In light of the recent slowdown in news during the long holiday weekend in the U.S., I find it an opportune moment to delve into the thoughts of Thomas Hobbes, a pivotal figure in political philosophy. His significant theories on human nature and the necessity of a strong central authority, notably a monarchy, are worth exploring. I trust readers will appreciate this examination of Hobbes’s enduring ideas.
By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic, Ex-University Professor, Research Fellow at Centre for Geostrategic Studies, Belgrade, Serbia
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), a prominent English political theorist, is celebrated as a key figure in the tradition of English empiricism. He constructed a comprehensive system of political thought grounded in the notion that only individual material bodies exist in the real world. This stance led Hobbes to challenge the medieval realist view, where abstract concepts were perceived as the essence of reality, with tangible entities merely reflecting them. Hobbes identified three distinct types of individual bodies: 1) Natural bodies (elements of nature independent of human intervention); 2) Humans (both products of nature and creators of artificial entities); and 3) The State (an artificial body resulting from human activities).
Hobbes’s seminal work, Leviathan (1651) [full title: Leviathan or the matter, form and authority of government, London], elaborates on his philosophical reflections regarding the state, particularly within the context of the tumultuous events of his time.
In essence, Hobbes posited that the natural condition of humanity is a perpetual state of conflict, famously summarized as a war of all against all (bellum omnium contra omnes). He argued that natural law dictates that such chaos must be transcended through the establishment of a political organization, formed via a social contract between individuals and the government. This contract recognizes the sovereign’s indivisible and absolute authority, essential for safeguarding citizens and their rights. Thus, individuals willingly cede a significant portion of their freedom to the state for protection against various threats. This concept of “escaping freedom” resonates with the insights of German philosopher Erich Fromm, particularly reflected in his work, Escape from Freedom (1941), which discusses German society during National Socialism.
The backdrop of Hobbes’s political thought includes the frequent civil wars in England, during which King Charles I Stuart (1625–1649) lost both his crown and his life. This era saw the emergence of two prominent political factions in Parliament—the Tories (conservatives) and the Whigs (liberals)—as well as the formation of the Commonwealth (1649–1660), led by the dictator, Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658), who assumed the title of “Protector” of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Amidst this turmoil, the growing needs of English capitalism and colonial endeavors demanded protection from a robust and authoritative state, often embodied in a strong monarchy.
Essentially, Hobbes did not critique the existing socio-political structure; rather, he aimed to fortify it, believing that a well-structured state would benefit all citizens by ensuring efficient governance. Given the pervasive atmosphere of fear and insecurity across Western Europe, stemming from civil conflicts between Protestants and Catholics, Hobbes’s vision emphasized the need for peace, security, and the sanctity of private property, positioning him firmly as a proponent of statism.
During the late Renaissance and the dawn of the modern age, the rise of monarchical power through enlightened absolutism reflected a collective desire for social and political cohesion to avert the chaos of medieval political fragmentation. Hobbes’s support for centralized authority stemmed not from a belief in divine right but from a pragmatic conviction that societal unity could only be maintained through enlightened monarchical power, given his belief in the inherent egoism of individuals. Thus, he argued that only a strong and absolute monarch could counteract the disintegrative forces threatening societal cohesion.
Leviathan (1651) – Political System (State) According to the Contractual State
Hobbes’s political philosophy begins from the same premises as other thinkers associated with the “natural law and social contract” tradition. Like many of his contemporaries, he framed human beings within the natural order, depicting the civil state as a product of a contract among citizens and the state. This contract liberated individuals from the arbitrary rule reminiscent of medieval lawless subjects, as characterized by liberal political thought.
For Hobbes, human nature is fundamentally egoistic rather than altruistic. This egoism drives individuals toward communal life, but not from some altruistic impulse; rather, it springs from self-interest. In Hobbes’s view, the state emerges from individuals’ fear of one another, demanding a rational societal structure for survival and protection of individual liberties. He rejected the idea that happiness or pleasure could thrive in the natural state, labeling it instead as an environment rife with danger characterized by unrelenting violence.
