Thomas Hobbes is one of the most prominent political theorists of all time. While not hated as much as Machiavelli, he is still not widely loved, except in one case. Of course, this would be Calvin's stuffed tiger, Hobbes. Wait, Hobbes is stuffed? Shut up.
Anyway, he was known primarily for the novel The Leviathan, which was inspired by the English Civil War. Disagreeing with the political theory in place at the time- Locke's Social Contract, he would think a lot and create a new set of ideas that forms this beautiful book. Hobbes was a very peaceful man, and any amount of bloodshed distressed him. This explains why his novel's main premise is that people should obey leaders of any sort, in order to avoid conflict.
This seems like a pretty logical thought, right? People are against anarchy by nature, so a leader will always rise to put a stop to the anarchy. Hobbes' claim that following a leader will avoid war is true to some extent, primarily, it stops internal conflict. But that's beside the point. The problem with his theory is that if there is a bad leader, why would obeying him be better than following one's own ideals?
We'll get back to that. Now, Hobbes brings in a very distinct and widely used situation called The State of Nature. This is a theoretical where humans exist, but no society is formed. It is an animalistic place, without even a caveman congregation or anything. The State of Nature is, of course, a crummy place, since without rulers or rules, the savage humans would descend into even more savage brutes until we kill each other off or get killed.
The State of Nature would be very short-lived, since we really don't want to die. As a Social Contract theorist would say, savage humans would quickly form a government of some kind, which will ensure the survival of the species. Hobbes would agree with this, too.
Once the government is established, the person in charge will likely be an aristocrat. The people have a right to follow everything he says, or there will be conflict. The only time people are allowed to revolt is if the aristocrat directly threatens their lives.
0 comments:
Post a Comment