Skip to main content
Loading Explore guides…
Thomas Hobbes Philosophy · Acedra
Home
Explore
Philosophy
Thomas Hobbes Philosophy
Sign in to save
Chat
If YouTube asks you to sign in, open the video on YouTube.
Watch on YouTube
Reload player
Transcript
465 segments
Copy
Hide video
0:05
Imagine living through a civil war so brutal that neighbors turn against each other, cities burn, and the very fabric of society tears apart This was not imagination for Thomas Hobbes. Born prematurely in fifteen eighty-eight when his mother heard of the approaching Spanish Armada, Hobbes would later joke that he was born a twin with fear That fear, shaped by the English Civil War of sixteen forty-two to sixteen fifty-one, would forge one of the most influential
0:43
and controversial philosophical systems in Western thought. Thomas Hobbes stands as one of history's most significant political philosophers, with his masterwork Leviathan rivaling the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant in its lasting impact on political theory Yet to understand Hobbes solely as a political thinker misses the revolutionary scope of his project. Hobbes constructed a complete philosophical system spanning materialism, epistemology, physics, psychology,
1:23
ethics, and politics, all unified by a radical mechanistic view that everything in the universe, including human minds and societies, consists entirely of matter in motion What makes Hobbes perpetually relevant is not just his conclusions, which many find troubling, but his method. After meeting Galileo during his travels in Europe in the sixteen thirties, Hobbes became convinced that philosophy could achieve the certainty of geometry by founding itself on clear definitions and
1:59
proceeding step by step like a mathematical proof He believed he had discovered the first genuine science of politics, one that could diagnose the causes of civil conflict and prescribe cures with geometric precision. The backdrop for Hobbes' work was the violence of sectarian conflict during both the European wars of religion and the English Civil Wars, which moved him to consider peace and security the ultimate goals of government, to be achieved at all costs The British
2:35
historian Hugh Trevor-Roper captured the essence of Leviathan with stark brevity: the axiom is fear, the method is logic, and the conclusion is despotism. But is this summary accurate? Modern scholarship reveals a far more nuanced thinker Hobbes was simultaneously a materialist who denied the existence of immaterial souls and a defender of scriptural authority. He advocated absolute sovereignty while acknowledging subjects retain inalienable rights of self-defense He described
3:17
international relations as anarchic yet believed rational sovereigns could maintain peaceful cooperation. These apparent contradictions make Hobbes endlessly fascinating and maddeningly difficult to pin down Hobbes' major works form a systematic trilogy. De Corpore, published in sixteen fifty-five, covers logic, language, method, metaphysics, mathematics, and physics, establishing the materialist foundations of his system De Homine, from sixteen fifty-eight,
3:54
examines human nature specifically. De Cive, though published first in sixteen forty-two, was conceived as the political capstone But it is Leviathan, published in sixteen fifty-one, that synthesizes the entire system and remains his most widely read work. The title itself demands attention Leviathan, derived from the Hebrew word for sea monster, appears in the Book of Job as a creature so powerful that nothing on Earth is its equal. Hobbes helped design the famous
4:35
frontispiece to the first edition, which depicts the commonwealth as a gigantic human figure composed of countless tiny human bodies, with the sovereign as its head, towering over a landscape, holding a sword in one hand and a crosier in the other This image captures Hobbes' vision: many individuals forming one artificial person with overwhelming power. Leviathan is divided into four books Book One, "Of Man," establishes the philosophical framework, examining human nature, perception,
5:17
imagination, language, reason, and the passions. Book Two, "Of Commonwealth," details how the Leviathan is erected, the rights of sovereigns and subjects, and the mechanics of civil society Book Three, "Of a Christian Commonwealth," argues for the compatibility of Hobbesian philosophy with Christian doctrine. Book Four, "Of the Kingdom of Darkness," attacks false religious beliefs and argues that implementing the Leviathanic state is necessary for a secure Christian
5:55
commonwealth The influence has been staggering. Hobbes set the terms for social contract theory, which dominated political philosophy for centuries He profoundly shaped realist thought in international relations, with scholars like John Mearsheimer building directly on Hobbesian foundations. His materialism anticipated contemporary neuroscience and cognitive science His analysis of language influenced modern philosophy of mind. His conception of sovereignty remains
6:34
central to debates about state power, constitutionalism, and human rights Yet Hobbes remains deeply controversial. Critics from his own time to ours have attacked his pessimistic view of human nature, his justification of absolutism, his reduction of morality to prudence, his treatment of religion, and his mechanistic worldview Philosophers from Rousseau to Rawls have defined their positions partly by rejecting Hobbesian premises. Understanding why Hobbes reached his conclusions,
7:12
and where those arguments succeed or fail, remains essential for anyone grappling with fundamental questions about politics, ethics, and human nature This analysis will excavate the complete architecture of Hobbesian thought. We will examine not just what Hobbes claimed, but why he claimed it, how his arguments work, where they succeed, and crucially, where they fail We will explore how his ideas have been applied, misapplied, criticized, and adapted across nearly four centuries.
7:52
Part 1: "The Foundations: Materialism, Method, and the Mechanics of Mind": To understand Hobbes' political philosophy, we must first grasp his metaphysics, for his vision of government flows directly from his vision of reality itself Hobbes is often regarded as the first modern materialist, and he states his position with remarkable clarity: the universe, meaning the whole mass of things that exist, is corporeal, which is to say body, and has the dimensions of magnitude, namely length,
8:31
breadth, and depth. Every part of body is likewise body, and consequently, every part of the universe is body, and that which is not body is no part of the universe And because the universe is all, that which is no part of it is nothing, and consequently nowhere. This is not merely abstract metaphysics It represents a revolutionary break from the entire medieval philosophical tradition. Hobbes insists that terms be clearly defined and relate to actual concrete
9:09
experiences as part of his empiricism, and he tries extremely hard to avoid any metaphysical categories that do not relate to physical realities, especially the mechanical realities of matter and motion Where Aristotelian scholasticism spoke of immaterial forms, substantial souls, and incorporeal substances, Hobbes declared such language meaningless noise. Consider what this means practically By the time of Leviathan and De Corpore, Hobbes was convinced that human beings,
9:50
including their minds, were entirely material, and he later came to think that even God was a sort of material being. The mind is not some ghostly substance inhabiting the body Thinking is a physical process. Love, hate, ambition, fear, all human passions result from material motions within our bodies Even our sense of self reduces to patterns of matter moving according to natural laws. Why did Hobbes embrace such a radical position? The explicit arguments he offers for
10:31
materialism seem rather weak Perhaps he had confidence in the rapidly developing science of his time to proceed toward a full material explanation of the mind, just as his contemporary William Harvey had made progress in explaining biological matters through the circulation of blood. But there is also a deeper argumentative strategy at work Hobbes seems to suggest that if he can explain all mental phenomena using only material resources, then by Occam's razor,
11:08
why postulate anything immaterial? The simpler explanation is the better one. Hobbes argues that talk about incorporeal substances, such as Cartesian unextended thinking things, is just nonsense He claims that incorporeal substance and incorporeal body are all one, meaning the phrase contradicts itself. His opponents, who believe substances need not be bodies, naturally reject this argument This reveals both Hobbes' brilliance and his limitations. He defines substance in terms that make
11:50
materialism true by definition, but this merely begs the question against dualists like Descartes who reject those definitions The implications cascade outward. If humans are entirely material, then free will becomes problematic Contemporary philosophers grappling with materialism note that if our actions result from prior physical causes stretching back through an unbroken causal chain, then in what sense are we truly free or morally responsible? Hobbes faced this problem three and a
12:31
half centuries earlier. If our actions result from prior physical causes, are we truly responsible for them? Can there be genuine moral agency? Hobbes' materialism extends to his theory of knowledge All sense perceptions result from material bodies colliding with our eyes, ears, nose, mouth, or body, and the motions of those bodies set off chains of motions between our sensory organs and brain. Any body, once set in motion, remains in motion until acted upon by
13:11
another body Perception is literally collision. When you see this page, light particles strike your eye, causing motions in your nervous system, which your brain interprets as visual experience But here emerges a crucial problem that Hobbes recognized Our sensory experience is not objective but is always influenced by our own subjective characteristics, physical, emotional, and prejudicial As long as differences remain in the approaches diverse individuals take toward reality,
13:51
certain agreement regarding word meanings becomes impossible. Different people, with different bodies and different histories of physical impacts, will perceive and understand the world differently You and I might both look at the same object, but our different physical constitutions mean we have genuinely different sensory experiences. This creates a profound difficulty If knowledge begins with sensation, and sensation varies from person to person, how can we achieve universal,
14:28
certain knowledge? How can we avoid endless disputes arising from different perceptions and interpretations? Hobbes needs a foundation for knowledge that transcends individual variation. This is where Hobbes' geometric method enters Hobbes' philosophical method in Leviathan is modeled after a geometric proof, founded upon first principles and established definitions, in which each step of argument makes conclusions based upon the previous step. Observing that conclusions derived by
15:07
geometry are indisputable because each constituent step is indisputable in itself, Hobbes attempted to replicate this certainty in moral and political philosophy The beauty of geometry, Hobbes believed, lay in its conventional foundations. Geometric truths do not depend on observation of the natural world They follow necessarily from definitions that humans construct. A triangle has one hundred eighty degrees not because we observe triangles in nature, but because of how we define triangle,
15:48
angle, and degree Once you accept the definitions and axioms, the theorems follow with absolute necessity. No one disputes that the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides in a right triangle, because this follows logically from accepted definitions Can this work for politics? Hobbes thought so. The moral language utilized by Hobbes in his Leviathan was expressed by the precise vocabulary of geometry, empirical science, and physics,
16:26
