Hobbess Employment of Natural Rights - Coursework Example

Why does Hobbes’s employment of natural rights point him in an absolute direction? Introduction Hobbes was one of the most influential political thinkers of his age and his ideas have remained relevant in the contemporary world. It has been noted that while he was an early modern advocate for natural rights, his beliefs tended to lean towards monarchical absolutism as a means of guaranteeing that these rights were protected. One of his most notable works, Leviathan, is an outline of his methodology of dealing with human nature where he breaks down diverse points concerning humanity and politics to their smallest components in order to study them. It is through this method of study that Hobbes is able to show that there is a significant relationship between human nature and politics, with the latter being essential for the moderation of the former through some form of absolutism. In his analysis of human nature, Hobbes dismisses the notion that good and bad is absolute and propagates the belief that these two are a part of human nature and should be treated in a moderate manner. Hobbes, while advocating for the promotion of natural rights of human beings attempts to bring it together with absolutism as a means of ensuring that there is moderation to human nature to ensure good government. Natural Rights One of the points that Hobbes makes when addressing natural rights is that there is no such thing as good or evil and that these tend to be beliefs based on individuals themselves. Human beings tend to decide what is good, bad, or contemptible from their own perspective and it is not often a shared belief with others from the same society (Hobbes & Tuck 1996, p.39). It should be noted that Hobbes believes that individuals tend to judge because they perceive good or evil as being absolute; not realising that these are not a part of nature and they actually do not exist. In nature, there are no common rules to differentiate between good and evil and these only exist in the minds of human beings who have the ability to decide whether objects of nature are good or contemptible to them. This argument shows that human beings have the freedom to make decisions concerning what is best for them; essentially supporting the idea that all human beings are born with natural rights which in some cases should be inviolable. The freedom of human beings to choose can be considered to be among the most important aspects of their natural rights and it is through their ability to choose that they can decide whether to make naturally occurring objects to achieve the status of being either good or evil. It is suggested that the ability of human beings to make such a choice is part of the right that was given to them by nature and this is a situation that separates them from other animals which often act based on their instincts rather than a set of values that they have used to restrain themselves from acting naturally. It is Hobbes’s belief that human beings tend to be governed by their desires rather than the realities of the situations around them. This is in such a way that individuals end up interpreting their environment according to their own desires or that of their own societies (Hobbes & Tuck 1996, p.40). These interpretations often vary from one society to another and these are normally based on the highly competitive nature of human beings. Humanity, according to Hobbes, is a highly competitive race mainly as a result of its being extremely individualistic, unsociable, as well as being constantly at war with each other. The result of such an environment is that human beings end up becoming governed by their own perceptions of life; not caring for anything beyond themselves. Furthermore, the scarcity of resources available to sustain human beings is among the factors that lead to their competitiveness and this is especially the case where they have to compete for reputation as well as security so that they can fulfil an innate desire that is part of their nature (Levy 1954, p.589). Moreover, Hobbes is of the belief that man is a creature that is not often trusting, especially when he suspects that another might be attempting to undermine, kill, or take away their property. The suspicion that is part of human nature is one which has developed as a result of the reality that all human beings are capable of harming one another and this creates a situation where human beings, in their natural environment, are always in a state of conflict. One of the most significant arguments concerning human beings and nature is that in the state of nature, human beings have a right of nature. This is especially the case where the right of nature brings about a situation where human beings are able to use their own power to preserve their own lives while at the same time disregarding the welfare of others. It is through this disregard that human nature is revealed where as a result of their only being able to take care of their own interests; it creates a situation where the society becomes chaotic since members of society do not have the ability to moderate themselves (Jacobson and Rogow 1987, p.469). The right of nature makes it possible for human beings to live according to their own desires without having to consider those of others. This right also makes it possible for man to have a taste for using his own power in the preservation of his nature and this in such a way that he uses his best judgment to device the best means of doing so (Hobbes & Tuck 1996, p.86). Under