In his famous work “The Leviathan”, Thomas Hobbes refers to the natural mode of people’s existence as “war of everybody against everybody”, while suggesting that such war comes as a result of individuals taking a full advantage of their natural right to exploit their existential freedom, to the full extent of this word.
According to Hobbes, the notion of morality is a socio-linguistic category, which is being purely relativistic, in its very essence, simply because, during the time of war, it is namely the people’s immorality, which represents the highest virtue, on their part: “Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues” (Hobbes, Ch. 13). In time of war, there can be no right or wrong, in moralistic context of this word – the strong are necessarily right and the weak are necessarily wrong: “They (the concepts of morality) are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude” (Hobbes, Ch. 13). However, people who live according to the natural law of survival of the fittest, risk the chance of extinction. Moreover, within a context of people being in the state of war against each other, there can be no cultural or scientific progress. Thus, Hobbes implies that it is in people’s best interests to subject themselves to a sovereign authority, which in its turn, derives out of the concept of “social contract”. Such contract is being viewed by Hobbes as the “way out”, which can be utilized by people, while dealing with their inborn sense of self-destructiveness: “And thus much for the ill condition which man by mere nature is actually placed in; though with a possibility to come out of it” (Hobbes, Ch. 13). It is only when members of society willingly delegate some of their rights to higher authority, which allows them to effectively suppress their socially-destructive animalistic urges, while setting citizens on the path of progress. In other words, Hobbes refers to the concept of statehood as being purely rationalistic and as such, that has nothing to do with the notion of “divine ordainment”. This, however, does not prevent him from referring to monarchy as the most effective form of government. From the very context of provided quote, it appears that Hobbes was utterly skeptical as to the prospect of people being able to govern themselves in rational manner, which is why, throughout his work, author never ceases to insist that only the government that exercises both: legislative and executive powers, might benefit the well-being of a particular nation, and that the difference in forms of governing is rather linguistic then conceptual: “For they (citizens) that are discontented under Monarchy, call it Tyranny; and they that are displeased with Aristocracy, called it Oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves grieved under a Democracy, call it Anarchy” (Hobbes, Ch. 19). The extent of people’s discontentment with a particular form of government simply corresponds to such government’s inability to guarantee them safe and prosperous living and has nothing to do with whether citizens’ civil rights are being suppressed or not. In fact, the degree of government’s oppressiveness is proportionate to the degree of happiness among its subjects. This brings us to a provided quote again, because it contains an insight on the fact that it is namely a despotic form of government, which is being highly moral, as it is capable of instilling otherwise existentially wicked people (“Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind”) with the sense of law and order.
According to Hobbes, there are no other reasons for people to choose in favor of socially productive behavior, except for purely pragmatic ones. Author talks of homo sapiens as simply an animal, endowed with intellect. In its turn, the intellect is being perceived by Hobbes as the practical instrument, which allows people to take from life all they can, since existential egoism is people’s natural psychological trait: ”It is consequent also to the same condition (bellum omnium contra omnes) that there be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine distinct; but only that to be every man’s that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it“(Hobbes, Ch. 13). However, the same intellect allows people to realize that they would be much better off, while adopting a socially appropriate mode of existence, because it is only when they live within a society, ruled by reason, which allow these people to realize their biological destiny. It is only people’s conscious decision to delegate some of their essential rights to the authority, which triggers the emergence of morality, in the first place. This is the reason why religion can only have social value, for as long as it is being strongly associated with state institutions. Hobbes thinks of a state as essentially, a metaphysical quasi-being (Leviathan), due to the existence of which we can operate with social, political, and religious terminology, in the first place. In its turn, this explains why, despite the fact that people’s natural mode of existence imply that they cannot be affected by the notions of “right” or “wrong” in principle, these people’s behavior can still be judged, once they become a subjects of social contract. Thus, we can say that the meaning, behind the provided quote, lays at the core of Hobbes’ reasoning. It points out to rationalistic subtleties of a social contract, as metaphysical foundation, upon which the concept of statehood is based, while defining the practical methods of achieving stability, within a particular society. Despite the fact that Hobbes’ theory of social contract appears as being somewhat over-simplified, the overall validity of “Leviathan’s” conclusions, as to what defines societies’ structural integrity, cannot be effectively challenged, as these conclusions are based on author’s insightful understanding of human nature.
Bibliography
Hobbes, Thomas “The Leviathan”. 1660. The Project Gutenberg EBook. Web.