Main home page
Other Essays
Links Page
Blog
What does absolute sovereignty mean for Hobbes and why does he think it necessary?
Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, felt that society naturally resembles a State of Nature, and that this State of Nature is a State of War. A State of Nature is “the condition where we are forced into contact with each other in the absence of a superior authority”. In order to avoid living in a State of Nature, and therefore avoiding a State of War, a sovereign had to be erected; the sovereign would be given the rights of all their subjects and be able to enforce peace. Hobbes thought that an absolute sovereign was such a sovereign with unlimited power; if the power was limited it would have to be limited by an even greater power. He also outlined a series of duties, and rights that were forfeited to the sovereign. Hobbes’ main argument for a sovereign was that any type of government is better than the State of Nature; that absolute sovereignty is the form of government most likely to be able to avoid a return to the State of Nature; and that “people can only live in peace if they are subjected to an absolute sovereign”.
The sovereign acquires their power through the cessation of rights by their subjects in order to achieve peace. The extent of this forfeiture would be to such a level that it is acceptable to everyone else that you have this amount of rights, as it is acceptable to you that another person has a certain amount of rights. If every person gives up their personal rights, then the power obtained must be invested in the hands of a select few; or preferably, according to Hobbes, in the hands of a single person. The cessation of rights by the whole of a society results in the creation of a commonwealth or of a Leviathan, a mortal god, “to which our peace and defence is owed”.
Once the sovereign has received the rights of every individual, they will have accumulated enough power and authority to carry out the wishes of the population as a whole. A covenant has been created between the sovereign and their subjects, in whom the people have invested their rights in the sovereign, and in return they would receive security from one another, as well as from foreign nations. However the sovereign does not actually have to engage in a contract or covenant with their subjects because the sovereign is not ceding power to anyone; but the people have to engage in covenants with each other so they will all cede rights to the sovereign.
Injustice, according to Hobbes, occurs when a person fails to complete their part of a covenant. Because a sovereign does not participate in any covenants with their subjects, it is impossible for a sovereign to commit injustice, which gives their subjects no right to rise against the sovereign. The only exception to this is if the sovereign commands their subjects to kill themselves; then self-preservation – the most important human desire – would override the orders of the sovereign and the subjects would have the right to rebel. Absolute sovereignty is the right not to be attacked by one’s subjects, while it is also the obligation that the sovereign will not demand that their subjects kill themselves.
There are practical reasons for the sovereign not participating in contracts with their subjects. Firstly, it is not practical for the sovereign to make a covenant with everyone individually, and it is not possible to make a covenant with the population as a whole because while the sovereign is being created, the people are still in a State of Nature and do not trust each other. A person who forfeited their rights to the sovereign has made a covenant with the rest of society, a covenant that can be reinforced by the sovereign through the sovereign’s ability to punish those who act unjustly. Therefore it can be seen as the fault of the perpetrator, who has been punished, if they are killed or injured by the sovereign. It is the role of the sovereign to punish those who have acted unjustly; but also the right, because the people have forfeited their rights to the sovereign who is not held responsible for the possible injury or death of subjects.
Perhaps the most important role of the sovereign is to “prescribe the rules, whereby every man may know, what goods he may enjoy, and what actions he may do, without being molested by any of his fellow-subjects”. This role protects against the inevitable competition that will arise between people over scarce resources, one of the key elements that transform a State of Nature into a State of War. Another key aspect of sovereignty is “the right of making war and peace with other nations and commonwealths”, which reflects the obligation of the sovereign to protect their subjects.
But Hobbes is not content in deciding that sovereignty is the best form of government; he thinks that absolute sovereignty is the best form of government because power is indivisible, and that it is impractical for power to be shared. If power is divided, then the state will be “reduced into a condition of war, contrary to the end for which all sovereignty is introduced.” Therefore a supreme, undivided authority, an absolute sovereign, is the best form of government to ensure peace, and the absolute sovereign can execute their role in society more effectively.
But why should people give up all their rights to a particular person, forfeit their reason and subject themselves to this powerful authority? Hobbes’ main argument is that people do so in order to escape from a State of War. Hobbes listed that a State of War is a time when there is no industry, no culture of the earth, no navigation or foreign trade, no building, no great methods of transportation, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters and no society. A State of War is terrible for the whole of society where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. Natural equality among people, because of the ability of all people to kill others, means that there is no security for anyone, and that one may be under attack at any time. Scarcity of resources, which leads to competition, attempts to attack first (making sure that you are not caught unawares) and the occasional person who takes “pleasure in contemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, which they pursue further than their security requires” will mean that a State of Nature will collapse into a State of War.
However Hobbes did not blame people for this terrible state of affairs. He concluded that the desires of a person are no sin, and neither are the actions that arise from these desires. This meant that Hobbes felt that without the direction of a government people will not hesitate to use reason to guide them to the outcome their desires want. Whether or not that desire is good for society will make little difference regarding the actions that are carried out by a person. Therefore an absolute sovereignty is required to force a person to act in such a way that benefits society as a whole, to force a person not to kill their neighbour even though they may gain from it. Eventually, according to the theory of collective action, each person will be more secure through everyone giving up their right to attack each other, rather than everyone continuing to attack each other.
As well as providing personal security, the absolute sovereign can ensure, with the threat of punishment, that each side carry out their part of a covenant. In the State of Nature the fear that the other person will not execute their part of the contract is enough to dissuade most people from entering it in the first place. However, with the reassurance of the state, there is more trust that the other person will have to reciprocate; therefore the person acting first is more likely to do so. This means that covenants can be safely formed between people and that all those aspects of society which could not occur in a State of Nature can now occur and society can function.
Hobbes does concede that Laws of Nature do exist in a State of Nature and that because a State of War is so terrible everyone should intend to seek peace with each other. But in war it would be irrational to concede rights that might lead to peaceful co-operation because of mutual distrust among all members of society. Therefore an absolute sovereign is essential to ensure that a state of war does not occur, and to punish those who threaten to disturb the peace.
Hobbes concludes that an absolute sovereign is a supreme power, a mortal god, who has been called upon to protect people from each other. The absolute sovereign is accorded various powers through which they can establish and maintain peace, and not relapse back into the State of Nature. Hobbes’ main argument for the necessity of an absolute sovereign is that a State of War is terrible for all people, but that reason will mean that we continue to live in such a state. The only possible way that we can escape a State of War is through the creation of a power that can overawe the people, and force them to live in peace with each other.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Hampton, Jean. Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, Oxford, William Collins, 1967.
Hoffman, Poitr. Freedom, Equality, Power: the Ontological Consequences of the Political Philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, New York, Peter Lang, 1999.
Kraus, Jody S. The Limits of Hobbesian Contractarianism, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Ryan, Alan. ‘Hobbes’s political philosophy’, in Tom Sorrel (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996. p. 217.