In this natural landscape, he observed the absence of defined ownership, where everything belongs to everyone, contingent upon power and coercion. This pervasive equality renders humanity a continuous source of threat to one another, as survival instincts drive competition, igniting a war of all against all in a ruthless struggle for dominance. Hence, Hobbes portrayed human existence as fraught with insecurity, reflecting his famous adage that “man is a wolf to man.”
Hobbes identified the fundamental natural law as one of egoism, where individuals strive to preserve themselves with minimal risk and maximal gain at the expense of others. The essence of natural law (ius naturale) highlights the instinct for self-preservation, making the pursuit of security paramount. For Hobbes, altruistic motivations were insufficient to spur individuals from the precarious state of nature, compelling them instead to seek refuge within a cohesive structure.
Opposing both Aristotle and Grotius, who posited that humans possess a natural inclination toward socializing, Hobbes insisted that the essence of humanity is selfishness, marked exclusively by the will to survive. Yet, amid the quest for individual power, the inevitable clash arises between competing individuals, propelling humanity into a state of war that threatens physical existence. In Hobbes’s natural order, strength alone dictates the law, where the lack of robust individual power leads to reliance on cunning and deception.
In this state of nature, human reason should incentivize behavior that preserves life, yet it is often mired by conflicting passions, notably an overwhelming desire for power. Rationality prompts individuals to seek peace, leading them to forge social contracts aimed at establishing harmonious communities. Such agreements transform discord into collective strength, laying the foundations for a political organization prioritizing both external defense and internal peace. In this light, politics focuses on effective governance toward these ends.
Hobbes believed that adherence to the social contract mitigates internal conflict within the community. Achieving the contract’s goals requires individuals to accept a range of obligations, encumbering them with duties that necessitate the sacrifice of personal freedoms for collective security. In Hobbes’s view, the evolution of civilization entails an increasing loss of natural freedoms, a trade-off for societal order.
Moreover, Hobbes contended that natural laws equate to moral laws. Central to a just socio-political system is the principle of reciprocity, whereby individuals refrain from inflicting harm that they do not wish to experience themselves. Moral norms, unchanging and universal, guide behavior among community members; however, in a purely natural state, these laws lack obligatory power. True compliance emerges only through the existence of a functional state.
Transition from the State of Nature to the Contractual State of Statehood
For Hobbes, law transcends the state of nature, emerging distinctly from a contractual state of government, which facilitates the establishment and acknowledgment of private property within the community. The state, as a governing body, must respect individuals’ possessions, contrasting starkly with the antagonistic environment of the natural condition, wherein security is elusive. By forming this state, individuals relinquish their rights from the natural chaotic state, choosing instead to adhere to contracts that ensure both peace and personal security.
However, Hobbes posited that mere agreements among community members are insufficient to sustain a functioning state. A shared internal unity is paramount. To forge collective intent, individuals must transcend their independence and integrate into the state’s greater structure, forfeiting essential facets of personal autonomy. This marks a critical juncture in Hobbes’s political philosophy, emphasizing that individuals must not retain agency or rights independently but must align their will wholly with state authority.
To this end, Hobbes articulates the necessity of a dual contract framework:
1) A contract binding individuals to each other; and
2) A contract that connects this collective to the state authority, to which they submit all power and obligation unconditionally, specifically tailored to create an absolutist royal power.
The direct outcome of this double contract is a cohesive entity formed from the constellation of individuals under the state’s aegis. This sovereign authority, Hobbes termed Leviathan, is illustrated as a biblical behemoth or mortal deity, representing both spiritual and temporal powers. For Hobbes, the state is neither divine nor supernatural; rather, it is a grand human construct. The state is defined in contrast to man, bearing artificial traits compared to the natural human form. Its essence is the supreme authority; its frameworks embody judicial and executive systems, with rewards and punishments serving as its nerve endings, justice and laws as its mind, civil peace as its health, rebellion as its illness, and civil war as its death.
Hobbes argued that the state is a rational construct, developed by humanity’s desire to overcome chaos and strife. Unlike previous philosophies, which framed the state as a natural occurrence, Hobbes asserted that the state’s absolute sovereignty demands the alienation of individual rights and natural conditions. In effect, the voluntary submission to state authority entails relinquishing personal rights, resulting in political alienation within the sovereign, as opposed to the medieval notion of divine alienation.