and his political ethical theory was grounded in a causal-mechanical and materialistic metaphysical theory Just as geometric proofs build from axioms, political science should build from fundamental observations about human nature. For Hobbes, science is nothing other than the knowledge of consequences, and the dependence of one fact upon another More specifically, he defines reasoning as computation, meaning the addition and subtraction of concepts. When we reason,
17:02
we are essentially calculating, combining simple ideas into complex ones or breaking complex ideas into simpler components This is why Hobbes believes mathematical reasoning is the ideal method for acquiring clear and certain knowledge, and he praises geometry as a constructed and internally consistent logical system which he attempts to replicate in social and political sciences. Consider how radical this is Hobbes is claiming that we can discover moral and
17:40
political truths with the same certainty we discover mathematical truths. We can prove that absolute sovereignty is necessary with the same rigor that we prove the Pythagorean theorem This would be philosophy's holy grail: demonstrable ethical and political knowledge, immune to dispute and disagreement. But there is a deep tension here that Hobbes never fully resolved Hobbes never adequately justifies why ethics and moral philosophy should be analyzed in the same
18:18
way as empirical aspects of politics. Deducing the logical connections of values like liberty is fundamentally different from predicting the effects of different kinds of commonwealth You can perhaps prove that if humans fear death above all else, then they should rationally desire peace. But can you prove with geometric certainty that humans do fear death above all? That requires empirical observation, which Hobbes' method struggles to incorporate systematically This tension
18:56
between the rationalist method, borrowed from geometry, and empiricist premises, drawn from observation of human nature, runs throughout Hobbes' system. He wants the certainty of mathematics but must begin with facts about human psychology He wants universal truths but must derive them from particular observations. This is Hobbes' methodological high-wire act, and whether he successfully crosses to the other side remains disputed The relationship between language and
19:33
knowledge is crucial for Hobbes. Unlike many of his contemporaries who saw language as a transparent medium for expressing pre-existing thoughts, Hobbes recognized that language fundamentally shapes how we think He defines names or words as marks used to recall thoughts to ourselves and signs used to communicate those thoughts to others. Language is a tool, an artificial device humans create for practical purposes But language can mislead. Hobbes warns extensively about the abuses
20:14
of speech: using words inconsistently, using words without clear definitions, using metaphors as if they were literal truths, and combining words in contradictory ways Much of human disagreement, Hobbes believes, stems not from genuine differences in reality but from confused or manipulative uses of language. When two people dispute whether an action is just, they may simply be using the word just differently, not perceiving different facts about the action itself This leads to a crucial
20:55
Hobbesian insight: there must exist in human society some central authority to decide the singular definitions of all words and to determine first principles. Otherwise, linguistic and conceptual chaos reigns, and with it, political chaos The sovereign's power extends not just over physical violence but over meaning itself. The sovereign determines what words mean in political contexts, and therefore what counts as justice, property, crime, and obligation This brings us to
21:37
Hobbes' account of human nature, the foundation upon which his entire political edifice rests. Hobbes bases all his claims about the mind in his materialist conception of the universe as a plenum filled with matter, where all natural activity results from material bodies moving and colliding with one another He saw human beings as essentially machines, with even their thoughts and emotions operating according to physical laws and chains of cause and effect.
22:14
Understanding the human machine requires introspection Hobbes encourages us to turn our thoughts inward and study one person, namely oneself, for to understand the thoughts, desires, and reasons of ourselves is to understand them in all mankind. This is a remarkable methodological claim Hobbes suggests that by examining your own motivations, fears, and desires, you can discover universal truths about human psychology. The method is simultaneously empirical,
22:55
drawing on your experience of yourself, and rationalist, extracting universal principles from particular observations What does this introspection reveal? Hobbes explains various human passions in quantitative physical terms. The quantity and type of passion possessed by an individual defines his or her condition in the world: to have weak passion is dullness, to have indifferent passion is giddiness, to have an overabundance or disproportionate amount of passion is
23:31
madness Passions are not mysterious spiritual forces but measurable quantities of motion within the body. At the most basic level, humans experience two fundamental motions: appetite and aversion Appetite is movement toward what we perceive as good for us; aversion is movement away from what we perceive as harmful. These are not yet rational calculations but instinctive passions in which reason is not yet at work We are drawn to pleasure and repelled by pain,
24:14
attracted to what seems beneficial and repelled by what seems threatening, all at a level more fundamental than conscious choice. What we call good and evil are simply names we give to the objects of our appetite and aversion Good is whatever we desire; evil is whatever we avoid. This is deeply subjectivist There is no objective good independent of human desires. Different people desire different things, so they will call different things good One person's good is another's evil,
24:55
depending on their respective appetites and aversions. But appetite and aversion do not exhaust the passions Hobbes provides an extensive catalog of emotions, all explained mechanistically. Joy is pleasure arising from the consideration of having obtained something good Grief is displeasure from expectation of losing something good or gaining something evil. Love is pleasure from the presence of someone whose company we enjoy Hate is displeasure from the presence of someone
25:33
whose company we dislike. Hope is appetite combined with belief that we will obtain what we desire Fear is aversion combined with belief we cannot avoid what we dread. More complex social emotions emerge from these foundations Glory is joy from imagining our own power and ability. Shame is grief from imagining our own inability or weakness Pride is glory based on an exaggerated opinion of oneself. Humility, which Hobbes treats with suspicion, is supposed recognition of one's limitations,
26:21
but Hobbes doubts its genuineness Pity is grief from seeing someone else's misfortune combined with imagination that similar misfortune could befall us. Crucially, Hobbes identifies three passions that will prove central to his political theory: competition, diffidence meaning distrust or fear, and glory meaning pride or the desire for reputation These three passions, arising inevitably from our mechanical nature, will drive human beings into conflict in the absence of government.
27:01
We compete for scarce resources to satisfy our appetites We distrust others and strike preemptively out of fear for our safety. We seek glory, reputation, and recognition, leading us to challenge and dominate others even when our material needs are met Enter reason. Hobbes' account of reason is distinctive and somewhat deflationary Reason is not a faculty that grasps eternal truths or connects us to divine mind. Reason is simply calculation, the addition and subtraction of concepts
27:43
We use reason instrumentally to figure out means to our ends. If you want X, reason tells you that you must do Y to achieve X Reason supplies hypothetical imperatives: if this, then that. But reason does not tell you what to want The passions set the goals; reason merely calculates how to achieve them. This makes reason, in a famous Hobbesian phrase, the scout and spy of the passions Reason is in the service of desires, which alone can move a person to act.
28:27
Reason without passion is inert; passion without reason is blind We need both, but passion has primacy in motivation. You can reason brilliantly about means, but without desire, you will do nothing This has profound implications. If reason is merely instrumental, then rational people with different desires may rationally pursue different and conflicting ends There is no purely rational ground for everyone to agree on shared goals. Reason can show us that if we all desire peace,
29:09
we should lay down our arms But if someone desires conquest more than peace, reason might tell him to attack while others are lowering their guard. Reason alone cannot generate the universal agreement Hobbes needs for stable society Hobbes also discusses deliberation, the process of alternating appetites and aversions regarding some future action. When we deliberate, we imagine performing an action, feel appetite toward it, then imagine some negative consequence, feel aversion,
29:49
then imagine some benefit again, feel appetite again, cycling back and forth until the deliberation ends The last appetite or aversion in deliberation, the one immediately before we act or refrain from acting, is what we call will. Will is not a separate faculty but simply the final passion in a chain of deliberation This conception of will troubles many readers. If will is just the last link in a mechanical chain of passions, determined by prior physical causes,
30:28
then in what sense are we free? Hobbes does address freedom, defining a free man as one who is not hindered from doing what he has the will to do Freedom is absence of external impediments to motion. A prisoner behind bars is not free because the bars prevent him from moving as he wills But this is compatible with determinism. The chain of physical causes that produces your will may be fully determined, yet you are still free if nothing external prevents you from acting on that
31:06
will Critics object that this makes freedom trivial. A slave might not be externally prevented from obeying his master's commands, so by Hobbesian standards he is free But surely this misses what matters about freedom, namely autonomy, self-determination, the ability to be the ultimate source of one's actions rather than merely an intermediate link in a causal chain stretching back to one's birth or beyond. Hobbes' mechanistic psychology seems to leave no room for the kind of freedom that
31:46
grounds moral responsibility Another crucial concept is felicity, which Hobbes defines not as a state of contentment but as continual success in obtaining the objects of desire. Felicity is not reaching a final goal and then resting satisfied There is no such thing as the highest good or summum bonum in Hobbesian psychology. As soon as you obtain one desired object, new desires arise Happiness consists in successful progress from one desire to the next,
32:27
not in achieving a final satisfaction. Life is perpetual motion, and felicity is simply keeping that motion directed successfully toward ever-new goals This has a dark corollary. Since desires are endless and satisfaction temporary, humans are locked in a perpetual struggle for power Power is simply present means to obtain future goods. Whatever helps you achieve your desires, whether strength, wealth, reputation, or alliances, counts as power And because your future
33:09
desires are unpredictable and potentially unlimited, you can never have enough power. Even if all your current needs are met, you need power to secure against future needs Therefore, Hobbes famously claims, there is a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire for power after power, that ceases only in death. But this needs careful interpretation Hobbes is not claiming everyone is a power-mad tyrant seeking to dominate others for domination's sake.
