Hobbes's Leviathan: critcial comments - 1 Hobbes’s Leviathan: critcial evaluation 4 Comments –1....

Hobbes's Leviathan: critcial comments - 1

Hobbes’s Leviathan: critcial evaluation

Comments– 1. Historically, the Leviathan marks an

important shift in political thought. It attempts to base a state on natural principles rather than an appointment from God.

– 2. Hobbes is often regarded as the father of réal politique. He recognized the importance of raw power in ruling and in international affairs.



Criticisms – 1. The issue of totalitarianism.

– Hobbes gives almost absolute power to the ruler

– But what kind of absolutism does he defend» What is the purpose of giving

absolute power to the ruler



» Is power for the rulers an end in itself?

» Does the power of the rulers extend to the details of everyday life à la Plato?

» Does Hobbes allow for protests against the government?



– 2. The basis for Hobbes’s political philosophy is a contract.•But the contract is lopsided.

– In what sense?

– 3. What are the most basic values of Hobbes’s political system



•Suggestions–peace–order–security–prosperity

•What values are missing?

– Cf. the positions of J.S. Mill & Anthony Burgess (in A Clockwork Orange).



– 5. Ernest van den Haag and the Hobbesian dilemma• (1) The dilemma

–Appeals to individual conscience in deciding which laws to obey or disobey leads to chaos & this requires raw, naked power in order to restore order & this undermines all possibilities of protesting against laws regarded as immoral or illegal.



–Thus the result of allowing citizens to appeal to their conscience in deciding which laws to obey will be an extremely authoritarian, oppressive government.

–“Absolute reliance on conscience rather than law [results] in absolute reliance on naked power” (435).



–The issue, then, is how can one allow for challenges to laws & yet avoid a Hobbesian style government?



•(2) Is obligation to obey the law absolute--à la Hobbes?

–Three possible grounds for disobeying laws

– (a) Anarchy (two representatives - William Godwin, British, 1756-1836, & Peter Kropotkin, Russian, 1842-1921)



» Van den Haag dismisses:» Hobbes’s

description of the state of nature contains some truth

» Is factually wrong -- look at what happens when authority breaks down.



– (b) By regarding only some governments as legitimate & then holding than one is obligated to obey laws only if one lives under a legitimate government

» Problems with this position:» What is a

legitimate government?



» Assume the most obvious candidate -- democracy. Even under a democracy, there may be laws which are immoral.

– (c) Only some laws are legitimate

» Problem -- now we are back to the Hobbesian dilemma



» How can protest against laws be allowed without sliding into a Hobbesian style government?

•(3) Van den Haag’s solution: Limiting protest to three forms (really two) & then laying down conditions for using each form.



– (a) Conscientious objection - refusal to obey a law on moral or religious grounds, but not claiming that anyone else ought to disobey the law.

– (b) Civil disobedience - deliberate, non-violent, public violation of a law on moral or religious grounds, & claiming all ought to disobey the law.



– (c) Insurrection - disobeying a law or laws because a government is regarded as immoral or illegitimate. Attempting to overthrow a government. Includes violence.

•These can be used only if– (a) The amount of social disruption

is proportional to (b) the seriousness of the issue one is protesting against.



–Van den Haag proposes that CO may rarely, CD even more rarely, and IN hardly ever.

– Critique•Is Van den Haag too conservative?•Does he assume the worst

consequences of CO and CD?

Hobbes's Leviathan: critcial comments - 1 Hobbes’s Leviathan: critcial evaluation 4 Comments –1....

Documents

Transcript of Hobbes's Leviathan: critcial comments - 1 Hobbes’s Leviathan: critcial evaluation 4 Comments –1....