such circumstances, human beings are under no obligation to consider the welfare of their fellows and this creates a situation where man is unable to develop the proper conditions necessary to have a proper functioning society. The fear of others and the possibility that the latter might inflict a painful death on them in a bid to protect their own interests makes the state of nature to be highly unstable. Therefore, in order to prevent such a scenario destroying mankind, the latter have devised means of maintaining the peace in their societies through the formation of a political society which binds all people within it to preserve the peace. Furthermore, this political society, which becomes the state, ends up having the responsibility to ensure that there is security and stability. Unlike Aristotle, who believed that man was naturally drawn to the political community, Hobbes propagates the belief that man only becomes involved in such a community out of self-interest and that politics are part of man’s individualistic nature. Argument for absolutism Through his idea concerning the creation of the state, Hobbes proposes that human beings should create a form of alienation contract between themselves where they surrender their liberty and judgement to an entity that is sovereign (Hobbes & Tuck 1996, p.132). Such an entity would preferably be a monarch who would undertake all the tasks that his subjects would otherwise have done for themselves. Such a situation would mean that the monarch would be able to handle all decisions in society in the best interests of its entire people rather than on those of the individuals within it. As the supreme judge as well as an arbitrator, a monarch is in the best position to ensure that there is continuous peace in society and this helps in the development of a situation where the natural condition of human beings is brought under control (Hurtgen, 1979). This can be considered to be Hobbes’s support of absolutism because he argues that the unlimited liberty that is created through the natural condition often brings human beings into conflict with one another; a circumstance that is highly undesirable in society. It is therefore essential that there be a supreme judge of the law of nature, essentially a monarch, who will have the ability to arbitrate whenever conflict arises between different parties while at the same time preserving the peace (Austin and Rumble 1995, p.117). Because human beings are unable to ensure that they retain order as a result of their self-interest, there is a need for an absolute monarch who can be able to make possible the boundaries between right and wrong. The contract between individuals in society makes them agree to surrender their liberty and judgement and this in such a way that these freedoms are handed over to a sovereign who is able to create laws that serve the interests of members of society. Individuals continue to obey the monarch because they realise that he is the personification of the state which is essentially an extension of themselves. The monarch is able to ensure that his decisions are supreme because as an extension of the liberty of his people, he is completely sovereign and does not have any judge above him (Goldsmith 1980, p.34). The absolute authority of the monarch allows for an environment in society where individuals cannot indulge in any form of collective resistance as a result of the state of nature; thus saving society a situation where it is in a constant state of war. Therefore, investing their trust in an absolute monarch is essential in ensuring that there is peace and order in society and this is what best serves the natural self-interest of human beings. It is Hobbes’s argument that all human beings are capable of harm and that the best way to prevent this is to ensure that they surrender their power to a sovereign (Kelsen and Wedberg 1945, p.110). The reduction of the ability to cause harm is essential because it allows for individuals to concentrate on matters of more importance while the monarch makes the decisions concerning the best way through which they can live. As the final judge as well as the arbitrator in society, the monarch has the ability to make sure that society is able to have order because individuals within it will have to obey him. This stance has been criticised because it seems to deny individuals the choice to practice their liberty without any interference from the sovereign (Haskell, 2011, p.123); a complete misunderstanding of what Hobbes meant. It should be noted that Hobbes does not deny that it is the natural right of human beings to have liberty, but he states that in order to prevent chaos in society, it is essential for them to surrender some of this liberty to a sovereign. According to Hobbes, the sovereign is in a better position to act in an absolute manner than ensure that society remains orderly because he is essentially an extension of the will of his people (Taylor 1938, p.406). Hobbes suggests that it is best for only one person in society to have the ability to cause harm than all individuals within it because the latter situation would go against the self-interest of individuals. Without a form of absolute control over the society, the chaotic nature of man would be revealed and such would be detrimental to the survival of such a society because all individuals within it would be in a constant state of war. In this way, Hobbes is an early advocate against secession because he is of the belief that such a move would mean succumbing to the