realize the consequences of their actions. But people are also selfish and will do anything they can to attain what they desire. In the process, they seek security and avoid death and any injury that may befall them. They will also do whatever they can to protect their reputation and their gains. However, the ability of each individual to attain what he desires depends largely on the power he possesses (Stanford University Press “Social Order”). As each individual desires a good and comfortable life, he also seeks more power in order to maintain and attain such a life. It is important to note however, that people are more or less equal in their body and their mind. Consequently, there is constant competition among individuals as they all struggle for power and as they resist others who seek to command or control them. Considering the above scenario, there is a need for a central authority to enforce rules in order for people to enjoy their interactions with each other (Stanford University Press “Social Order’). Hobbes’ theory as explained above now implies that the natural state of man is a war of all against all or the state of nature. People would now be considered as competitors and will use all means within their disposal, even fair means or foul, in order to fulfill their desires. Most people also have insecurities and they most likely live in constant fear of death or injury. Industry is also not important in society because it does not produce certain results. As a result, there is no agriculture, building, and culture in a state of nature. In a state of nature, the concept of justice does not exist, and it has no logical place in such a society (Stanford University Press “Social Order”). Hobbes justifies his arguments by citing how people lock their doors at night because people know that they may be victims of fraud and deceit. People are not particularly fond of the state of nature, and they instead prefer social order. The problem in this social order is the fact that man is a rational egoist who fears his own death and suffering. His egoism will also put him in competition and war with other people. However, he actually is in a zero liability situation where he fears death and he desires a good and secure existence, and yet he also demands social order which he does not wish to support (Stanford University Press “Social Order”). Hobbes suggests some solutions to this dilemma of social order. He sets forth that social order can actually be achieved in a state of nature because in this state, people have the freedom and liberty to control their actions and the course of society. Man’s rationality will eventually lead him to the realization that he cannot use his power to actually harm himself. He will also seek peace and order if he is convinced that other people will also have the same goal and that they will work towards such common goal. In order to ensure that other people would also seek the same thing, it is important for the members of society to realize that members of society cannot really agree to give up their individual sovereignty because rational egoists would claim it back if they feel that things are not going their way. A viable solution would be to transfer such sovereignty to another person or authority who can actually implement the agreement among rational egoists. This will also ensure that there is an authority which will combine the power and hold all individuals to such agreement. This authority will give force and coercive power to back up orders and enactments in the name of social order. Hobbes also points out that surrendering sovereignty to a central authority is an effective way to establish social order. Everyone also has to acknowledge such central authority and the fact that each one of them has no power against such central power. This is actually a forceful solution to the social order situation; however, because of the presence of rational egoists in society, it is the only viable and effective solution that would punish those who seek to cause disorder and chaos in society (Stanford University Press “Social Order”). Position Hobbes theory about the rational egoist partly has merit because societies or nations without governments or central authorities experience more upheavals and violence as compared to societies with central authorities. Without a central authority controlling and limiting the actions of the rationally egoistic people, each individual is likely to go his own selfish way and seeking his own selfish desires. Such situations are seen in mobs and crowds who do not recognize a sovereign power. This was actually seen in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide, when the different tribes in the nation were warring with each other, and each side wanted control and authority over the other and of the country. In similar situations where there was no clear central authority in the country, warring factions launched disorderly behavior which disrupted the peach and order of the nation in general. A central authority is very important in achieving social order. However, based on Hobbes’ society of rational egoists, social order is actually an unrealistic endeavor. Social order cannot be attained in a world of rational egoists because in such a society, each individual would cling to his own sovereignty. The fact that the central authority to whom the power would be relinquished is a coercive leader makes social order even more impossible to achieve. Applying coercive solutions in order to achieve social order is also not a rational possibility in a society of rational egoists because each individual would be concerned about