HOBBES RECONSIDERED
Though the name of Thomas Hobbes is not always in the mouth
of modern political theorists, his notion of sovereignty is. Hobbes
believed in the absolute, unlimited, unchallengeable authority
of the sovereign. This is the basic notion of sovereignty still
in use, the standard by which States are measured. Those which
do not measure up are "half-sovereign," "semi-sovereign,"
or have only "limited sovereignty." This standard defines
the ongoing theoretical conversations, which in turn provide the
basis for justifying government action.
This notion of unlimited, indivisible sovereignty is not the exclusive
invention or possession of Hobbes, but he is the one who most
clearly and thoroughly articulated and championed it. Later theorists
continued to accept the notion, even when they disagreed on the
identity of the sovereign. Today, the concept remains the same,
though the location of the sovereignty has shifted.
Much that Hobbes wrote, including his major errors, is assumed
to be true and, therefore, perpetuated. His errors can best be
seen by examining how he derived and defended his beliefs. He
claimed that his concept came from Natural Law and Biblical Law.
We need to consider his approach to each.
Hobbes and Natural Law
Natural Law is law that is embedded in Nature and discerned by
man. Since two people watching the same event are capable of seeing
different things and coming to different conclusion, the content
of Natural Law depends upon the perception of the observer. As
Hobbes noted in a different context, "All Lawes, written
and unwritten, have need of Interpretation." 15
As with all cases of interpretation, interpreters often disagree.
What is blatantly self-evident to one is self-induced delusion
to another.
Hobbes defined a Law of Nature as "a Precept, or generall
Rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that
which is destructive of his life..." 16 Hobbes' fundamental
law of Nature, from which all others are derived, is that a man
must do everything to save his own life. All other laws of Nature
are deduced by reasoning from this fundamental law. Hobbes made
several mistakes in reasoning in formulating his definition.
1. Hobbes misconstrued and overestimated the place of Reason.
Hobbes lived and labored under a powerful illusion concerning
Reason. He was convinced that Reason was the ultimate determiner
of Truth, "For he that Reasoneth aright in words he understandeth,
can never conclude an Error." 17
Reason, however, must be given a starting point and must be given
rules of procedure. It can never serve as its own starting point.
Nor can it ever define the way it is to be used. Otherwise all
reasoning becomes circular.
From different starting points, with the same rules of procedure,
or from the same starting point, with different rules of procedure,
the same person will reach different conclusions. With both different
starting points and different rules of procedure, the same individual
will reach even more varied conclusions.
Is it possible for reasonable people to disagree? Yes, because
both Reason and those who use it have their limits. The information
available from which to make a decision is always incomplete.
Hobbes did not think it possible for reasonable people to disagree,
"For all men by nature reason alike, and well, when they
have good principles. For who is so stupid, as both to mistake
in Geometry, and also to persist in it, when another detects his
error to him?" 18
From culture to culture, and even from house to house, all men
do not reason alike, and all men do not reason well, not even
when they have good principles. Hobbes begs the question of whose
reason shall determine which principles are good, and which are
not.
In many respects, human Reason is the child of its time and its
setting. It can be used to justify or condemn, to preserve or
destroy. It is a servant of all kinds of motives.
The rhetorical question Hobbes raised provides an excellent illustration
of the limits of Reason in life. Hobbes asked, "For who is
so stupid, as both to mistake in Geometry, and also to persist
in it, when another detects his error to him?" Unfortunately,
one answer is "Hobbes himself."
Hobbes wrote other works besides Leviathan. "The De Corpore,
the exposition of his scientific materialism, was published in
1653. Unfortunately, it contained a rash mathematical adventure.
Hobbes claimed to have squared the circle, which drew him into
a long and fierce controversy with the Savilian professor of mathematics
at Oxford - Wallis. Hobbes was wrong from the beginning but he
kept up the fight with pamphlet and counterpamphlet giving himself
away more and more hopelessly as he went on till he was ninety
years old. His love for geometry was greater than his knowledge."
19
Error and stubbornness appear to be common human attributes, perhaps
even the result of some Natural Law. Hobbes is not alone, but
error and stubbornness seem to be their strongest among those
who pride themselves on their intelligence and knowledge.
