Paula Witlox 2019
Samenvatting Deeltentamen History of Political
Philosophy
Social contract: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau
Hobbes
Leviathan Chapter 13-15, 16-18, 21
Historical and political context
Feudalism: natural hierarchy. People are subjects to others by birth. The political power of church and state is
given by God and natural.
Feudalism comes under pressure of renaissance humanism (equality of humans) and reformation.
In England (where Hobbes is from) in 16th century, the King (Henry 8th) took over the spiritual authority of the
pope. He made himself the head of the church in England. Parliamentary opposition began criticizing the King’s
authority and this led to civil war.
Conflicting views about the nature of power (early 17 th century)
1. Republicanism: people are naturally free and equal. Power is legitimate, only because it preserves
natural liberty and equality. To be politically free is to be part of a free (self-governing) state. The
power ultimately derives from the people, so authority is limited and must be constituted in the right
way (mixed government).
Richard Overton: “An arrow against all tyrants and tyranny”
2. Divine right of kings: there is no natural equality and/or liberty and power derives from god directly.
Authority is unified and absolute: the parliament serves by the grace of the King and can be dismissed
by the king. The king is not constrained by other agencies.
Maxwell: God “hath expressed in Scripture that both Sovereignty and the person clothes with
Sovereignty are of him, by him, and from him immediately.”
Robert Filmer: Patriarcha: A Defence of the Natural Power of Kings against the Unnatural
Liberty of the People
Hobbes 1588 – 1679
Was against the republicans and defended absolutism, but positioned against divine right theories. Absolutism
should be grounded in scientific enquiry and not in revelation.
Wrote the Leviathan with political and philosophical ambitions:
- To secure peace and justify obedience on secular grounds
- Reconcile absolute authority with natural freedom & equality
Hobbes’s Method
“every thing is best understood by its constitutive causes; for as in a watch, or some such small engine, the matter,
figure, and motion of the wheeles, cannot well be known, except it be taken in sunder, and viewed in parts; so to
make a more curious search into the rights of States, and duties of Subjects, it is necessary, (I say not to take them
in sunder, but yet that) they be so considered, as if they were dissolved, (i.e.) that wee rightly understand what the
quality of humane nature is, in what matters it is, in what not fit to make up a civill government, and how men
must be agreed among themselves, that intend to grow up into a well-grounded State.”
To understand something is to know how it can be constructed. This is why we must proceed from accurate
definitions by means of valid inferences and observations. This excludes appeal to History, tradition or
revelation. We have access to knowledge about unchangeable human nature from within society.
Three stages:
1. Deconstruction (take it apart):
Analysis of the parts in isolation from the whole: the ‘state of nature’. He makes the claim that men
are by nature free and equal, but it’s a horrible condition: a state of war.
2. Reconstruction (put it back together):
, Paula Witlox 2019
Social contract: how the whole could be constructed from the parts. He claims that the principles
according to which authority is constituted: consent and obedience; lead to subjection to absolute
authority.
3. Perfectioning (make it work better): the pedagogy performed by leviathan:
Making the parts function properly: convincing subjects and sovereigns to act according to their rights
and duties; not to chase chimerical ideas of political freedom.
Deconstruction: ‘the state of nature’
Constituent parts of the state according to Hobbes are individual human beings. This is why we need:
- an account of what humans are like (human nature);
- and an account of natural law: how it is appropriate for them to interact in the absence of a state.
Hobbes’ fundamental claim: the state of nature is a state of war. Why?
State of nature is defined by absence of a ‘common power to keep men in awe’. What is the status of the state
of nature?
- The state of nature is not an historical condition, it never actually happened
- A condition we approximate in political conflict
In the state of nature, there is equality in the faculties of body and mind. We are all capable to threaten one
another’s life and we have an equality of hope in attaining our ends.
There is also a circumstance of scarcity. We want the same things, but there is not enough. This leads to
conflict:
- Competition: because of scarcity and drive to attain our ends
- Diffidence: we’re a threat to each other. Therefore, people are scared.
- Glory: because we are social beings in the state of nature.
“Life in the state on nature is solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short”
The state of nature is a state of war: there’s continuous threat of conflict. War of “every man against every
man”. The State of war consists not of constant actual fighting, but in threat of conflict.
Natural law
It is not just a factual observation; nor does Hobbes claim that men are morally bad or evil: men have every
right to do as they judge best for their own ends.
This follows from Hobbes’ conception of natural law, the normativity that governs what is appropriate/
inappropriate. This has two components:
- Right of nature: The right of nature gives you the liberty to do everything that contributes to your own
preservation. One may act according to one’s judgement and has no duties towards others.
Natural liberty: the absence of external impediments that take away part of a man’s power to do what
he would do in order of self-preservation
- Laws of nature: Natural duty to strive for self-preservation. This means:
1. Duty to realize peace (if possible) and
2. Codes of prudent conduct that, if observed, realize peace.
“do not that to another, which thou wildest not have done to thy self”.
Natural law must be distinguished from justice. In the state of nature nothing can be just or unjust. Also, there
is no property/ exclusive ownership in the state of nature.
“The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place. Where there is no common Power,
there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice.”
So, we are naturally free; but is this freedom worth of preserving?
We have an interest in peace, and it is rational to strive for peace. Yet, peace seems impossible, given the
conditions in which we find ourselves. How do we get out of this conundrum? – we need to mutually lay down
our right to judge for ourselves.
Social contract
Commonwealth: the multitude united in one person
Multitude: collection of individuals. Society prior to institution of a sovereign .
