Back to The Evolution
of Democracy
The Evolution of Democracy:
Part 2:
Thomas Hobbes on Monarchy:
Thomas Hobbes was born in England in 1588. For historical reference
the British Magna Charta (great charter) was issued, under duress,
by King John of England in 1215. This document was a real bummer
for the monarchy. Though it did not establish a representative
government it did place some limits on the powers of the throne.
It also established some rights of the people and implied others.
For example, the legal concepts of habeas corpus and trial by
jury were implied by this document.
In short, the Magna Charta ended the notion of divine right monarchy in England. Thus began the rise of representative government and the consequent decline of the power of the crown. Divine right, as the words imply, means that the power of the monarch derives from God and is beyond question.
The evolution of the British parliamentary form of government would be a subject for a few volumes by itself. I will not address that history here. Suffice it to say that the struggle came to a head in Hobbes' lifetime with the English civil war (1642 - 1648). That was when King Charles, poor fellow, got carried away and lost his head. This was the setting in which Hobbes was to establish his own brand of philosophy.
For Hobbes, the end purpose of philosophy was the benefit of mankind. It seems that he saw it as a tool of science and industry, but also as a means of defining a political system. His approach is scientific in nature. In the parlance of philosophy, this makes him an empiricist. Hence, he excludes from consideration the concepts of theology. He does not make a case against theological concepts. He simply excludes them from his philosophical considerations.
Now, here is the political situation in which Hobbes finds himself. The notion of divine right monarchy, though debunked in England was still generally accepted as the proper form of government on the European continent. In England, the parliament was controlled by wealthy merchants and landowners. This kept Charles from any hope of gaining absolute power. Still, the monarchy was tolerated and a nebulous balance of power was maintained between the king and parliament.
In this setting, Hobbes became a leading apologist for monarchy. The English people were scrambling for personal liberties. In that scramble they caused political instability and civil disturbances which greatly influenced Hobbes' thinking. He considered this constant unrest to be the greatest of evils.
In a major political work, "Leviathan" Hobbes presented his arguments in support of monarchy. He described it as the most reasonable form of government. In fact, despite the existence of England's parliament, he supported absolute monarchy. Even so, he did not subscribe to the divine right theory. He saw government as the result of a contract, real or implicit, between the people and the government.
Hobbes argued that the natural state of man, without controlling authority, is miserable at best and deadly at worst. Man is essentially a beast and a victim of his own passions.
In his own words, "nature hath made man so equal, in the facilities of body and mind; as that though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man cannot thereupon claim to himself any benefit, to which another may not pretend as well as he."
In all of those words, we can notice the key idea that, nature hath made man equal. It is less of a leap than a slight difference of phrasing to "All men are created equal." It is this very equality, according to Hobbes, that causes men to become enemies. "And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies."
Hobbes argues further, that this natural diffidence and competition are a cause of war. After all, a man will naturally protect himself and his possessions. In fact, some men will do more than protect themselves for power and glory. So Hobbes finds three principle causes of quarrel amongst men. These are competition, diffidence, and glory.
This state of anarchy is what Hobbes calls a war of everyman against everyman. In it nothing can be unjust because without common power, there is no law. The concepts of justice, right, and wrong depend on society and law. In seeking the solution to this depressing situation, Hobbes defines nineteen laws of nature. We can look at the first three. If you want the others, you must read Hobbes' writings. The first law is, "to seek peace and follow it."
The second law of nature comes logically from the first. "That a man be willing, when others are so too, as far-forth, as for peace, and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be content with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself." The third law is "that men perform the covenant made."
Hobbes notes that his second law is limited in that some of the natural liberties, or rights, of men are not alienable. This concept of human rights and the very words which embody it, "Rights not alienable" fell all the way through, from the pen of Hobbes to the American Declaration of Independence.
Now, again from Leviathan, the reason that "...transferring of rights is introduced is nothing else but the security of a man's person, in his life, and in the means of preserving life, as not to be weary of it."
So, in Hobbes philosophy, the right to life is not alienable. The right to liberty, in the sense of not being imprisoned, is not alienable and the pursuit of happiness is left moot. Perhaps Hobbes was too concerned with security to consider the pursuit of happiness. He did live through a fairly serious uprising. Actually, he hid out in France during the most troubling times.
In building his case for monarchy, Hobbes defines a contract, "the mutual transferring of rights," and a covenant, "the promised transfer of a right." He also defines several more of his natural laws such as justice (the performance of covenants), gratitude, complaisance, and pardon.
That's enough for now. Next time I will take a look at Hobbes'
case for commonwealth.
Back to The Evolution of
Democracy
|
|
|
|