2. Hobbes overextended the role of Science.
Hobbes was so enamored with Reason that he thought Science
was the way to understand life. Science can be very helpful in
understanding many things about life, but it is useless in understanding
life itself.
Hobbes approached government as though he were a biologist studying
a living being. He called human government "Leviathan"
because he thought it should be understood as if it were a living
creature. For example, he writes, "I shall speak of the parts
Organicall, which are Publique Ministers." 20 Elsewhere he
informs us "Of the Nutrition, and Procreation of a Common-wealth,"
21 and its many other biological aspects.
There is no denying that there are living beings involved in government,
but government itself is an inorganic, manufactured item. It is
not an Artificial Man. It is not a Man at all.
In Tolstoy's analysis, Hobbes would have thrown in his lot with
the Germans, for "...a German bases his self-assurance on
an abstract idea: science, that is, the supposed knowledge of
absolute truth. A Frenchman's self-assurance stems from his belief
that he is mentally and physically irresistibly fascinating to
both men and women. An Englishman's self-assurance is founded
on his being a citizen of the best organized state in the world,
and on the fact that, as an Englishman, he always knows what to
do, and that whatever he does as an Englishman is unquestionably
correct. An Italian is self-assured because he is excitable and
easily forgets himself and others. A Russian is self-assured simply
because he knows nothing and does not want to know anything, since
he does not believe in the possibility of knowing anything fully.
But a German's self-assurance is the worst of all, more inflexible
and repellent than any other, because he imagines that he knows
the truth, science, which is his own invention, but which for
him is absolute truth." 22
3. Hobbes mischaracterized the nature of man.
"The Leviathan is based on the assumption that the first
law of man's nature is to seek peace and that there is nothing
for which it is worth while even to risk one's life." 23
Hobbes saw self-preservation as the foundation of all human relationships.
He claimed that, by definition, every Law of Nature is a "Precept...by
which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his
life..." 24
Darwin and his followers would have no problem with that, and,
on the surface, it does seem characteristic of many, if not most,
people. Nonetheless, it is a false assumption. It is not characteristic
of all people.
The act of self-sacrifice, for a variety of reasons, is a normative
part of the human experience. Every culture exalts and honors
those who have chosen to give their lives for the good of another,
for the good of their family, for the good of their people, their
country, or their cause. If there were a culture that did not,
it would not exist for long. No one would fight to preserve it.
Contrary to Hobbes, self-preservation is not the highest value
in decision making. Most people would say there are some things
more important than their own individual lives, and that there
are some things worse than their own individual death.
People risk death to establish and keep empires. Subject peoples
risk death to escape them. Every combatant in every war has made
a decision that life, i.e. personal self-preservation, is NOT
the highest goal/value. Each combatant is willing to risk losing
his life for some higher value - be it duty or booty, glory or
honor, love of country, family, or liberty, or simply escape from
punishment or boredom.
There may well be a sub-culture populated only by those who always
place their own individual existence above all other considerations.
Perhaps Hobbes has identified such a sub-culture in Leviathan,
but it requires others outside its membership to die for its defense.
Nevertheless, the defining characteristic that Hobbes claimed
for all Natural Law is not true. The foundational assumption on
which his entire notion of sovereignty rests is false.
Hobbes seems to have projected his observations of certain power
elites on to all humanity. He seems to have done it in other cases
as well: "So that in the first place, I put for a generall
inclination of all mankind, a perpetuall and restlesse desire
of Power after power, that ceaseth onely in Death." 25 Are
all men insatiably craving after power? While this may be true
of Leviathan and his servants, where is the evidence that it is
true of all mankind?
4. Hobbes distorted the nature of Government.
Hobbes claimed that individuals gave up the right to self-government
when they voluntarily chose to associate themselves together.
"The mutuall transferring of Right, is that which men call
Contract." 26 Such a social contract, however, is an admitted
fiction. It never happened, and it is unrelated to how people
actually find themselves under the rule of a state.
