Thomas Hobbes and his Political Philosophy
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher from the 17th Century period and is work is considered a benchmark for modern political philosophers to analyze. He is best known for his social contract theory and his suggestions to use the theory in making conclusions that people ought to be submissive to the authority of an absolute sovereign power that is unlimited and undivided. His political philosophy has had more influence than his moral philosophy because of ambiguity in the theories he presented. Scholars perceive his works to be affirmative of personal subjectivism or relativism which are supported by his belief in virtue ethics, the divine command theory, and rule egoism.
Hobbes' Analysis of Civil War and Governance
Hobbes discovers rational principles for construction of city policies that cause internal destruction with his views being drawn from his life experience where he lived through oppressive governments and a Civil War. In comparison, a civil war would have worse outcomes as compared to having any form of governance in place. However, in his analysis, all governments except absolute government systems are prone to be dissolved into a civil war, therefore, the need for people to submit themselves to absolute political authority. A continuity I the level of stability will be required of the actions that undermine the regime being refrained from. Examples of such actions are such as citizens not disputing the sovereign power in governance, and a rebellion should never happen. In this theory, he attempted to demonstrate the reciprocated relationship that existed between peace and citizens being politically obedient.
Hobbes' Justification for Governance
Hobbes, in an attempt to justify the conclusions, asks that readers make considerations of life without a system of governance such as how nature exists. The result would be that each person would individually choose how to act, make a decision or settle a dispute and this would lead to mere conflict and chaos. Having no subjection to laws to govern actions to prevent vengeful actions from men without masters would result in security being affected, difficulty in achieving a socially stable life, and overall comfort.
Assumptions and Criticisms of Hobbes' Theory
The nature of his theory has been criticized as pessimistic by political leaders especially. However, the theory constructs its arguments from assumptions that are individually plausible, normative and empirical. His assumption, in theory, is that people are sufficiently similar in their physical and mental attributes and that none is invulnerable or expecting of another to have dominion over others. He makes an assumption that people in general desire to preserve their lives and also have a tendency to partiality. People have limited benevolence despite having local affections and are concerned whether others are in agreement with their high personal opinions of themselves. Personal evaluation judgments are made by people and actions are often governed by their perception of what is good and bad. People's perceptions and ability to make rational judgments are all dependent on the level of education that has been achieved by an individual.
The State of Nature and Conflict
The state of nature is considered a state of war due to lack of a central system of governance that would manage conflict. The normative and plausible descriptive assumptions result in a state of nature that is potentially fraught with a struggle that is divisive and the right for each person to the various desires results in conflict especially in a situation where resources are scarce and are needed to meet the goals. Hobbes believed that living in a state where a person's own judgment of what is acceptable, respectful and prudent would have a significant effect on behavioral traits and there would lack a common authority who would be the mediator in times of increased conflict. Conflict will be fueled further by increased disagreement because of differences such as moral views, religious perspectives aside mundane issues such as the respect that one merits or what goods are needed by different people.
The Unacceptability of the State of Nature
He argued out that the state of nature would be difficult to conceptualize considering the current state of living where people are governed into peaceful states. The systems of governance falling apart would result in a civil war. The condition of a state of nature is perfectly conceived where private judgments and decisions are abstracted. However, it would be best ensured that the perceptions are avoided and feared. People would act out of self-interest which would not be beneficial to all individuals with some feeling oppressed by the actions of others and others having their rights and freedoms obscured.
The Need for Governance and Submissiveness
Therefore, the state of nature is an unacceptable state which would result in conflict occurring among individuals due to the possible lawlessness in the land and lack of a central system of governance to decide who is right and who is wrong among other decisions. The state of nature would eventually result in a war that would be sparked by demographical differences and differences in perspectives and opinions people would have on different topics. His theories reach conclusions that the uncivilized and lawless individuals are able to be governed by an absolute government in place and the need for people to be submissive to it. Additionally, the state of war would be a state of war of all against all with no common ground due to the differences among individuals.
