Is An Absolute Sovereign Necessary And Sufficient To Let Us Escape The State Of Nature?

Hobbes argues that the creation of a Leviathan is in everyone's best interests; ensuring their preservation. Through the surrender of the population's "right to govern themselves" to one person, they create an overwhelmingly, predictably powerful artificial being who serves to maintain the status-quo between civilians: The knowledge that the Leviathan will destroy those who do wrong stabilises human interaction, instating predictability onto the actions of others. Whereas in the state of nature, "there is no way for any man to secure himself, so reasonable, as anticipation" - in a commonwealth, this paranoia is tamed through the omnipresent threat of knowable destruction. A pacific, productive environment is hereby created. Hobbes "offers a vision of civil society in the commonwealth that protects people from subjugation by relentless power-seekers and allows them to develop their own capabilities as they wish" He argues that absolute sovereignty is necessary because no other form of sovereignty is as efficient, and reverting to the state of nature is unthinkable. However, Locke's case that "Absolute monarchy is inconsistent with civil society", casts into doubt whether an absolute sovereign is sufficient to escape the state of nature. The prioritization of an absolute sovereign's rule above the state of nature is contingent to the values you hold. In Leviathan, the Hobbes's stance of moral relativism is the basis on which he founds his case that an absolute sovereign can and must be the key to leave the state of nature. His assessment, therefore, rests or falls according to the acceptability of the implications this ensues. Indeed, if Hobbes's outlook be accepted, the incisive, plausible and lucid argumentation he uses to build the rest of his argument takes on a bulletproof glaze. I will argue that his relativity-founded reasoning is problematic.

Hobbes follows a rationale that is thickly rooted in the conviction that there is no universal truth: based on in his assessment that "every man must acknowledge another for his equal by nature [.] the breach of this precept is pride", he argues that, nothing is right or wrong but that which is rational (in this case, meaning most conductive to the insurance one's self-preservation) to believe; Nothing has intrinsic value, but must be endowed with meaning according to that which it serves our wellbeing to believe. To the question- "is it because it is good that we consent to a particular political order, or is it because we have consented to it that it is good? ", Hobbes replies the latter: because there is no objective truth to be reached, debate and argument can have no use but to fuel discord and potentially land the population back into the dreaded state of nature- "a monarch cannot disagree with himself out of envy or interest; but an assembly may; and to such a height as may produce a civil war." Hobbes, therefore, thinks it best to shy away from possible disagreement and leave the choice down to a single educated person who represents the "fury of a multitude" on a purely symbolic level, thus avoiding conflict within an impressionable, impulsive people. Fittingly, then, for the concrete realm of political theory, Hobbes's text, like his ethics and his ideal government style, is un-muddied by abstract ideas. His reasoning is clean and neat: An absolute monarch is the most straightforwardly direct and powerful form of government, and therefore, the best. "The difference between these three kinds of commonwealth consisteth not in the difference of power; but in the difference of convenience" Hobbes further endorses absolute monarchy through the argument that it is in the kings best interest to be good "no king can be rich, nor glorious, nor secure; whose subjects are either poor or contemptible or too weak [.] to maintain war against their enemies" Locke criticizes the monarchy for the same self-interested qualities- "everyman who loves his own power, [must] keep those animals from hurting, or destroying one another, who labour and drudge only for his pleasure and advantage" This calls to mind Marx's evaluation of the success or failure of a social system based on whether the ruling class is "(in)competent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery" Hobbes's notion of a good system, therefore, is a successful one where the "slaves" are healthy; well-fed and peaceful. For him, submissive peace is enough. Perhaps, though, happiness at the cost of freedom is too dearly-bought. As Heath describes- Even if all citizens were happy to be coerced, it is not clear why this would justify the coercion; certainly slavery would not be justified even if one's slaves were happy; both resort to non-consensual coercion to generate benefits [.] political coercion is in fact justified only if, unlike slavery, it does not impose unreasonable costs upon those nonconsensually coerced. The legitimacy of the Absolute Sovereign's reign, then, depends on whether the benefits he generates outweigh the price paid for them. Hobbes's argument neglects to take into account this eventuality; for him, only the direct threat of death is a valid cause to disobey. Freedom should be surrendered as nothing but dangerous. In Hobbes's terms, it indicates purely the animal liberty to behave however the passions may inspire, as opposed to the freedom to help decide what the nation you belong to stands for. Democracy, therefore, is problematic because the potential for quarrel within these topics holds eventual minefields, and no topic can be worth chaos. Inflammatory ideas, for him, are just confusion, just as "imagination is nothing but decaying sense" Peace is all anyone really needs, and those who say otherwise don't know what they want: "(a monarchy) wanteth nothing more than a strong monarch, which nevertheless out of a certain tyrannophobia, or fear of being strongly governed, when they have him, they abhor." Hobbes underlines that it is arrogant to glorify opinion, to assert "that a man shall judge of what is lawful and unlawful, not by the law itself, but [.] by their own private judgements" He genuinely advocates "that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest" , endorsing the indoctrination of propaganda as beneficial. He considers complaisance to be wise because supporting the current political system is most conductive to peace and self -preservation "people are to be taught [.] not to desire change [.] they ought to be informed how great a fault it is, to speak evil of the sovereign representative" Hobbes's preference of status-quo stability over any pretentions towards truth implies that his idea of a good society is a 1984-esque state of political stagnation- where everyone accepts whatever ideologies they are dealt out of terror of conflict - as opposed to one that progresses and evolves. This sort of kneeling ideology smacks of cowardice, but just as Hobbes shows that "they that are discontented under monarchy, call it tyranny" Integrity is perhaps stone's-throw from stubbornness- what a Buddhist might call ego, and attempt to overcome. Hobbes's dismissal of the abstract idea of truth in favour of general contentment is not incomprehensible. However, not even general contentment is a condition Hobbes sets for the validity of the sovereign. Indeed, though the aim behind creating the Leviathan was allegedly to acquire safety through peace, he infers that even if the whims of the sovereign contradict the population's wellbeing, the civilians had best bear it in silence as the "authors" of all of Leviathan's actions- "whatsoever he doth, it can be no injury to any of his subjects; nor ought he to be by any of them accused of injustice"

Thus, if "the end of civil society is to avoid and remedy those inconveniences of the state of nature" the establishment Hobbes proposes is sufficient. However, it avoids those inconveniences by potentially substituting them with new, more insidious problems. That which Hobbes encourages out of fear of unpredictability and the dismissal of absolutist concepts has potential to be worse, even, than the state of war- "the practical problem is that Hobbes is so concerned to avoid the calamities of confusion and civil war that he justifies the exercise of virtual dictatorship"

Bibliography: Hayes, Peter- The People and the Mob (1992: Praeger Publishers UK) Hobbes, Thomas- Leviathan, (1996: Oxford University Press Inc., New York) Hume, David- Part II, Essay XII of The Original Contract (1987: Liberty Fund, Inc.) Locke, John- Two treatises of Government (2011, General Books, USA) Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1992: Oxford University Press, New York) O`Hagan, Timothy- The Philosophical Quarterly (2005: Wiley), Wellman, Heath- Is There a Duty to Obey the Law? (2005: Cambridge University Press, New York)