As Hobbes observed in a more realistic moment, "there is
scarce a Common-Wealth in the world whose beginnings can in conscience
be justified." 27 Some people forced other people to obey
them. Preferring the fiction to the reality, Hobbes justified
all government action on the basis of what never happened. "Whatsoever
is commanded by the Soveraign Power, is as to the Subject (though
not alwayes in the sight of God) justified by the Command; for
of such command every Subject is the Author." 28 In freely
choosing the sovereign, each person had authorized him to do whatever
he thought best.
Following the fictitious transfer of the right of self-government,
"...the Multitude so united in one Person, is called a Common-Wealth,
in latine Civitas. This is the Generation of that Mortall
God, to which wee owe under the Immortall God, our peace and defence."
29 "For by Art is created that great Leviathan...which is
but an Artificiall Man; though of greater stature and strength
than the Naturall, for whose protection and defence it was intended;
and in which, the Soveraignty is an Artificiall Soul... "
30
The state as an Artificial Man is also a legal fiction. Likewise
Soveraignty as an Artificiall Soul. That is, these things are
not true, even if the Law demands that people behave as though
they were. The mandated myth, enforced by the police power of
the state, includes the related concepts of social contract, personhood
of the state, and sovereignty as soul.
The imposition of these legal fictions has consequences for those
who must obey, and also for those who command. For those who must
obey, it does not matter whether or not they believe these myths
or want the government that rules over them. If they do not submit,
they will be punished with loss of property, freedom, or life.
For those who command, these legal fictions ultimately put Leviathan's
servants, in their official capacity, above the Law. So long as
they are doing what the state says to do, they are not individually
accountable for their actions. The actions are those of the Artificial
Man, who is the god to be obeyed.
Many modern governments may find it necessary to eliminate individual
accountability for officials so that they can function the way
they do, but it is not necessary for every kind of government.
For thousands of years, individuals in government were held personally
accountable for their decisions and the results. This is still
the case in various places in the world today. If the Artificial
Man does not really exist, then the decision makers are personally
accountable for their own decisions.
What would the will of the people be in this regard? Would it
be that the Sovereign can do wrong? Or would it be that all officials
be held personally accountable for their decisions involving finances,
property, and people's lives?
Hobbes is again mistaken when he says that the state comes into
existence for the protection and defence of the people. That may
be a factor for some states, but it is certainly not true of all.
Some come into being for the exploitation and destruction of the
people. Those who rule through the state have many goals that
do not include the welfare of the people.
5. Hobbes mischaracterized War and Peace.
"Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live
without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that
condition which is called Warrre; and such a warre, as is of every
man, against every man. For Warre, consisteth not in Battell onely,
or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the Will
to contend by Battell is sufficiently known: and therefore the
notion of Time, is to be considered in the nature of Warre; as
it is in the nature of Weather. For as the nature of Foule weather,
lyeth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto
of many dayes together; So the nature of War, consisteth not in
actually fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during
all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other
time is Peace." 31
Hobbes makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of war
in explaining that it is a condition of hostility and a disposition
towards conflict, whether or not military battles are taking place.
There is more to peace than the immediate absence of such battles.
There must be something or someone who insures that absence.
Hobbes also knew of La Guerra Fria, the Cold War between
Christendom and Islam, that was part of the centuries long conflict
between irreconcilable world systems. There were times when the
two sides were not actively slaughtering one another, but the
conflict continued nevertheless. Yet despite Hobbes' contribution
to our understanding or war, he also substantially misrepresents
it.
1) It is not true that people can only be at peace when there
is a common power ruling over them. People living under different
sovereignties can be at peace with one another. Hobbes' representation
of war and peace actually requires that there be only one sovereign
Power, one Leviathan, ruling over all the earth.
2) Living under a common feared power does not mean that people
are at peace. Sometimes that common power makes war on its
own people or on part of the people. How many people have been
terrorized or slaughtered by the very Power that ruled over them?
Human history is filled with such rulers and empires. The people
who are forced to live under them have no peace. To call, for
example, Stalin's reign between the two World Wars a time of peace
is to turn peace into something that few would ever desire.
3) People who are being killed in such times of "peace"
sometimes decide that war is the only way to protect life.