33:50
Many people desire only modest security and comfort The point is structural: because the future is uncertain and desires continue arising, rational self-interest demands acquiring more power even if you do not currently need it. You need power reserves to draw on when circumstances change And since others are doing the same, you need enough power to defend against those who might use their power against you. Power-seeking becomes rational even for the moderate and peace-loving This
34:33
analysis of human nature contains remarkable psychological insight. Hobbes recognizes that scarcity is not just objective but psychological We overestimate our abilities and underestimate others. We assume desired objects are obtainable when they may not be We imagine ourselves invulnerable when we are fragile. These cognitive biases, rooted in our physical constitution and shaped by our particular experiences, lead us into conflicts that cooler heads might avoid Hobbes is not merely
35:13
describing humans as selfish but as systematically mistaken about themselves and others in ways that generate conflict. Moreover, Hobbes recognizes that much human conflict is not about material goods but about recognition We fight for glory, honor, reputation. We cannot tolerate being undervalued An insult, a slight, a sign of disrespect can provoke violent retaliation even when no material interest is at stake. This psychological realism makes Hobbes'
35:53
account of human nature more compelling than simplistic caricatures of Hobbesian man as purely self-interested calculator We are calculating, but we calculate about things like honor and pride that are not reducible to material advantage. However, critics have relentlessly attacked Hobbes' account of human nature for its pessimism Is it really true that humans are fundamentally competitive, distrustful, and glory-seeking? What about cooperation, altruism, love, friendship,
36:31
and all the prosocial behaviors that evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists document across cultures? Hobbes seems to take the worst aspects of human nature, perhaps colored by his own experience of civil war, and declare them universal and inevitable. Defenders of Hobbes respond that he is not denying that cooperation occurs or that people can be kind The point is structural: even if most people are mostly cooperative most of the time, it only takes some people being
37:06
uncooperative some of the time to create a security dilemma. If even a small percentage of the population will use violence opportunistically, then everyone else must take defensive measures, which appear threatening to others, leading to escalating mutual suspicion The problem is not that everyone is bad but that no one can be certain others are good, and this uncertainty, combined with high stakes, produces the dynamics Hobbes describes. Furthermore, Hobbes' account of human nature might be
37:43
understood not as descriptive psychology but as a methodological assumption He is asking: what would political life be like if we assume the worst about human motivation? If we build political institutions on the assumption that people will act badly when they can get away with it, those institutions might be robust enough to handle actual human behavior, which includes both good and bad. If we assume too much goodness and build weak institutions, we leave ourselves vulnerable when people
38:22
act badly This is the logic of worst-case reasoning in constitutional design. Yet this defense has limits If Hobbes' account of human nature is merely a methodological assumption rather than an empirical claim, then his entire argument loses force. He cannot say that absolute sovereignty is necessary to prevent civil war if the state of nature is not actually as bad as he describes The normative conclusion depends on the empirical premise being true, or at least approximately true.
39:04
Hobbes needs his psychology to be realistic, not merely a useful fiction for theoretical purposes The materialist foundations and mechanical psychology we have examined establish the framework for everything that follows. Hobbes believes he has shown that humans are physical systems governed by natural laws, that their behavior can be explained scientifically in terms of matter and motion, that their reasoning is calculation aimed at satisfying desires, and that their passions inevitably
39:40
generate competition, fear, and conflict From these foundations, he will construct his argument that the only solution to the human predicament is absolute sovereign power. Whether those foundations support that conclusion, or collapse under its weight, is the question that has occupied readers of Hobbes for nearly four centuries Part 2: "The State of Nature: War of All Against All": With his materialist metaphysics and mechanical psychology established,
40:16
Hobbes now asks us to conduct a thought experiment. Imagine human beings in what he calls the state of nature, a condition before or without political authority What would life be like? Hobbes' answer, expressed in perhaps the most famous passage in political philosophy, is stark: the life of man would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. But what exactly is this state of nature? Is Hobbes describing an actual historical period, a hypothetical scenario, or something else?
40:56
The text supports multiple interpretations At times Hobbes suggests the state of nature is a real condition that existed before civil societies formed, or that exists now in places without effective government. He points to the peoples of America, by which he means indigenous populations, as living in the brutish condition of the state of nature, though modern anthropology thoroughly refutes this claim He also notes that sovereign states exist in a state of nature relative to each other,
41:33
since there is no world government. But Hobbes also presents the state of nature as a logical deduction from human nature rather than a historical claim If you take humans as Hobbes has described them, with their passions and powers, and imagine them without political authority, this is what logically follows. The state of nature is less a description of prehistory than an analysis of what political authority prevents Remove government, and you remove what keeps these natural
42:09
human tendencies in check. The state of nature is characterized first by a condition Hobbes calls natural equality This is not moral equality or equality of rights in our modern sense. Hobbes means that humans are roughly equal in their basic physical and mental capacities The weakest person has enough strength to kill the strongest, either through secret machination or by confederacy with others. The difference between the wisest and the most foolish is not so great that one can
42:48
claim superiority that others must acknowledge Some are stronger, some smarter, but these differences are not large enough to be decisive. This equality is crucial because it generates conflict If humans were naturally unequal, like bees in a hive with a queen bee biologically programmed to rule and workers biologically programmed to obey, then hierarchy would be natural and stable. But humans are equal enough that no one can claim natural authority over others,
43:25
and no one is so strong that they need not fear others Everyone poses a threat to everyone else. The strong must sleep, and the weak can attack while they sleep The clever can be outnumbered by the less clever. Natural equality means natural vulnerability From equality proceeds diffidence, meaning distrust or fear. Because everyone can harm anyone, no one can feel secure You might be peaceful and want only to till your land and live quietly. But you know your neighbor could attack
44:10
and take your goods So you must prepare defenses. But your defenses look threatening to your neighbor, who then prepares his own defenses, which look threatening to you, and the spiral escalates Even if both of you genuinely want peace, neither can trust the other's peaceful intentions, and neither can afford to be wrong. This is what international relations scholars call a security dilemma Actions taken for purely defensive reasons appear threatening to others,
44:46
who take defensive actions that appear threatening in return, leading to an arms race and potentially war despite no one initially wanting conflict. The tragedy is that even the peaceful and reasonable cannot escape this dynamic in the state of nature Hobbes identifies three principal causes of quarrel in the state of nature: competition, diffidence, and glory. These are not separate motives but interlocking aspects of the human condition in the absence of authority
45:23
Competition arises because many goods are scarce and indivisible. If two people desire the same thing which they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies Each tries to destroy or subdue the other. This applies not just to material goods but to anything people value Competition makes humans invade others for gain, seeking to acquire their resources, goods, territory, or other objects of desire. Diffidence or fear drives humans to invade others for safety Even if you
46:03
have no aggressive intentions, you know others might attack you. The rational response is to strike first, subduing your neighbors before they can threaten you This is preemptive war driven not by greed but by fear. You attack not because you want what others have but because you fear what they might do And since everyone reasons the same way, everyone has reason to strike first, creating a perpetual state of mutual hostility. Glory means reputation, honor,
46:41
and pride Humans invade others for reputation, reacting violently to any sign of undervaluation, whether a direct insult, a failure to show proper respect, or even disrespect shown to their friends, family, nation, or profession. Hobbes recognizes that trifles, things of objectively little value, can provoke violence when they carry symbolic meaning A word, a look, a gesture can start a feud or a war because it touches on honor and pride. These three causes interlock
47:25
Competition creates scarcity and conflict over resources. This conflict generates fear and distrust, leading to preemptive violence Success in competition and defense requires power, and power requires reputation, so maintaining one's reputation becomes a matter of survival, not just vanity. You must respond to challenges to your reputation because letting them pass makes you look weak, inviting further attacks Thus glory-seeking is not irrational but a
48:02
necessary component of security in a world without law. In such condition, Hobbes writes, there is no place for industry because the fruit of it is uncertain No one will plant crops if they expect others to reap them. No one will build if they expect others to seize what they build Consequently there is no culture of the earth, no navigation, no trade, no comfortable buildings, no knowledge, no arts, no letters, no society. Everything that makes human life worth living depends on security,
48:43
and security is impossible in the state of nature Hobbes is describing not constant actual fighting but a known disposition to fight. War consists not in battle only but in a known inclination to battle during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary Just as bad weather means not constant rain but the prospect of rain, so war means the constant prospect of violence. Everyone must remain constantly armed and vigilant, trusting no one, cooperating with no one except in temporary,
49:23
fragile alliances that dissolve as soon as interests diverge This is why life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Solitary because trust and cooperation are impossible Poor because productive activity cannot occur without security. Nasty and brutish because life reduces to violent competition Short because violence is ubiquitous and medical care nonexistent. Hobbes is arguing that everything we value about civilization depends on escaping this condition A crucial and
50:07
often misunderstood point: Hobbes claims that in the state of nature, there is no right or wrong, no justice or injustice. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have no place where there is no common power, no law, and where there is no law, there is no injustice Force and fraud become the cardinal virtues in war. This sounds like moral nihilism, but Hobbes is making a more limited claim He is not saying moral concepts are meaningless or that right and wrong do not
50:48
exist period. He is saying they have no application in the state of nature Without law, there can be no illegal action. Without property, there can be no theft Without contracts enforced by authority, there can be no breach of contract. The concepts of justice and injustice presuppose legal and political institutions that define what is owed to whom and enforce those obligations This is actually less radical than it sounds. Many modern philosophers distinguish
51:28
between moral rights and legal rights, natural justice and conventional justice, or personal ethics and political obligations Hobbes is claiming that justice in the fullest sense, justice as a enforceable obligation, exists only within political society. This does not necessarily mean there are no moral standards at all in the state of nature, only that without enforcement mechanisms, moral standards have no binding force Furthermore, Hobbes does not say that the state of
52:06
nature is morally permissible or good. He says it is a wretched condition that rational people should want to escape The whole point of his argument is that the state of nature is morally intolerable precisely because moral concepts have no grip there. We need political authority not because morality is a fiction but because morality cannot function without it Still, critics object that Hobbes' state of nature is impossibly bleak and psychologically unrealistic.