his or her interest. In situations where there is no set limit to coercion employed by the central authority, there would be a greater possibility for abuse, fraud and unlimited struggle for power (Stanford University Press “Social Order”). There is a great possibility of the central authority taking too many liberties with the power in his hands and employing uncontrolled coercion on the people at large. Another problem in applying coercive solutions is that a very high level of coercion is actually needed in order to create social order. Coercion is however expensive to implement because many enforcers are needed to enforce social order. Police enforcers would most likely be needed in every corner and video monitors would also be needed everywhere. Coercion also poses so many ethical dilemmas because of its potential for human rights abuse and violation (Stanford University Press “Social Order”). Counter-arguments The absolutism that Hobbes is advocating is not a viable concept because equal sharing of political power is the best method of gaining the cooperation of the people in maintaining the security, peace, and order of society. Hobbes’ theory may be broken into three points; first, he argues against sharing of political power because of the eventual instability that this will later bring to the state; second, he claims that men use their reasons for their own preservation; and lastly, he assumes that a reasonable sovereign would act for the self-preservation of his people because his existence is also dependent on the people. First and foremost, an individual cannot be expected to be reasonable at all times; there may be moments of unreasonable decisions taken by an individual especially when he is not operating based on his full and healthy capacity. Because of this, Hobbes, second claim as mentioned above cannot be given credence. Since the individual’s sovereign authority is the government, his unreasonableness may also be credited to the government. Because of this occasional unreasonableness, he may not always act with the aim of community self-preservation. Internal and external threats often find their way into the fray when the sovereign makes unreasonable decisions. These internal and external threats tend to take advantage of unstable sovereign decisions and they usually endanger the safety and security of the community. For this reason, Hobbes third argument mentioned above is not reasonable; an absolute government cannot and does not provide security to the people at all times. Based on these premises, there is much doubt about Hobbes’ claims on absolutism (Bilkent University, pp. 1-3). Overall assessment A more practical way of arguing Hobbes point is by considering its implementation. I argue that Hobbes reliance on a central and sovereign authority is not a practicable way of ensuring social order because a central authority is more likely to commit errors or mistakes in implementation. Once this sovereign authority will commit a mistake, the repercussions of his actions would greatly affect the social order and the welfare of the people in general. Taken from another perspective, sharing the authority with the people would help distribute and dilute the repercussions of errors or mistakes committed by the sovereign. Unreasonableness in one of the implementing sovereign would still leave room for other sovereign powers in the government. One of the sovereign powers making a mistake would still leave room for the other sovereign powers to repair or administer necessary policy decisions for the people. Order and security is not endangered by the mistake of the central authority because such authority can still be maintained by the other powers in the government. Following such reasoning, sharing power to more people would make possible a more orderly and reasonable governance. There is also decreased risk of coercion which can be incurred through decentralized power. Reasonable political members who are on equal footing with each other will not risk breaking the bonds of equal power because of the instability such move would bring to the social order. They would not also risk engaging in wars or civil disturbances because such behavior would threaten the smooth workings of governance. The equal power that each sovereign enjoys alongside other members of society brings the realization that engaging in hostilities with other people is pointless because he can never gain an advantage over other people. Conclusion There is partial truth in Hobbes’ theory about state and power. People can be rational egoists; they can be selfish about their desires and their goals. Hobbes suggests that the best way to control a rationally egoist society is to transfer power to a central authority who will control and coerce the people into a modicum of stability. I do not agree that a central authority would bring peace and order into a rationally egoist society. I believe that a sharing of power would be the more effective way to bring about stability in society. This sharing of power would eliminate the competitive instincts of the people making them more cooperative with each other, make them seek common goals and desires for the state and not for their own selfish desires. Works Cited “An Essay about absolutism”. 2006. pp. 1-3. Bilkent University. 18 July 2009 http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~phileng/BestEssayPHIL242Spring2006KemalAlpTaylan.pdf “Hierarchies: Critiques of Individual Theories”. (n.d) Social Order. Stanford University Press. 18 July 2009 Hobbes, T. & Curley, E. 1994. p. 142. “Leviathan”. Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company Read More