Government and Its Forms
Hobbes maintained that his theoretical government model applies universally to all forms of state power. He recognized three pure forms of government: Monarchy (his preferred choice), Aristocracy, and Democracy, while suggesting the allowance of parliament as long as it operates under the aegis of a robust, absolute monarch. This monarch’s prime responsibility is to abolish the natural state and the inherent conflicts therein, exercising comprehensive authority to ensure peace and security for the citizenry. He viewed freedom associated with democracy as a gateway to rebellion and disorder.
In Hobbes’s view, sovereign power must remain absolute—untethered from external authority or the norms of any law, whether natural or ecclesiastical. Nonetheless, at a philosophical level, he acknowledged a theoretical limitation of monarchical power, allowing for the preservation of existence as a critical boundary. This foundational concept underscores that state authority, in whatever form—monarchical, aristocratic, or democratic—should remain undiluted and concentrated, averting any form of divided power.
Importantly, Hobbes opposed revolution, asserting that productive industries and trade would thrive only under a powerful state, free from the discord and political conflict that often accompany civil strife. He believed that anything contributing positively to civic life must be upheld, as outside the bounds of governance lies a realm enshrouded in chaos and brutality, whereas a structured state fosters reason, peace, beauty, and community.
State governance—particularly under absolute monarchy—should prioritize the citizenry’s wealth generated from labor, land, and resources. Hobbes stipulated that the state’s mandate is to safeguard the populace’s welfare, ideally aligning the monarch’s interests with those of the subjects for optimal state function.
Synthetic Remarks
Hobbes’s doctrine of limitless royal authority emerged in a context demanding a centralized and powerful state apparatus capable of contending with various threats to order and facilitating capitalist endeavors. Economically, the absolutist monarchy aligned well with the interests of the bourgeoisie seeking to cultivate a robust internal market beyond feudal constraints, catalyzing national unity and economic functioning within the state framework.
Hobbes held that humanity’s terrible natural state of war could be overcome through reason-driven evolution, prompting individuals to seek safety and stability over conflict. This pursuit compels individuals to surrender unconditional rights intrinsic to the state of nature, dictated primarily by the instinct for self-preservation.
Through this renunciation, individuals partake in the social contract, transitioning from a society dictated by natural rights to one governed by structured agreements, leading to the development of civil order. Although individuals consent to this arrangement primarily through self-interest, reason advocates adherence to essential virtues necessary for the state’s survival (e.g., fidelity, kindness). Outside of the social contract lies an abyss of war, fear, and chaos, whereas the state symbolizes the advancement of reason, peace, and civilization, albeit at the cost of personal freedoms.
The establishment of a state gives rise to distinctions of right and wrong, a fundamental shift in ethical discourse. Notably, Hobbes contended that individuals could enter into tacit agreements to form a state, marking a delineation between prehistory and historical progress. His analysis illuminates the transition from a state of lawlessness to one of order, elucidating the evolution of civilization itself.
Crucially, Hobbes’s social contract theory posits that when individuals form a social state agreement, they relinquish their autonomy and rights to the state, creating a centralized and authoritative power. This transfer must be unconditional, thus establishing the state as an absolute authority, with the sovereign bear both administrative and judicial power.
Ultimately, Hobbes concluded that the necessity of absolute monarchy stems from his contract theory, marking it as the ideal form of governance. Absolute monarchy offers advantages over other governance models, presenting the potential for power to be abused solely by a singular monarch as opposed to groups or political factions. In such a system, internal strife and conflict diminish, hastening societal unity under a singular rule, facilitating the preservation of state secrets with ease.
Hobbes asserted that a monarch must exercise sovereign power across all political and moral domains, determining the manners of worship and aligning societal beliefs. Citing the example of religious tensions in Europe, he viewed religious dissent as a revolutionary act, jeopardizing the stability required for state function. Thus, discernment of virtue and morality rests with the monarch’s decree.
Despite his strong advocacy for royal absolutism, Hobbes later acknowledged potential limitations to this power, asserting that any governance is justified only if it serves its populace, which may even extend to a republic led by an absolutist figure. His theories illustrate a philosophical transition from medieval theological interpretations of statehood to an anthropological understanding, where government arises not from divine right but rather from rational social contracts, distinguishing himself from views that framed state legitimacy in terms of divine imperatives.