52:43
Do humans really behave this badly when there is no government? Anthropological and historical evidence suggests not Hunter-gatherer societies, while not free from violence, often maintain peace through customs, kinship bonds, reciprocity norms, and social pressure without formal government. Small-scale societies cooperate extensively Even in situations of state collapse or civil war, some degree of order typically emerges from informal institutions. Jean-Jacques Rousseau famously attacked
53:24
Hobbes on this point in the eighteenth century Rousseau argued that Hobbes was taking socialized people, people shaped by living in societies with property and inequality, and imagining them outside society while retaining the psychological characteristics society produced. Of course such people would fight over property and status, but only because society created those motivations In a true state of nature, Rousseau argued, humans would be neither good nor bad but innocent,
54:01
neither competitive nor cooperative but merely indifferent to each other, living simple lives and only occasionally encountering one another. This critique has force If the vices Hobbes attributes to the state of nature are actually products of social life, then the state of nature cannot be as bad as Hobbes claims. The very motivations that make it horrible, competition for resources and status, presuppose social structures that would not exist in the state of nature Hobbes
54:37
may be projecting the pathologies of civil society onto the state of nature and then claiming we need civil society to escape those pathologies. That is circular reasoning Hobbes defenders respond that Rousseau misses the point. Hobbes is not trying to describe actual human prehistory The state of nature is an analytical device to isolate the function of political authority. What does government do? It prevents the war of all against all How do we know it prevents this?
55:19
Because we can deduce what would happen without it. The deduction does not depend on history but on the logic of strategic interaction among rational, self-interested agents with equal power and no superior authority Modern game theory has vindicated aspects of Hobbes' reasoning. The Prisoner's Dilemma and other cooperation problems in non-repeated games show that individually rational choices can produce collectively disastrous outcomes Each person acting rationally
55:55
for themselves leads to results that everyone prefers to avoid, but no one can unilaterally change without making themselves worse off.
56:06
Hobbes identified this logical structure centuries before game theory formalized it However, game theory also shows that cooperation can emerge through repeated interactions, reputation mechanisms, and reciprocal strategies like tit-for-tat. Players who expect to interact repeatedly have incentives to cooperate because betrayal damages future cooperation prospects This suggests that even without government, humans could develop cooperative norms and institutions.
56:43
Hobbes' state of nature treats human interaction as if it were a one-shot game, but most human interactions are repeated or embedded in ongoing relationships Hobbes actually recognizes this to some extent. He notes that among sovereigns, who exist in a state of nature relative to each other, there is less misery than among individuals because sovereigns uphold the industry of their subjects, protect their economies, and maintain some level of international cooperation If sovereign states can
57:21
mitigate the state of nature through diplomacy, trade, and international law, why could not individuals do something similar through customs, reputation, and social norms? The answer seems to be scale and stakes. Among individuals in the state of nature, the stakes are existential One violent person can kill you in your sleep. You cannot easily move to avoid aggressors Reputation mechanisms require stable communities, but the state of nature features constant flux and migration.
58:02
Among states, in contrast, moving is not an option, interactions are ongoing, and the costs of war are high, incentivizing restraint So the state of nature is worse for individuals than for states.
58:20
Another line of criticism focuses on Hobbes' assumption of psychological egoism, the view that humans are motivated ultimately only by self-interest Psychological egoism is notoriously difficult to defend. Cannot people act from genuine benevolence, love, duty, or commitment to principles? Are not there countless examples of people sacrificing their interests for others? Parents care for children at great cost to themselves Soldiers die for their comrades. People give to charity,
59:00
help strangers, and act morally even when they could get away with acting immorally Hobbes can accommodate some of this. If you love your children, then their wellbeing is part of your interest, so acting for their benefit is acting for your own interest broadly conceived Hobbes can expand self-interest to include whatever you care about, making the claim nearly unfalsifiable. But this makes psychological egoism trivial If self-interest includes caring about others,
59:38
then what is the difference between psychological egoism and its denial? The deeper issue is whether Hobbes needs the strong claim of universal psychological egoism. Perhaps he needs only the weaker claim that enough people are self-interested enough of the time that social cooperation cannot be taken for granted Even if most people are mostly decent, if some people will act badly when they can get away with it, and if we cannot reliably identify who those people are,
1:00:14
then we still have a security problem. You might be genuinely altruistic, but you do not know that I am, and I do not know that you are, and this mutual uncertainty recreates the security dilemma Modern evolutionary theory complicates the picture. Humans have evolved capacities for both selfish and prosocial behavior We are not purely selfish, but our altruism is often parochial, directed toward kin and in-group members while excluding outsiders. We cooperate extensively within groups
1:00:56
while competing between groups This suggests humans are not Hobbesian atoms but evolved for life in social groups, with psychological adaptations for both cooperation and competition. If this is right, then the state of nature is not a plausible starting point because humans never existed as isolated individuals We evolved in groups, and our psychology reflects this. The question is not whether isolated individuals would cooperate without government, which may be asking about a situation
1:01:36
that never existed, but rather what kinds of social structures can channel our mixed nature toward cooperation rather than conflict at larger scales than kin groups or tribes Hobbes himself occasionally suggests that the family is natural and pre-political, not part of the state of nature. Parents have authority over children, and this authority arises naturally from the parent's power to kill or preserve the infant If families exist in the state of nature, then the state of nature is not a
1:02:14
condition of isolated individuals but of families or small kinship groups. This would significantly change the dynamic Families can cooperate internally, accumulate resources across generations, and form alliances with other families. The state of nature might be less a war of individuals and more a condition of feuding clans or tribes But Hobbes' treatment of the family in the state of nature is brief and has been rightly criticized as strange and strained.
1:02:52
He tries to avoid acknowledging natural social bonds because that would undermine his atomistic starting point Yet he cannot deny that reproduction and child-rearing exist. His solution, treating parental authority as based purely on power and contract rather than natural bonds, is one of the less convincing parts of his system Empirical evidence from the state of nature is difficult to assess because true states of nature are rare. Failed states and civil wars are often
1:03:30
cited as approximating the state of nature, and the violence in such situations seems to support Hobbes Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Syria, all show what happens when political authority collapses. Hobbesian dynamics of preemptive violence, ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and the breakdown of trust emerge rapidly Life does become nasty, brutish, and short. Yet even in these situations, some forms of order emerge Local warlords provide a kind of protection, however predatory.
