In this essay, I examine Hobbes' account of the state of nature and propose that the Hobbesian account of the sovereign's right to make decisions about what doctrines and beliefs be taught to his subjects is flawed. +++ Thomas Hobbes’s discussion of the state of nature is necessary to understand the
nature and powers of the sovereign in a commonwealth. A commonwealth is a person, or a
group of men who defend people from foreigners and from the injuries of one another, and
compel their performance to their covenant by fear [Penguin Classics edition’s page
numbers].1 This essay argues that Hobbes’s claim that the sovereign has the power and right
to judge what opinions and doctrines are fit to be taught is flawed because the sovereign’s
judgment can be erroneous and consequentially provoke grievances, resulting in civil war.
To do so, I will first examine how according to Hobbes’s fundamental law of nature, men
endeavour to live in peace, justifying the need for a commonwealth and sovereign to have
power and the right to judge what opinions and doctrines are fit to be taught. I will also
explain how the sovereign’s right to make judgments helps men to avoid the state of nature.
Then, I will analyze how the sovereign can make erroneous judgments, resulting in abuses of
speech and dissidence. Finally, I will refute the challenging counter-argument to my thesis,
which claims that erroneous doctrines are subjective, for neither the sovereign nor his
subjects can realize that erroneous doctrines have been made. [...]
Table of Contents
1. Leviathan or the Discourse on Human Infallibility
Objectives and Topics
This essay aims to critically evaluate Thomas Hobbes’s argument regarding the sovereign's authority to judge opinions and doctrines, specifically questioning the validity of this power when the sovereign is prone to error. The central thesis posits that the sovereign’s potential for negligence or unskillfulness in judgment undermines the goal of maintaining peace, as erroneous doctrines facilitate civil unrest and a return to the state of nature.
- The role of the sovereign in maintaining order and preventing the state of nature.
- The link between erroneous doctrines and the abuse of speech.
- The impact of sovereign judgment on political stability and civil war.
- The tension between subjective perception of error and objective state instability.
- A critique of Hobbes’s assumption of the sovereign’s infallible role in regulating thought.
Excerpt from the Book
Leviathan or the Discourse on Human Infallibility
Men have equal intellectual and physical capabilities and from this equality arises competition for power, where men struggle over the same means to attain some future good. Men thus live in a state of fear and uncertainty, a state of war, “wherein the will to contend by Battell is known”, and where there is no place for industry, no commerce or culture of the Earth. Yet, according to Hobbes’s fundamental law of nature, men strive to live in peace and are willing to give up their liberty under a social contract. Such social contract is nevertheless void if there is no common sovereign to compel individuals to perform to their contracts by coercion. As Hobbes puts it, “words are insufficient to bridle people’s ambition and passion; covenants are not effective without the sword.” The sovereign must have the powers and rights necessary to protect his subjects and peace.
Summary of Chapters
1. Leviathan or the Discourse on Human Infallibility: This section outlines the necessity of the sovereign in the Hobbesian state of nature and critically examines how the potential for sovereign error regarding doctrines and speech undermines the preservation of peace.
Keywords
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, State of Nature, Sovereign, Commonwealth, Social Contract, Erroneous Doctrines, Civil War, Abuse of Speech, Political Stability, Human Equality, Power, Coercion, Dissidence, Governance
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this essay?
The essay explores the inherent flaw in Thomas Hobbes’s political theory regarding the sovereign's absolute power to regulate opinions and doctrines, arguing that such power can lead to instability if used incorrectly.
What are the central themes of the work?
The core themes include the nature of the social contract, the necessity of the sovereign to avoid the state of war, the relationship between language and conflict, and the danger of erroneous sovereign judgments.
What is the author's primary research argument?
The author argues that because the sovereign is capable of making erroneous judgments through negligence or lack of skill, the claim that the sovereign should act as the final judge of doctrines is fatally flawed, as it ultimately risks creating the very civil war it aims to prevent.
Which philosophical methodology is employed?
The essay utilizes a critical philosophical analysis of Hobbes’s "Leviathan," focusing on the logical consistency of his claims regarding human nature, speech, and state authority.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The body covers the transition from the state of nature to the commonwealth, the definition of speech as a tool for conflict, and a refutation of the counter-argument that sovereign errors are merely subjective and therefore irrelevant.
Which keywords characterize this analysis?
Key terms include "Leviathan," "Sovereign," "State of Nature," "Erroneous Doctrines," and "Civil War."
How does the author interpret the role of speech in a commonwealth?
The author argues that speech is a critical element that can be used for deception and conflict; therefore, the sovereign is expected to control it, though the author questions the sovereign's ability to do so without fault.
Why does the author cite the 15th-century English experience?
It serves as a historical example of how political and religious disagreements, combined with a failure to constrain passions, can lead to the disintegration of a commonwealth.
What is the author's response to the counter-argument about subjective errors?
The author contends that even if an error is not immediately recognizable, the consequences—dissidence and conflict—remain objective realities that undermine the legitimacy and purpose of the sovereign.
- Quote paper
- De Zhong Gao (Author), 2012, "Leviathan" or the Discourse on Human Infallibility, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/190456
