Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

Department of Politics
University of York

Electronic Project Submission Cover Sheet

This cover sheet should be the first page of your project
...
00
I confirm that I have
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

checked that I am submitting the correct and final version of my project
formatted my project in line with departmental guidelines
conformed with University regulations on academic integrity
included an accurate word count
put my examinations number on every page of the project
not written my name anywhere in the project
saved my project in
...
word format

x
x
PLEASE TICK BOX TO CONFIRM

HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT
EXAM NUMBER: Y1432133
WORD COUNT: 1,937
Is is correct to describe Hobbes's theory as a 'rebel's catechism'?
Abstract

Hobbes claims that people are authorized to an absolute sovereign while at the
same time reserving to himself or herself the right to resist under certain
circumstances
...
The Leviathan has therefore sometimes been
called out as a rebel’s catechism, justifying rebellion instead of supporting
absolute power
...
Supporting evidence from
Jean Hampton’s, Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition will be cited, and a
unique comparison between Hobbes and Locke will be made to further prove that
the Leviathan can justifiably be called a rebel’s catechism
...
His commonwealth exists to combat the terrors that
are inescapable in the state of nature by constructing a covenant that is ensured
through absolute power and fear of the sovereign
...
 Therefore, this essay will argue that it is correct to
describe Hobbes’s theory as a rebel’s catechism because the right to resist or
rebel undermines Hobbes's claim for absolute power of the sovereign and it
renders the entire Hobbesian justification for absolute sovereignty invalid
...
This essay will also
compare Hobbes and John Locke’s theories against one another while
supporting the claim that the Leviathan is not purely absolutist, and will also use
much supporting evidence from Jean Hampton which dissects Hobbes’ social
contract theory and claim for absolute power
...
Under natural law there can almost only exist
war and an ever-present fear of death because all men are inherently selfinterested, and will do primarily what is beneficial to them and their own
preservation
...
Men must learn that it is in their best interest
to form a civil society, and the only way to do so is to appoint an absolute
power
...
Hobbes states that his absolutism is “more than consent, {it is} a real
unity,’” (Leviathan, 1651, p
...
Hobbes makes it very clear how important an
absolute sovereign is to the functioning of his commonwealth, however the
Leviathan fails to ensure absolutism
...
Hobbes
claims that people are authorized to an absolute sovereign while at the same
time reserving to themselves the right to resist when their rights to selfpreservation are being infringed upon
...
This rebellion
is likely to end in slaughter by the people, and is completely justified by Hobbes
because Hobbes claims that mans most natural instinct and valid right is that of
self-preservation
...
either to kill
himselfe, or any other man; and consequently
...
112)
...
Hobbes even goes further
and states that if man can make a calculation that disobedience will maximize his
self-preservation right, he should disobey: “When our refusal to obey, frustrates
the end for which the Soveraignty was ordained; then there is no Liberty to
refuse: otherwise there is” (Hobbes, 1651 p112)
...

To delve even deeper into trying to understanding how Hobbes’s absolutism is
flawed, “consider that an absolute sovereign is defined by Hobbes to be
someone who is the final decider of all questions in a commonwealth, and
whose subjects are literally enslaved to him
...
However, as said before, the
sovereign does not have this right in any circumstance, meaning that by the
simplest definition of an absolutely powerful sovereign, he is not one
...
But now we see that they deride advantageous for

them to obey these commands on the basis of whether or not doing so will
further their self-preservation” (Hampton, 1986 p202)
...
To further this
point, Hobbes claims that in the his commonwealth, men have to give up their
natural rights and voluntarily surrender themselves to the sovereign, however
“as long as the subjects retain the right to preserve themselves in a
commonwealth, they cannot be said to have surrendered anything to the
sovereign [at all]” (Hampton, 1986 p203)
...
Hobbes
declares that people are incapable of giving up this fundamental natural right
even when entering a civil society, and hence they will always retain the ability to
form private judgement – even though Hobbes believed that a commonwealth
where private judgment exists would fall to pieces (Hampton, 1986 p203):
“I observe the Diseases of a Common-wealth, that proceed from the poison of
seditious doctrines; whereof one is, That every private man is Judge of Good and
Evil! actions
...
Whereby
the Common-wealth is distracted and Weakened
...

Hobbes’s arguments contradict one another, and when dissected his own
arguments undermine his theory
...

Some do argue that Hobbes’s Leviathan is still founded on pure absolutism, and
that only in very rare circumstances is this absolute power justifiably overthrown
...
Hobbes is in some ways forced to justify
rebellion because of his stance on self-preservation and “clearly Hobbes makes
this point, because he maintains that the rebels retain a self-defence right and
hence cannot refuse to defend their lives when they are under attack
...
Throughout the Leviathan, Hobbes’
arguments and theories are extremely logical, however this rebels catechism is
an anomaly in his writing which undermines Hobbes’ argument that a sovereign
with absolute power is necessary, and the only way, to ensure peace and co-

operation among people
...
Although both Hobbes and Locke were social
contract theorists and natural law theorists, Locke viewed Hobbes Leviathan as a
monstrous state of absolute power
...
He claims that it is evident, “that an absolute monarchy, which by some men is
counted the only government in the world, is indeed inconsistent with civil society, and
so can be no form of civil-government at all” (Locke, 1988 p90)
...
This is a very abstract theory, depending on ones views on God and how much
his will can be materialized, however Locke emphasizes that God has ownership over
people and hence we are his property and subject to his commands (Hampton, 1986)
...
Of course, Locke would completely dismiss such a ludicrous theory, because
for the most part civil society and the wills of God would be separate, and God would not
be comparable to a mortal being in a political position with complete power as Hobbes’s
Leviathan entailed
...

To conclude, “the Leviathan does not present a valid geometric deduction of
Hobbes's political conclusions” as it fails to ensure absolutism
...
“This means that as long as the people retain
the right to preserve themselves in the commonwealth, Hobbes is also forced to
admit that there is really an agency relationship between people and ruler, and
this is exactly what he did not want to conclude in Leviathan” (Hampton, 1986
p203)
...
Hobbes should be seen as the “intellectual forefather of
liberalism,” rather than a royalist absolutist, and his Leviathan should be seen as
a civil society that enables men to become citizens and escape the terror of the
natural state and not a purely absolutist commonwealth (Boyd, 2001)
...


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boyd, R
...
Thomas Hobbes and the Perils of Pluralism
...

Clarendon (1767)
...

Oxford University Press
Hampton, Jean, (1986), Hobbes and the social contract tradition
...

Hobbes, T
...
Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan, New York: Pearson Longman
...
& Laslett, P
...
Locke: Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge [England]:
Cambridge University Press

---