1:04:12
Militias enforce rules within their territories Refugees develop survival strategies and mutual aid networks. Complete Hobbesian chaos is rare and brief This could mean either that Hobbes is wrong about how bad things get without government, or that humans rapidly create proto-governmental structures, proving his point that some form of authority is necessary. Perhaps the fairest assessment is that Hobbes identified a real problem but overstated its severity Cooperation is
1:04:51
harder than optimists suppose, and the breakdown of trust and security can happen quickly, especially at large scales or in heterogeneous populations. But humans are also more naturally social than Hobbes' framework suggests, and informal institutions can mitigate some of the worst dynamics The state of nature is not as bad as Hobbes claims, but neither is it the peaceful paradise that some of his critics imagined. The truth lies somewhere between Hobbes
1:05:26
and Rousseau For Hobbes' argument to work, the state of nature need not be the worst possible condition imaginable. It only needs to be bad enough that rational people would consent to almost any government to escape it If life without political authority is sufficiently miserable, insecure, and unpredictable, then even a very powerful and potentially oppressive government looks attractive by comparison. The badness of the state of nature sets the price that people are willing to pay
1:06:04
for political order This is a crucial move in Hobbes' reasoning. He is not claiming that absolute sovereignty is good in itself, only that it is better than the alternative His argument is essentially comparative. Yes, absolute sovereignty could be abused Yes, it involves giving up significant liberties. Yes, it concentrates terrifying power in one place But all of that, Hobbes contends, is preferable to the state of nature, where you have no security at all.
1:06:44
The state of nature provides the benchmark against which all political arrangements must be measured Critics charge that Hobbes has rigged the game. By making the state of nature so horrible, he makes even despotism look good But what if there are other options? What if we can escape the state of nature without submitting to absolute sovereignty? What if limited government, constitutional constraints, division of powers, and democratic accountability can provide security without tyranny?
1:07:21
Then Hobbes' argument fails because he has presented a false dichotomy: absolute sovereignty or chaos. If there is a viable middle ground, then the badness of the state of nature does not justify the specific solution Hobbes proposes This becomes the key battleground for liberal political philosophy. Thinkers from Locke onward accept that we need to escape the state of nature but reject that this requires absolute sovereignty They will argue for limited
1:07:58
government with constitutional constraints, arguing that the risk of governmental tyranny is a greater danger than the risk of returning to the state of nature. They will try to split the difference, gaining security without sacrificing liberty entirely But Hobbes thinks this is wishful thinking. He believes divided sovereignty is a contradiction in terms Either there is a final authority or there is not. If there is not, then you are still in the state of nature,
1:08:35
just with more steps Disputes about the limits of government authority are themselves political disputes, and without a final judge, they lead to conflict. Constitutions do not interpret themselves Checks and balances require someone to check the checks and balance the balances. Regress threatens, and the regress ends either in absolute sovereignty or in civil war Who is right in this debate remains contested. The state of nature, whether historical fact, logical deduction,
1:09:16
or rhetorical device, serves as the foundation for Hobbes' political project Everything else builds on the claim that without political authority, human life is unacceptably miserable and precarious. If that claim fails, the entire edifice collapses If it succeeds, then Hobbes can proceed to construct his Leviathan. Part 3: "The Laws of Nature and Natural Rights": Having described the horrors of the state of nature, Hobbes now asks: is there any way out?
1:09:55
Can reason provide guidance for escaping this condition?
1:10:00
Hobbes answers yes, through what he calls the laws of nature But these laws are not what traditional natural law theorists meant. Hobbes radically reinterprets natural law, stripping it of theological and teleological foundations and reconstructing it as rational rules for self-preservation A law of nature, Hobbes defines, is a precept or general rule, found out by reason, by which a person is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life or takes away the means of preserving it,
1:10:38
and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved. This definition is crucial Natural laws are not commands from God, though Hobbes will later claim they are consistent with God's commands. They are not moral obligations grounded in human nature's essential purposes They are rational principles that self-interested individuals can discover through reasoning about their own preservation. The first and fundamental law of nature is: seek peace and follow it More fully,
1:11:19
every person ought to endeavor 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. This is the master principle from which all other natural laws derive Reason tells us that peace is better than war for our survival and wellbeing. Therefore, we should pursue peace when possible But when peace is impossible, reason tells us to use all means to defend ourselves, which is war. This might seem obvious,
1:11:59
even tautological Of course people prefer peace to war, and of course they will fight if necessary. But Hobbes is establishing something important: reason itself, not just desire or emotion, counsels peace Even the purely self-interested calculator, caring only for self-preservation, has reason to seek peace. You do not need to care about others or about justice to want peace; you only need to care about yourself This makes the foundation of morality simultaneously
1:12:40
self-interested and rational. The second law of nature derives from the first: that a person 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 his right to all things, and be contented with so much liberty against other persons as he would allow other persons against himself This is Hobbes' version of the Golden Rule, but derived from self-interest rather than altruism. To understand this,
1:13:15
we must first understand what Hobbes means by right The right of nature is the liberty each person has to use his own power for the preservation of his own life. Liberty means absence of external impediments, so the right of nature is simply the absence of any restrictions on doing whatever you think necessary for self-preservation In the state of nature, every person has right to everything, even to another's body. There is nothing you cannot do if you
1:13:50
judge it necessary for your survival But having right to everything means having security to nothing. If everyone has right to everything, then no one can be confident in keeping anything Your right to take my food equals my right to keep it. Your right to kill me equals my right to kill you Rights without corresponding obligations provide no protection. Universal right means universal insecurity The solution is to lay down rights conditionally. I will give up my right to harm you if
1:14:34
you give up your right to harm me We contract to limit our liberty mutually. This is rational because, although I lose the freedom to attack you, I gain security from your attacks The trade is worthwhile because security is more valuable than unlimited freedom when unlimited freedom provides no security. Notice the conditionality: I lay down my right only if you lay down yours This is crucial. Unilateral disarmament is irrational If I lay down my right to violence while you retain yours,
1:15:19
I become your victim. The second law of nature requires reciprocity We must lay down our rights together, or not at all. And we must all lay down the same rights I give up exactly as much liberty against you as you give up against me, no more, no less. This reciprocal laying down of rights is what Hobbes calls covenant or contract A covenant is a mutual transfer of rights, a promise to limit one's actions in exchange for others' promises to limit theirs.
1:16:01
The third law of nature states: that men perform their covenants made Without this, covenants are meaningless. If people make agreements but break them when convenient, then the mutual laying down of rights accomplishes nothing Trust requires that promises be kept. But here Hobbes confronts a devastating problem In the state of nature, it is never rational to keep covenants if breaking them advantages you and you can get away with it. Suppose we agree not to harm each other
1:16:41
Then I see an opportunity to harm you when you cannot retaliate or when I will gain more from harming you than I risk losing from your possible future retaliation. Rational self-interest tells me to break the covenant But you, reasoning the same way, will also break covenants when advantageous. So our covenant provides no real security Hobbes illustrates this with what he calls the fool, a person who questions whether justice, meaning keeping covenants, is really rational.
