Hobbes and the Absolute Sovereign Flashcards
(10 cards)
I. State of Nature
- What three assumptions lead Hobbes to call the state of nature a “war of all against all”?
- What are the three causes of conflict in the state of nature?
- Why does Hobbes believe that life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”?
✅ ANSWER 1: What three assumptions lead Hobbes to call the state of nature a ‘war of all against all’?
Humans are naturally acquisitive and insatiable — always pursuing “felicity,” or the continual power to attain future goods.
We are equal in ability to harm each other — mentally and physically, all are equally capable of killing or being killed.
Resources are scarce — the goods we desire are limited.
📌 From these, Hobbes infers a state of war — not necessarily constant fighting, but constant readiness to fight.
✅ ANSWER 2: What are the three causes of conflict in the state of nature?
From Leviathan, Ch. 13:
Competition → attack for gain
Diffidence (mistrust) → attack for safety
Glory → attack for reputation and honor
✅ ANSWER 3: Why does Hobbes believe that life in the state of nature is ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’?
Because under these conditions (competition, mistrust, pride), no one can trust anyone else.
There is no security, no industry (since it’s too risky), no arts or knowledge — only survival.
Famous line from Ch. 13:
‘The first makes men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation.’ The result is that we can never let our guard down and that we are in a constant state of uncertainty and fear: ‘the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.’
II. Morality and Law in the State of Nature
- Why, according to Hobbes, can nothing be unjust in the state of nature?
- What does Hobbes mean by a “law of nature”?
- What are the first and second rules of the law of nature
✅ ANSWER 4: Why, according to Hobbes, can nothing be unjust in the state of nature?
Because justice requires law, and law requires a common authority to enforce it.
From Leviathan, Ch. 13:
“To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. 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.”
no sovereign → no law → no justice or injustice.
✅ ANSWER 5: What does Hobbes mean by a “law of nature”?
A law of nature is not a law in the legal sense (since there’s no sovereign yet), but a rational precept, discoverable by reason.
Ch. 14:
“A law of nature is a precept or general rule found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life.”
So it’s a kind of enlightened self-interest: rules that promote self-preservation and peace
✅ ANSWER 6: What are the first and second rules of the law of nature?
🧩 First Law of Nature (Core Principle)
“Every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.”
🔍 Interpretation:
Seek peace when it’s realistic.
But if peace isn’t possible (others won’t cooperate), prepare for war using whatever means necessary.
This is not pacifism — it’s conditional cooperation:
“Be peaceful — but don’t be a fool.”
🧩 Second Law of Nature (Mutual Limitation)
This isn’t a direct quote in your notes but follows immediately in Hobbes’ argument:
“That a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things…”
🔍 Interpretation:
You agree to give up your right to do anything you want if others do the same.
This mutual restraint is the foundation of the covenant and eventually, the sovereign.
🧩 Further Laws — Golden Rule Logic
Your notes summarize the next few laws like this:
“Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you — so long as you can be sure that others will do the same.”
This adds:
A conditional Golden Rule — only act morally if others will too.
It acknowledges that being moral in a world of cheaters is suicidal.
III. Covenant and Sovereign Authority
- What solution does Hobbes offer to the problem of distrust in the state of nature and how to exit the SON?
- Who is the covenant made between, and what role does the sovereign play in it?
- Why is the sovereign not subject to the contract?
- According to Hobbes, can the sovereign ever act unjustly?
✅ ANSWER 7: What solution does Hobbes offer to the problem of distrust in the state of nature?
People transfer their natural right to all things to a third party: the sovereign.
This solves the problem of mutual mistrust, because now each person is not left to judge what’s right — the sovereign decides for all.
According to Hobbes, individuals exit the state of nature by each agreeing to allow the sovereign to represent their will—so rather than retaining my own right to judge what needs to be done in order to bring about peace and security, I authorise the sovereign to make this decision for the community as a whole, AGREEING THEREBY TO BE BOUND BY WHAT THE SOVEREIGN DECIDES.
✅ ANSWER 8: Who is the covenant made between, and what role does the sovereign play in it?
The covenant is between the people — each agrees with every other to submit to a common authority.
The sovereign is not a party to the contract — instead, they are authorized by the covenant to act on behalf of all.
✅ ANSWER 9: Why is the sovereign not subject to the contract?
If the sovereign were bound by the contract, they could be accused of breaking it.
That would bring back the mistrust and instability of the state of nature.
So: the sovereign must be above the covenant — not accountable in the same way.
✅ ANSWER 10: According to Hobbes, can the sovereign ever act unjustly?
The sovereign is not party to the social contract, so cannot violate its terms.
The sovereign is the source of all laws, and thus defines what counts as just or unjust.
Therefore, sovereign actions cannot be unjust — they set the standard for justice.
Hobbes states:
“The law is made by the sovereign power, and all that is done by such power is warranted and owned by every one of the people” (Leviathan, Ch. 18).
Since the sovereign creates law, they cannot break it by definition.
If the sovereign could commit injustice, it would imply:
The sovereign is bound by the contract, and
There exists a higher authority, which contradicts Hobbes’ claim of absolute sovereignty.
Conclusion: The sovereign cannot commit an injustice within Hobbes’ framework.
IV. Sovereign Powers
- List at least four key powers Hobbes believes the sovereign must have.
- Why must the sovereign’s power be absolute and undivided?