self-interest that is a negative aspect of man’s nature and will essentially disintegrate the peace that has been guaranteed by the sovereign. Hobbes is of the belief that because the sovereign is a mere extension of the people within the society over which he rules, he cannot act in a manner that would essentially bring harm to the political society. Furthermore, it is the obligation of individuals to obey the sovereign, not only because it is these individuals who took part in the creation of the institution of monarchy, but because in the formation of the contract, the made promises to surrender their liberty as well as to obey the sovereign (Newey 2008, p.18). It is the obligation of human beings to ensure that they keep their promises even through these promises might go against their natural desire to ensure that their self-interests are protected. Moreover, breaking the covenant that brought about the formation of the state would mean going against the concept of self-preservation because a significant number of individuals, in their natural state and without the absolute authority of the sovereign, would end up suffering and living in fear that they might become victims of violence from others who believe that they stand in the way of their interests. One would suggest that Hobbes considers human beings to essentially be individuals who are governed more by the instinct of self-preservation which ensures that they support the maintenance of order in their societies rather than disruption which might lead to chaos (Milner 1991, p.67). The monarch is the only guarantor of peace and security and individuals tend to obey these sovereigns because to do otherwise would mean that there would be continuous conflict in society; hence going against the natural need for self-preservation. Therefore, obedience towards the sovereign makes it possible for individuals in society suppress their natural instinct for non-compliance and instead allows them to preserve their security. While there has been criticism concerning Hobbes favouring an absolute monarchy over the years, this criticism has failed to note that it is only through a single authority that it is possible to attain a single interpretation of ideas (Hart 1961, p.97). A monarch with absolute authority ensures that there is a unified interpretation of the different laws that exist in society. This is especially the case in situations where there is a written constitution which makes it difficult for there to be a single interpretation. It should be noted that even in democratic societies where there is division of power; there is often a need for a single authority to develop final interpretations for laws because the diverse institutions within these states often make different interpretations of single laws. Constitutional or supreme courts have become an integral part of democracies and this is because of the need to make interpretations of laws; a role that is taken up by an absolute monarch more efficiently if one would agree with Hobbes’s views. Conclusion Hobbes defines a sovereign as being a power who does not have any other authority above him; his authority essentially being absolute. There are no limits to the monarch’s power and he uses it objectively to make sure that the interests of his people are protected at all times. Hobbes’s opinion concerning the employment of natural rights in matters of politics seems to have taken his towards an absolutist direction. This is because of his staunch belief that unlimited liberty is what brings about a situation where there is often war and chaos within society, meaning that there is a need to have an absolute authority to ensure that moral standards are created and imposed on society. The discussion above shows that the ability of human beings to retain peace is quite limited and they need to be under the absolute control of a sovereign to ensure that they are able to live peaceful and secure lives. Therefore, Hobbes’s view is one that takes him to an absolutist direction where the sovereign remains the main moral and political power in society. Reference Austin, J. & Rumble, W. (ed.) 1995. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hobbes, T. & Tuck, R. (ed.). 1996. Leviathan. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Goldsmith, M.M., 1980. “Hobbe’s ‘Mortal God’: Is There a Fallacy in Hobbes’s Theory of Sovereignty?” History of Political Thought, vol. 1, pp. 33 – 50. Hart, H.L.A., 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Haskell, J.D., 2011. “Hugo Grotius in the Contemporary Memory of International Law: Secularism, Liberalism, and the Politics of Restatement and Denial.” Emory International Law Review, 25(1), pp. 123 – 150. Hurtgen, J.R., 1979. Hobbes theory of sovereignty in Leviathan. Fredonia, SUNY College. Reason paper. 5, 55-67. Jacobson, N. & Rogow, A., 1987. "Thomas Hobbes: Radical in the Service of Reaction". Political Psychology, vol. 8, no. 3, p.469. Kelsen, H. & Wedberg, A. (ed.) 1945. The General Theory of Law and the State. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Levy, A., 1954, "Economic Views of Thomas Hobbes". Journal of the History of Ideas, 15(4), pp. 589–595. Milner, H., 1991. “The Assumption of Anarchy in International Politics: A Critique.” Review of International Studies, 17(1), pp.67–85. Newey, G., 2008. Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to Hobbes and Leviathan. London, Routledge. Taylor, A.E., 1938. “The Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes”. Philosophy, vol. 13, pp. 406 – 424. Read More