1:17:24
The fool says: "Why should I keep my promise when breaking it benefits me? Justice is only what I can get away with If I am clever enough to break agreements without suffering consequences, then breaking them is rational." Hobbes responds to the fool by arguing that covenant-breaking is rarely truly advantageous when all consequences are considered If you become known as someone who breaks covenants, no one will covenant with you in the future. You become an outcast,
1:17:59
and in the state of nature, the solitary individual cannot long survive Reputation for reliability is an asset worth preserving even at the cost of short-term sacrifices. Furthermore, Hobbes argues, even if you could break covenants with impunity, relying on your cleverness is risky You might misjudge the situation. Your betrayal might be discovered Others might band together against covenant-breakers. The long-term risks of breaking covenants
1:18:35
generally outweigh short-term gains Therefore, justice, understood as keeping covenants, is rational even for the purely self-interested. But critics immediately pounce on this reasoning Hobbes has not shown that keeping covenants is always rational, only that it is usually rational. The fool is not asking whether justice is generally a good policy but whether it is rationally binding in every case If there exist situations where breaking a covenant is clearly advantageous with
1:19:13
minimal risk, then the fool is right that justice is not absolute. And if justice is not absolute, then it is not really justice but mere prudence, which can be overridden by other prudential considerations Moreover, in the state of nature, the conditions Hobbes identifies for covenants being rational, future interactions, reputation effects, and so on, often do not hold. If I expect never to see you again, or if I can betray you secretly, or if the stakes are life and death,
1:19:50
then keeping my covenant might be irrational Hobbes seems to prove too much: if covenants are rationally binding in the state of nature, then perhaps we do not need to escape the state of nature after all. But if they are not rationally binding, then natural law provides no escape Hobbes' response is that covenants made in the state of nature are valid but not reliable. The laws of nature oblige you to keep covenants, but only when you can do so safely When
1:20:27
keeping a covenant threatens your life, self-preservation overrides the obligation. This makes sense given that the laws of nature are all derived from the fundamental goal of self-preservation You cannot be obliged to do something that undermines the very goal that grounds the obligation. But this creates a loophole large enough to drive an army through If I can ignore obligations whenever I fear for my safety, and I am the judge of when I am in danger,
1:21:03
then obligations bind only when I want them to. Every violation can be justified by claiming I feared for my safety Hobbes is aware of this problem, which is why he insists that covenants only become reliable when there is a common power to enforce them. Until then, the laws of nature are, in his memorable phrase, "but words " This brings us to a crucial and often misunderstood aspect of Hobbes' natural law theory. The laws of nature oblige in conscience,
1:21:42
meaning you ought to desire that they be obeyed, but they do not oblige in action unless there is security for obeying them You should wish for a world where everyone keeps covenants, but you should not keep your covenants when others are not keeping theirs and when there is no enforcement mechanism. This distinction between obligation in conscience and obligation in action is Hobbes' way of affirming that natural law is real moral law while explaining why it
1:22:18
does not function in the state of nature Critics find this distinction murky and perhaps incoherent. What does it mean to have an obligation that you are not obliged to fulfill? How is obligation in conscience different from merely wishing something were the case? If I ought to desire that covenants be kept but I am not obliged to keep my own covenants in the state of nature, then in what meaningful sense am I obliged at all? Hobbes lists nineteen laws of nature total,
1:22:56
though the first two are fundamental and the others are elaborations or applications The third, as mentioned, is to keep covenants. The fourth is to show gratitude, meaning not to make someone regret having bestowed a benefit on you The fifth is to accommodate oneself to others, what we might call sociability or willingness to compromise. The sixth is to pardon offenses when the offender repents and offers security for the future The seventh is that in revenge, meaning punishment,
1:23:35
one should look only to future good, not to past evil; punishment is for deterrence and reform, not retribution for its own sake. The eighth law prohibits insults and expressions of contempt The ninth requires acknowledging natural equality. The tenth forbids pride and arrogance The eleventh requires impartiality when judging disputes between others. The twelfth mandates equal distribution of things that cannot be divided when people have equal right to them The
1:24:16
thirteenth prescribes determining distribution by lot when equal division is impossible. The fourteenth distinguishes between two kinds of lots, giving priority to first possession for things no one yet possesses and priority to primogeniture, meaning firstborn inheritance, for things already possessed The fifteenth law of nature provides for safe conduct for mediators of peace. The sixteenth requires submission to arbitration when parties cannot resolve disputes themselves The seventeenth
1:24:53
states that no one should be judge in his own case due to inevitable bias. The eighteenth requires that judges be impartial, having no greater interest in one party than another The nineteenth mandates that in judging factual questions, if no other evidence is available, judges should give credit to witness testimony, with greater weight to multiple witnesses than single witnesses. Many of these later laws seem obvious or trivial, and Hobbes admits as much He notes that
1:25:30
all of them can be summarized as: do not do to others what you would not want done to you. This is the traditional Golden Rule, which Hobbes presents as following from rational self-interest rather than altruism If you do not want others stealing from you, harming you, or treating you unfairly, then rationality requires not doing those things to others, because reciprocity is the foundation of social cooperation. But there is something deeply paradoxical
1:26:04
about Hobbes' natural law theory On one hand, he claims natural law is discovered by reason and binds all humans as rational creatures. On the other hand, these laws do not actually function in the state of nature because they cannot be safely obeyed They are prescriptions for peace that only work once you already have peace. They are rational rules for cooperation that only make sense when cooperation is already possible They tell you how to escape the state of nature but do not
1:26:43
actually enable escape. This is not an oversight but reflects a deep insight Moral rules require social conditions to function. You cannot have property rights without enforcement You cannot have contracts without trust or enforcement. You cannot have justice without institutions Hobbes is showing that morality, in the full sense of binding obligations with real consequences, is parasitic on political authority. Morality's content can be derived rationally,
1:27:23
but its efficacy depends on power Traditional natural law theorists like Aquinas believed that natural law obligates absolutely, regardless of consequences or enforcement. Hobbes breaks with this tradition by making natural law conditional on security This is one of his most radical innovations. It subordinates morality to politics, or perhaps more accurately, shows that morality depends on politics Without political authority, moral rules exist as ideals but not as effective obligations.
1:28:07
Critics from Hobbes' time to ours have attacked this position as moral skepticism or relativism If moral obligations only bind when enforced, are they really moral obligations? Is not the mark of genuine morality that it binds regardless of consequences, even when inconvenient or costly? Kant would later argue that genuine moral law is categorical, not hypothetical. You ought to do your duty because it is your duty, not because it serves your interests Hobbes seems to reduce morality to
1:28:46
enlightened self-interest, which many philosophers think is no morality at all. Hobbes defenders respond that he is being realistic rather than skeptical Of course we can articulate moral principles that apply categorically, and Hobbes does so with his laws of nature. But the hard question is how to get people to follow those principles when doing so is costly and others are not reciprocating Hobbes thinks the Kantian position, however inspiring, does not solve this problem.
1:29:25
Telling people they ought to keep promises regardless of consequences does not make promise-keeping happen when keeping promises makes you a victim The deeper issue is the relationship between prudence and morality. Hobbes tries to derive morality from prudence, showing that rational self-interest, properly understood, requires following moral rules This has the advantage that it motivates compliance: people have reason to be moral because being moral serves their interests.
1:30:04
But it has the disadvantage that whenever morality conflicts with interest, interest wins Morality becomes merely a means to self-interested ends, not an end in itself. Can Hobbes escape this? Some commentators argue that he can by distinguishing between short-term and long-term interests, or between apparent and real interests Breaking covenants might seem to serve your interests in the moment, but considering long-term consequences and systemic effects, keeping covenants serves your real,
1:30:45
properly understood interests. The person who pursues short-term gain by breaking covenants is like the person who eats poisoned food because it tastes good, failing to consider the full consequences of his actions This defense has force but also limits. For it to work, Hobbes must show that acting morally always serves your long-term interests when all consequences are considered This is an empirical claim, and it seems false. Sometimes doing the right thing costs you
1:31:26
Sometimes the wicked prosper and the good suffer. Martyrs and heroes often sacrifice their interests for principle If Hobbes' theory cannot accommodate this, it seems inadequate as a moral theory. One possible response is that Hobbes is offering a theory of political obligation specifically, not a comprehensive moral theory He is asking what obligations people owe to political authority and why. For this purpose, showing that political obligations serve
1:32:05
individuals' interests might suffice You do not need a complete account of morality, only an account of why rational self-interested people would authorize and obey a sovereign. The laws of nature, understood as rules for escaping the state of nature, serve this purpose But this narrow reading sits uncomfortably with Hobbes' presentation. He clearly intends the laws of nature to be genuine moral laws, not just prudential rules He calls them God's commands,
1:32:43
albeit commands we can discover through reason. He says they oblige in conscience, not merely in external action He seems to want them to have moral weight beyond mere prudence. Perhaps the best interpretation is that Hobbes offers a two-level theory At one level, the laws of nature are rational precepts for self-preservation that any self-interested person can accept. At another level, they are genuine moral commands that oblige regardless of self-interest,
1:33:20
but Hobbes thinks the two levels coincide What reason requires for self-preservation is also what morality requires for its own sake, and what God commands. The three foundations, reason, morality, and religion, all support the same rules But if they conflict, which takes priority? Hobbes is often unclear. Sometimes he suggests that self-preservation is absolute, overriding all other considerations At other times he suggests that natural law binds even when obeying it costs you.
1:34:04
The ambiguity may be deliberate, allowing Hobbes to appeal to different audiences, religious and secular, without committing to one foundation exclusively What about natural rights, as distinct from natural law? Hobbes draws a crucial distinction. Right means liberty, the absence of obligation Law means obligation, a restriction on liberty. Right and law are therefore opposite Where you have right, you have no obligation. Where you have obligation, you have no right The laws of nature
1:34:51
impose obligations, restricting your rights. The fundamental right of nature is the right to self-preservation, and this right is inalienable, meaning you cannot give it up even if you try This creates tension in Hobbes' system. The social contract requires laying down rights, specifically the right to all things But the right to self-preservation cannot be laid down. Therefore, even after contracting to obey the sovereign, you retain the right to resist if the
1:35:27
sovereign threatens your life This right limits sovereign power, or at least creates a potential limit. If subjects retain the right to resist when their lives are threatened, and they are the judges of when their lives are threatened, then sovereign power is not truly absolute Hobbes recognizes this but tries to minimize it. He argues that subjects have no right to resist sovereign punishment for crimes they committed If you commit a crime knowing the penalty is death,
1:36:03
you have consented to that penalty by committing the crime. Resisting the penalty is unjust But if the sovereign tries to kill you arbitrarily, not as punishment for crime, you may resist. Also, if the sovereign requires you to kill yourself or to refrain from defending yourself when attacked, you may disobey Self-preservation is the foundation of everything, and obligations that negate that foundation are void. Critics seize on this as a fatal contradiction Hobbes wants absolute
1:36:45
sovereignty but also inalienable natural rights. These cannot coexist Either subjects have rights that limit sovereign power, making sovereignty not absolute, or sovereignty is absolute, making talk of inalienable rights empty. Hobbes cannot have it both ways Hobbes defenders point out that the contradiction is more apparent than real. Sovereign power is absolute in that there is no authority above the sovereign and no legal limits on sovereign action But
1:37:22
this does not mean the sovereign can make subjects do anything. Natural necessity limits what anyone, sovereign or subject, can be obligated to do Just as you cannot be obligated to levitate or to change the past, you cannot be obligated to refrain from self-defense. These are not limits on sovereignty but limits on what obligations can possibly be Still, the problem remains that if subjects retain rights of self-defense and self-preservation, and if they judge for themselves when
1:38:00
those rights are threatened, then they can justify resistance whenever they feel threatened. This reintroduces the very disagreement and conflict that the social contract was supposed to solve Each subject, judging his own case, will find reasons to resist when the sovereign acts against his interests. The right of self-preservation becomes a loophole that swallows sovereign authority Perhaps Hobbes thinks this is a problem he can live with. Subjects have the right to resist when
1:38:36
their lives are genuinely threatened, but they risk the sovereign's wrath if they resist unjustly The sovereign, having overwhelming power, can punish unjustified resistance. So the right of self-preservation is a safety valve, permitting resistance in truly extreme cases while the sovereign's power deters frivolous or self-serving claims of necessity It is not a perfect system, but Hobbes might argue it is the best available, balancing security with a minimal recognition of human agency.