In war, usually at least one side believes it is fighting to preserve
life. Because Hobbes thought that saving one's life was the highest
human value, he denied the genuine possibility of such war or
revolution. "For it can never be that Warre shall preserve
life, and Peace destroy it." 32 He denied the legitimacy
of such common human reasoning and motives to the contrary.
Hobbes and Biblical Law
Hobbes called all men to submit to Leviathan, basing his appeal
on Natural Law and Biblical Law. As an interpreter of the Law,
he distorted what is observable in Nature. He did the same with
what is contained in the Bible.
1. The Nature of Leviathan
Hobbes saw the sovereign as "that Mortall God" to
whom all men owe an almost unlimited allegiance. There was only
one limit that Hobbes saw to that allegiance, what was necessary
to gain eternal life. "For if the command of the Civill Soveraign
be such as that it may be obeyed without the forfeiture of life
Eternall; not to obey it is unjust." 33
Hobbes called this Mortall God "Leviathan," a powerful
creature that the Bible speaks of in several places. There are
other places in the Bible that do not use the name, but clearly
refer to the same being.
The Lord asks Job, "Can you pull in the leviathan with a
fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope? ...If you lay a hand
on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
Any hope of subduing him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering."
34 The Septuagint, Syriac and Arabic versions do not give "Leviathan"
as a name, but translate it as "dragon". 35
Different Biblical commentators, both before and after Hobbes,
have seen Leviathan as representative of the rulers of the nations.
Adam Clarke said of the Biblical references that, "These
are used allegorically without doubt for great potentates, enemies
and persecutors of the people of God...R(abbi). D(avid). Kimchi
says, leviathan is a parable concerning the kings of the Gentiles..."
36 Hobbes saw much the same and thought that the name fit.
At some point, however, Leviathan, or the physical or spiritual
rulers it represents, rebelled against the Lord. What awaits Leviathan
is destruction from the hand of the Lord. "In that day, the
LORD will punish with his sword - his fierce, great and powerful
sword - Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent;
he will slay the monster of the sea." 37
In the Book of Revelation, though the name Leviathan does not
appear, there are clear references to this same being. From a
great battle that takes place in heaven, "The great dragon
was hurled down -that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan,
who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth,
and his angels with him." 38
In the Bible, Leviathan represents Satan, the adversary of God.
He is not to be obeyed or imitated.
Jesus said to his disciples, "You know that those who are
recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their
great men exercise authority over them. But it is not so among
you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your
servant." 39 Throughout the Bible, the king is supposed to
be a servant, not a master.
2. The Nature of Human Government
Hobbes presents 1 Sam.8:11 as saying, "This shall be
the Right of the King...", followed by a list of wilful actions.
40 The word he translates as "Right" [mishpat] is rendered
differently by virtually all other translators. Their translations
say, "This shall be the way (or manner, or custom) of the
King".
In context, God was not commending or defending the king to the
people. He was rebuking the people for desiring to submit themselves
to a king. As He had just told Samuel, "it is not you they
have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king."
When they realized their sin, "The people all said to Samuel,
'Pray to the LORD your God for your servants so that we will not
die, for we have added to all our other sins the evil of asking
for a king.'" 42
The Bible says the source of all authority is God: "...there
is no authority except that which God has established...."
43 Hobbes maintained that "all Lawes, written and unwritten,
have their Authority, and force, from the Will of the Common-Wealth..."
44 The Biblical position is different. It could be paraphrased
to be: "All Lawes, written and unwritten, have their Authority,
and force, from the Will of God."
The Bible records that people often choose to reject God's authority
and establish "authorities" of their own, but God does
not authorize this. Psalm 2 describes how God will bring judgment
on "the kings of the earth...and the rulers" who do
not recognize His authority. Proverbs 16:12 says that "It
is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, for a throne
is established on righteousness."
Hobbes turned things around. He made Leviathan the unchallengeable,
supreme authority. He even extended this to religious and moral
teaching. "There is therefore no other Government in this
life, neither of State, nor Religion, but Temporall; nor teaching
of any doctrine, lawfull to any Subject, which the Governour both
of the State and of the Religion forbiddeth to be taught: And
that Governor must be one..." 45 In other words, the one
who governs the State must govern the Religion as well, and no
one should teach any doctrine that the ruler of the State disapproves.
