On Hobbes

Hobbes in this excerpt of Chapter 21 of Leviathan, argues that the subjects have liberty to disobey the sovereign only when this disobedience does not detract from fulfilling the purpose of the covenants. In this paper, I will call into question Hobbes' argument by showing that Hobbes does not address the human nature of the sovereign and thus fails to consider a possible tragic outcome.

According to Hobbes, the purpose of the covenants is to protect the subjects from returning to the state of nature and thus prevent them from living in fear. In the state of nature, human beings have the rights to do anything, even attacking or killing others. In this state, people live in fear because they do not know who might attack or when. Therefore, in order to protect themselves from possible threats, people make covenants with each other; that is, they give up rights that threaten peace. Then, in order to assure that these covenants are kept, they transfer their rights to the sovereign. Upon receiving the rights from the subjects, sovereign enforces the laws which will ensure the subjects to live in peace, not in fear as they did in the state of nature. This gathering of a sovereign and the subjects is called the commonwealth.

In the commonwealth, sovereign is the decision maker. He decides what is necessary for the commonwealth, which action is to be taken for the subjects, and ultimately, what law is to be set to protect the subjects. Because these are the decisions made by the sovereign whom as mentioned, the subjects transferred every right including decision-making, the subjects are obligated to follow every law set by the sovereign. However, there are certain occasions in which the subjects may refuse to obey the orders of the sovereign; the major occasion is in the excerpt: when the refusals do not conflict with the well-being of the commonwealth. Hobbes has two premises to support this argument.

The first premise says that every subject has right on things that cannot be transferred by the covenant. In Chapter 14, Hobbes describes several cases in which the covenants are void. One example of this case is the “covenants [made] not to defend a man's body.” (207) Making a covenant is an act of giving up of one's right and transferring it to another. If a right cannot be transferred, a covenant cannot be made. As Hobbes emphasizes throughout the book, people cannot transfer to another their rights to protect themselves, or resist themselves from the possible danger. Therefore, the covenant that intends to hurt their own bodies is not valid.

The second premise states the subjects are contenting to grant rights to the sovereign and thus the sovereign has no limit to his power. The covenants are made among the subjects, not between the subjects and the sovereign. Consequently, what the sovereign receives from the subjects is a form of a gift. Therefore, unlike the subjects, the sovereign does not give up or transfer any rights. This gives him unrestricted power or rights to do anything. For instance, the sovereign may order a subject to kill him or herself or his or her fellow subject. However, what the sovereign says and what the subject does are two different matters; the subject is not obligated to follow this order because “no man is bound by the words [covenants] themselves, either to kill himself, or any other man.” (207) This conclusion is drawn logically from the first premise that the subjects have liberty on matters unable to be transferred by the covenants.

Thus, in this occasion, a subject can rightfully disobey the sovereign. However, when the commonwealth is in danger because of this disobedience, a subject does not have liberty to refuse the order. If s/he decides to disobey, s/he is ultimately putting his or herself in danger because this action can result in an unsecured commonwealth which cannot no longer guarantee the safety of the subjects. This is the conclusion of Hobbes' argument in the excerpt.

In the second part of the essay, I will assume that Hobbes' premises and conclusion are indeed correct. Then I will show that the hypothetical commonwealth in which all these are true will inevitably return to the state of nature and thus fail to fulfill the purpose of the covenants.

Hobbes' commonwealth consists of the sovereign and its subjects who give up their rights to live in a more peaceful environment. In this commonwealth, as the second premise states, the sovereign has unlimited power not bound by the covenants. Therefore, he still has all the rights that he previously had in the state of nature. The sovereign is also not ruled by any forms of political authority. Subsequently, it may be concluded that he is still living in the state of nature. (lecture note- TA session) If one sovereign is living in the state of nature, other sovereigns who are the heads of the similar commonwealths