1:39:15
The laws of nature and natural rights thus provide the intellectual bridge from the state of nature to civil society They are rules of reason that show why rational people should seek peace and how they can achieve it. But they also reveal the limits of reason alone Without enforcement, these rules are impotent. Knowing what we should do does not make us do it This is why Hobbes' next move is inevitable: we need power, overwhelming power concentrated in a single authority,
1:39:56
to enforce the laws of nature and thereby make them effective. We need Leviathan Part 4: "The Social Contract and Construction of the Leviathan": The escape from the state of nature requires more than good intentions or rational insight. It requires a mechanism to make cooperation stable and defection irrational This mechanism is the social contract, and its product is the Leviathan, the artificial person called the commonwealth or state. Here Hobbes presents one of the most
1:40:38
consequential thought experiments in political philosophy The social contract is not a historical event but a logical structure. Hobbes is not claiming that people actually gathered and formed an explicit agreement He is analyzing the rational basis for political authority. Why should anyone obey government? Because doing so serves their interests better than the alternative The social contract is the form this rational justification takes: people can be
1:41:17
understood as if they contracted to create and obey the sovereign. What exactly do people contract to do? Here Hobbes' account contains a surprise The social contract is not a contract between subjects and sovereign, as in some earlier theories where the king and people mutually agree to respective duties. Rather, it is a contract among the subjects themselves, a mutual covenant in which each person agrees with every other person to authorize a third party to rule them I
1:41:54
authorize you to rule me, and you authorize the same ruler to rule you, and we do this simultaneously with everyone else, creating a collective authorization of sovereign power. The wording is crucial Each person says to every other: I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this person or assembly, on condition that you likewise give up your right to this person or assembly. This creates a many-to-one relationship Many individuals transfer their rights to a single recipient,
1:42:33
who then holds the combined power of all. Note that the sovereign is not a party to the contract The agreement is among the subjects, not between subjects and sovereign. This is Hobbes' innovation and it has momentous consequences Because the sovereign is not a party to the contract, the sovereign cannot breach it. There is no contractual limit on sovereign power The sovereign made no promises and thus can break none. All obligations run from subjects to sovereign,
1:43:12
none from sovereign to subjects Furthermore, because the contract is among all subjects, no subject can claim the sovereign violated the contract as a reason to withdraw from it. Even if the sovereign acts unjustly by some standard, this does not release subjects from their obligations, because the sovereign's actions are authorized by the subjects themselves The sovereign acts as their representative, so in a real sense, everything the sovereign does,
1:43:46
the subjects have done through their representative. You cannot complain about actions you authorized This seems to create a trap. Once you enter the social contract, you cannot exit Even if the sovereign becomes tyrannical, you are stuck because you authorized the sovereign's actions. Hobbes seems to have constructed an agreement that rational people might reasonably refuse to make Why would anyone agree to such terms? Hobbes' answer is that the alternative is worse. Yes,
1:44:26
the social contract gives the sovereign overwhelming power, and yes, the sovereign might abuse that power But the risk of sovereign abuse is less than the certainty of violence in the state of nature. You are trading a probable evil for a certain one, which is rational Moreover, Hobbes argues that sovereigns have interests aligned with subjects' interests in most cases. A sovereign wants a prosperous, productive population because that increases the sovereign's power and
1:45:03
revenue A sovereign wants internal peace because civil war threatens the sovereign's position. So while the sovereign could oppress subjects, doing so is often contrary to the sovereign's own interests Still, critics point out that this is cold comfort. Even if it is in the sovereign's interests to govern well most of the time, there will be cases where oppressing some subjects benefits the sovereign Minority groups, political rivals, potential threats, all can be targeted by a rational
1:45:41
sovereign acting in self-interest. Hobbes' theory provides no protection for them Indeed, it denies them any right to resist. They must simply suffer, hoping the sovereign's calculations will change The formation of the commonwealth transforms everyone who parties to the contract. Before the covenant, they were a multitude, many separate individuals with separate interests After the covenant, they become a unified body, a single artificial person called the commonwealth or Leviathan.
1:46:22
This unification is key to Hobbes' conception The many become one not just metaphorically but in a meaningful sense: they speak with one voice, the sovereign's voice. They act with one will, the sovereign's will They are represented as a single agent in a way they could not be as a mere aggregate. The sovereign, whether a single person like a monarch or an assembly like a parliament, is the soul of this artificial body The subjects are the members, the limbs and organs.
1:47:04
Counselors are the memory, with information stored for future use Magistrates and officers are the joints, connecting the sovereign's commands to actual enforcement. Rewards and punishments are the nerves, providing sensation and motivation Wealth is the strength, providing resources for action. The sovereign's role is analogous to the role the mind plays in the human body, providing unity and direction to what would otherwise be uncoordinated parts
1:47:42
This organic metaphor is more than rhetoric. Hobbes seriously believes that the commonwealth is a kind of artificial person, a real entity created by human art, analogous to how natural persons are created by nature Just as a human being is a unity composed of many parts, so the commonwealth is a unity composed of many human beings. Just as a human being has interests, agency, and identity persisting over time, so does the commonwealth But is this more than metaphor?
1:48:22
Critics argue that commonwealths are not literally persons in any robust sense. They are at most useful fictions, ways of talking about collections of individuals Talk of the state's interests or the nation's will is shorthand for complex patterns of individual interests and wills. Reifying these patterns into a unified agent risks mystification, making it harder to see that political decisions always benefit some individuals at the expense of others Hobbes would
1:49:01
respond that the commonwealth is not a fiction but a genuine artificial creation. Through the mechanism of representation and authorization, many individuals create a single agent that can act on their behalf This agent has interests and makes decisions that cannot be reduced to any individual member's interests or decisions. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts because of the structure that unifies the parts The concept of authorization is doing crucial work here.
1:49:41
When you authorize someone to act on your behalf, their actions count as your actions for certain purposes If I authorize you to sign contracts for me, then contracts you sign in my name bind me as if I had signed them. You are my representative, and your acts represent me Hobbes extends this idea to political authority. By authorizing the sovereign, subjects make the sovereign their representative, and the sovereign's acts represent them But political authorization is stranger
1:50:21
than ordinary representation. In ordinary cases, I can withdraw my authorization If you abuse your position as my agent, I fire you. Not so with the sovereign Once authorization is given collectively, no individual can withdraw it unilaterally. The authorization persists even if the authorizing individual regrets it This makes political authorization sui generis, different from any other kind. Furthermore, Hobbes claims that the sovereign can do no injustice to subjects This follows
1:51:06
from the authorization structure. Since subjects authorized the sovereign's acts, those acts are really their own acts performed through a representative You cannot be injured by your own acts. Therefore, nothing the sovereign does to you can be unjust, because you did it to yourself through your authorization At most, the sovereign might be imprudent, acting against the commonwealth's interests, but not unjust, violating anyone's rights. This argument strikes many readers as
1:51:43
sophistical Yes, I may have authorized the sovereign in some abstract sense, but I did not authorize this specific act, and I certainly did not authorize acts that harm me. The move from general authorization to authorization of every specific act seems illicit It is like saying that because you authorized your doctor to treat you, you authorized any treatment the doctor chooses, even if it kills you. That stretches the concept of authorization beyond its normal meaning
1:52:22
Hobbes might respond that this is the price of effective authority. If subjects retained the right to judge which specific acts of the sovereign they have authorized and which they have not, then we are back to the state of nature, with everyone judging for themselves and no final authority The social contract only works if authorization is comprehensive and irrevocable. Otherwise, it accomplishes nothing The sovereign's powers are correspondingly vast.