The Bible presents a world where all human authority is divided
and limited. It was by not submitting to the religion of the land
that Daniel found himself in the lions' den, and Peter and John
found themselves in jail. When King Uzziah presumed authority
to do what he wanted in the Temple, God struck him with leprosy
and the priests kicked him out. 46
Prophets, priests, and people all rebuke and defy the governmental
sovereign when he goes beyond the limits of his authority and
transgresses the law of God. For example, King Ahab wanted the
property of Naboth for his own use. "But Naboth replied,
'The LORD forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my
fathers.'" 47 Ahab killed Naboth to get the land, and the
Lord sent Elijah the prophet to rebuke and pronounce judgment
on him. 48 The core of the prophetic ministry is to teach the
very doctrines that the rulers have rejected.
Hobbes claimed that, "there is no place in the world where
men are permitted to pretend other Commandements of God, than
are declared for such by the Common-Wealth. Christian States punish
those that revolt from Christian Religion, and all other States,
those that set up any Religion by them forbidden." 49 Hobbes
may have correctly observed the sovereigns of his day, but this
is not what the Bible teaches.
There would never have been a "Christian Religion" if
those who initially believed in it had not disobeyed the religious
and state authorities. "It was, for instance, general medieval
doctrine that all princely acts which go beyond the moral purpose
of the state were null and void." 50 Likewise, the people
of Israel were continually forbidden to live according to the
religious practices of the nations where they might find themselves.
Most of the Church has never recognized the unlimited authority
of the state.
3. The Nature of Law
"To this warre of every man against every man, this also
is consequent; that nothing can be Unjust. The notions of Right
and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place. Where there
is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice."
51 In Hobbes' recapitulation of the development of human society,
there was no Law before individuals joined themselves into distinct
governed societies.
In seeming contradiction, Hobbes went to great lengths to observe
and explain the various Laws of Nature as laws which apply to
all men, regardless of the place, time, or circumstances. That
would include, presumably, even those living in their most natural
state before the creation of any Artificial Man. But is the situation
different after people form distinct societies with different
sovereigns? Do they no longer have any Natural Law obligations
to each other?
In a strictly Biblical context, the situation that most clearly
corresponds to Hobbes' time of "warre of every man against
every man," is that of Cain and Abel. There was no common
human Power over them. They had not formed a compact, covenant,
or contract. Was there therefore then no Right and Wrong, Justice
and Injustice? God clearly pronounces judgment on Cain for having
done Wrong, for having committed Injustice. Murder, at least,
was wrong from the very beginning.
Likewise it is clear in the Bible that there are other laws governing
human behavior that apply to all men, whether or not they live
under the same human authority. All people are said to live under
the authority of God. All people are said to have been given in
their hearts, or conscience if you will, a knowledge of these
laws. It is for breaking these laws that people are found guilty
before God.
In a related matter, Hobbes maintained that, "The Soveraign
of a Common-wealth, be it an Assembly, or one Man, is not Subject
to the Civill Lawes...." 52 This is a very anti-Biblical
position. The Bible teaches that all people, including the king,
are under the authority of the law. In fact, the kings of Israel
were required to personally write a copy of the law and read it
daily, so that they wouldn't succumb to the temptation of thinking
they were above the law.
"When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write
for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of
the priests, who are Levites. It is to be with him, and he is
to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere
the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law
and these decrees and not consider himself better than his brothers
and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and
his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel."
53
Hobbes believed in the absolute sovereignty of human government.
In the Bible, only God's sovereignty is absolute. Each belief
produces its own form of morality.
If you would like to send this article to a friend, please select and copy the text above, and paste into body of email message. Please replace the word "friend" with the email address of your friend . Thank you.
(go back)
What is National Sovereignty?
Where Does Sovereignty Come From?
Hobbes Reconsidered
Realpolitik Morality
Anti-State
Revolt
Intervention
One World, One Sovereign
Notes & Bibliography