✅ ANSWER 11: List at least four key powers Hobbes believes the sovereign must have
Here are at least four powers from Leviathan, Ch. 18–22, as summarized in your lecture notes:
- Define justice and injustice — the sovereign decides what is right and wrong, and builds it into law.
- Censorship — the sovereign can forbid doctrines or opinions that threaten peace.
- Control over law and judgment — the sovereign makes laws and judges disputes.
- Punishment and reward — including taxation, imprisonment, and even the death penalty.
🧠 All of this is designed to prevent a return to the state of nature — that’s the core justification.
✅ ANSWER 12: Why must the sovereign’s power be absolute and undivided?
That’s exactly Hobbes’ point — let’s tighten it:
If power is divided or limited, people will be uncertain about who to obey.
Uncertainty = potential for civil war = return to the state of nature.
Hobbes says the sovereign’s authority must be undivided to avoid internal conflict and fragmentation.
📌 Hobbes, Leviathan, Ch. 18:
“If the sovereign power be divided… the union is dissolved, and every man returns into the condition and calamity of a warre.”
V. Subjects’ Retained Rights and Limits of Sovereignty
- What rights do subjects retain, even after the social contract?
- In what circumstances can a subject justifiably disobey the sovereign?
- How does Hobbes distinguish between a sovereign by “institution” and by “acquisition”?
- Could Hobbes’ sovereign become a tyrant?
✅ ANSWER 13: What rights do subjects retain, even after the social contract?
🔑 Instead, Hobbes allows subjects to retain only two kinds of rights:
The right to self-preservation:
You may resist if the sovereign tries to kill, wound, or imprison you.
E.g. you can fight back if the sovereign’s soldiers come to execute you.
The right to the necessities of life:
If you’re starving, you may steal food — though you may still be punished.
✅ ANSWER 14: In what circumstances can a subject justifiably disobey the sovereign?
🔑 Instead:
A subject can disobey only when the sovereign directly threatens their life.
This is not because the sovereign is “unjust,” but because the right to self-preservation is inalienable.
✅ ANSWER 15: How does Hobbes distinguish between a sovereign by ‘institution’ and by ‘acquisition’?
Sovereign by Institution:
Created when people voluntarily covenant with each other to create peace.
They authorize the sovereign to act on their behalf.
Sovereign by Acquisition:
Arises through conquest — e.g. when one group is defeated and submits.
Even though submission is under threat, Hobbes still considers it a valid and binding agreement (since survival is rational).
✅ ANSWER 16: Could Hobbes’ sovereign become a tyrant?
One remains obligated to the sovereign so long as it continues to perform its function of preventing a return to the state of nature.
Hobbes thinks only weak sovereigns tend to be vicious or tyrannical, and that a strong sovereign like the one he advocates is unlikely to be so.
Criticism 1:
Does Hobbes’ exclusion of morality from the state of nature strengthen or weaken his theory?
✅ Q16: Does Hobbes’ exclusion of morality from the state of nature strengthen or weaken his theory?
Your Key Insight:
Strengthens Hobbes’ theory by clarifying the need for a sovereign to define and enforce morality.
But… risks circularity: if morality is whatever the sovereign says, what if the sovereign is unjust?
Hobbes strengthens his theory by stripping morality from pre-political life — this forces us to confront the brutality of moral disagreement without enforcement. But by placing all moral authority in the hands of the sovereign, Hobbes risks subordinating justice to power. If the sovereign defines morality, moral criticism of the sovereign becomes incoherent — a tension that Locke attempts to resolve.
Criticism 2:
Is Hobbes’ sovereign closer to a “trustee” of public peace or a “master”?
✅ Q17: Is Hobbes’ sovereign closer to a “trustee” of public peace or a “master”?
Hobbes’ sovereign is not a trustee in the Lockean or constitutionalist sense — they are not bound by the people’s ongoing consent. But they functionally resemble a trustee: their power is justified only so long as it secures peace. The moment they fail, they lose their legitimacy in Hobbesian terms, even if subjects lack a formal right to depose them.
Criticism 3:
What internal tension arises when Hobbes grants subjects a right to resist death?
✅ Q18: What internal tension arises when Hobbes grants subjects a right to resist death?
Hobbes insists on an absolute sovereign to avoid civil war — yet grants the subject an inalienable right to self-preservation. This creates a loophole: if every execution permits resistance, enforcement becomes unreliable. Hobbes tries to contain this by insisting resistance doesn’t cancel punishment — but the sovereign’s power is now practically limited, even if not formally.
Criticism 4:
Could Hobbes’ goals be achieved without absolute sovereignty?
✅ Q19: Could Hobbes’ goals be achieved without absolute sovereignty?
Hobbes’ theory is built on a view of human nature shaped by mistrust and insecurity. In such a setting, cooperation without enforcement is unstable (think: Prisoner’s Dilemma). Any divided authority invites ambiguity. Hobbes sees this as fatal. Thus, unless we assume radically different anthropology, non-absolute sovereignty will collapse back into the state of nature.
Criticism 5:
Does Hobbes successfully avoid authoritarianism, or justify it?
✅ Q20: Does Hobbes successfully avoid authoritarianism, or justify it?
Hobbes claims to avoid authoritarianism by insisting that a truly effective sovereign wouldn’t need to be tyrannical — oppression is a sign of weakness. But since he denies subjects the right to rebel, there is no protection against authoritarian drift. Hobbes doesn’t deny authoritarianism so much as redefine it out of existence — a move that later theorists like Locke see as dangerously naive.