1:52:57
The sovereign determines what doctrines can be publicly taught, what books can be published, what religious practices are permitted The sovereign decides property rights, determining what belongs to whom. The sovereign makes laws, judges cases, punishes criminals, wages war, makes peace, and appoints ministers and magistrates Most controversially, Hobbes insists these powers cannot be divided. Sovereignty is absolute in the sense of undivided You cannot split legislative, executive,
1:53:37
and judicial functions among different bodies, because then disputes about their respective jurisdictions become themselves political questions with no authority to resolve them. Hobbes lived through a civil war partly caused by disputes between King and Parliament over who held ultimate authority To his mind, this proved that divided sovereignty is a recipe for disaster. Better to have all power in one set of hands, even if that power might be abused, than to have power divided among rival
1:54:16
bodies that will fight for supremacy The worst government, Hobbes thinks, is better than civil war. And divided government tends toward civil war Modern constitutionalists recoil from this conclusion. The great innovations of modern liberal democracy, separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, constitutional rights, all involve dividing power precisely to prevent tyranny Hobbes would see all of this as incoherent. Where power is divided, someone must have authority to resolve
1:54:59
disputes between the divided powers That someone is the real sovereign. The division of power is either illusory or unstable Yet democracies have proven remarkably stable despite, or perhaps because of, divided power. Hobbes seems to have been wrong empirically Constitutional democracies with separated powers have often avoided civil war more successfully than absolute monarchies. The question is whether this refutes Hobbes' theory or whether these regimes have hidden Hobbesian sovereigns,
1:55:42
ultimate authorities that exercise power behind constitutional forms One answer is that in constitutional democracies, the people are sovereign, either directly or through regular elections. The people can change constitutions through amendment procedures The people can elect new governments. So ultimate authority does reside somewhere, namely in the electorate Hobbes might accept this, noting that his theory allows for sovereignty by assembly as well as by monarch.
1:56:22
A democratic assembly can be sovereign if it meets regularly, makes final decisions, and has power to enforce them But critics point out that modern democracies limit even popular sovereignty through constitutional constraints. Some things cannot be done even by popular vote: violating fundamental rights, for instance Courts, not elected and insulated from popular pressure, enforce these constraints. This seems to divide sovereignty between the people and the judiciary,
1:56:59
exactly what Hobbes says is impossible Hobbes would likely argue that this is unstable, and history provides some support. Constitutional crises do arise when popular majorities chafe under judicial constraints What happens when the people's elected representatives pass a law and the courts strike it down? Who decides whether the courts correctly interpreted the constitution? The courts decide, but that seems to make them sovereign, not the people. Yet the people can amend the constitution
1:57:37
or pack the courts, suggesting sovereignty resides with them after all The back-and-forth suggests Hobbes might be right that ultimate authority must reside somewhere, even if constitutional language obscures where. Hobbes distinguishes three forms of commonwealth: monarchy, where one person is sovereign; aristocracy, where an assembly of some people is sovereign; and democracy, where an assembly of all people is sovereign He strongly prefers monarchy for several pragmatic reasons.
1:58:14
A monarch's private interest aligns with the public interest, since the monarch's personal wealth and power depend on the commonwealth's strength An assembly's members have conflicting interests, leading to deadlock and faction. A monarch can take counsel from anyone, while an assembly can only hear speakers recognized by the assembly A monarch can be consistent over time, while an assembly's composition and opinions shift. A monarch has no internal disagreement,
1:58:51
while an assembly debates everything These arguments are consequentialist, based on monarchy's supposed superior performance. Hobbes is not claiming monarchy is legitimate and other forms illegitimate All three forms are legitimate if properly instituted through social contract. But monarchy, he argues, will govern more effectively and stably Whether this is true is an empirical question, and history suggests Hobbes was wrong. Successful modern states are far more
1:59:31
often democratic than monarchical, and hereditary absolute monarchy has nearly disappeared What about the possibility that the social contract is not unanimous? Hobbes assumes everyone covenants, but realistically some people will refuse. What happens to them? Hobbes says they remain in the state of nature and the commonwealth can treat them as enemies They have no rights against the commonwealth because they did not join it. They are like foreigners or barbarians,
2:00:07
outside the protection of civil law This seems harsh but follows from Hobbes' premises. If someone refuses the social contract, they retain full natural liberty, including the right to attack commonwealth members Commonwealth members therefore retain the right to defend themselves against such people, which means treating them as enemies. Hobbes does not envision this as permanent war, though He assumes that the benefits of joining are so obvious that holdouts will
2:00:47
soon see reason and contract to join, or be conquered and incorporated involuntarily. Involuntary incorporation raises difficult questions Can you be bound by a contract you never agreed to? Hobbes recognizes two ways of acquiring sovereignty: institution and acquisition. Institution is the voluntary social contract we have been discussing Acquisition is conquest, where the defeated agree to obey the conqueror in exchange for their lives. Hobbes treats conquest as a kind of contract,
2:01:29
the conquered covenanting to obey in exchange for protection But calling this a contract seems to stretch the concept past breaking. If someone holds a gun to your head and demands obedience, your agreement is coerced, not voluntary Coerced contracts are normally invalid. Hobbes cannot admit this because he wants to ground even despotic rule in consent So he argues that fear does not invalidate consent. All covenants arise from fear, fear of the state of nature if nothing
2:02:11
else The degree of fear does not matter, only whether you agreed. This is one of Hobbes' most criticized positions It seems to legitimize any government, no matter how tyrannical, as long as subjects obey rather than rebel. It denies the moral distinction between legitimate authority and mere coercive power If might makes right, or at least makes legitimate authority, then we have lost any critical perspective from which to evaluate governments. Hobbes seems to have gone from justifying
2:02:51
political authority to justifying every actual authority Hobbes might respond that he is being realistic. What makes a government an actual government is its effective monopoly on violence within a territory Talking about legitimacy independent of effectiveness is empty. A government that cannot enforce its will is not really a government A government that can enforce its will is a government, and subjects have reason to obey it because disobedience invites punishment.
2:03:31
This does not mean might makes right in a moral sense, only that might makes authority in a practical sense But this seems to abandon the entire social contract framework. If actual obedience is what matters, why bother with the fiction of a contract? Why not just say that people obey governments because governments can force them to obey, and that is all there is to it? The social contract was supposed to show that government is legitimate, arising from consent,
2:04:04
not just effective at coercion Perhaps the resolution is that Hobbes offers two arguments running in parallel. One is normative: rational people in a state of nature would consent to absolute sovereignty, so such sovereignty is legitimate and people ought to obey The other is descriptive: actual governments arise through various means including conquest, and people obey them for prudential reasons, and this obedience becomes authorization over time.
2:04:42
The two arguments support the same conclusion, absolute sovereignty, from different directions The social contract thus serves multiple functions in Hobbes' system. It is a justification of political authority, showing why it is rational to obey It is an explanation of the commonwealth's nature, as an artificial person created by collective authorization. It is a device for allocating powers, determining what the sovereign may do And it is a limiting principle, however weak,
2:05:22
since the sovereign's mandate is to provide security, and subjects who are not provided security may resist. The construction of the Leviathan through social contract is Hobbes' most influential idea and his most disputed Later contract theorists accept the framework but modify the details. Locke argues that the contract imposes reciprocal duties on rulers and ruled Rousseau argues that sovereignty cannot be alienated but must remain with the people collectively.
2:06:00
Rawls argues that we should imagine the contract being made behind a veil of ignorance about our social position All accept that political legitimacy requires something like consent but dispute what consent entails and what limits it imposes. Hobbes' version remains the most austere and in some ways the most logically consistent By making the contract purely among subjects, excluding the sovereign from it, he avoids questions about what happens when the sovereign breaches the contract.
2:06:39
There can be no breach By making authorization comprehensive, he avoids questions about which acts are authorized and which are not.
2:06:50
All are authorized By deriving everything from rational self-interest, he avoids appeals to contested moral premises. You do not need to be altruistic or principled to agree to the social contract, only rational and self-interested Whether this logical consistency is a strength or weakness depends on whether you accept the premises. If you grant that the state of nature is as bad as Hobbes claims, and that only absolute sovereignty can escape it, then the social contract follows But if
2:07:29
you question either premise, the entire edifice collapses. The state of nature might not be so bad Absolute sovereignty might not be necessary. Other forms of government might provide security while preserving more liberty These are the questions that subsequent political philosophy has grappled with, always in Hobbes' shadow. Part 5: "Sovereignty: Absolute, Undivided, and Inalienable Power": Having explained how the commonwealth is created through social contract,
2:08:08
Hobbes now examines the nature and extent of sovereign power His conclusions are radical: sovereignty must be absolute, undivided, and inalienable. These claims follow, he argues, from the logic of the social contract and the requirements for escaping the state of nature But each claim has sparked centuries of controversy. Absolute sovereignty means sovereignty limited only by the laws of nature, not by civil law or constitutional constraint The sovereign makes law but is not bound by law.
2:08:51
This sounds tyrannical, but Hobbes argues it is logically necessary Law is the command of the sovereign. It makes no sense to say the sovereign is bound by law, because the sovereign can change any law A supposed legal limit on the sovereign is not really a limit, since the sovereign can repeal it. The sovereign's absolute power includes determining property rights In the state of nature, there is no property, only possession of what you can hold by force.
2:09:28
Property exists only within civil society, defined and protected by law Since law comes from the sovereign, property comes from the sovereign. The sovereign can therefore redistribute property, regulate its use, or take it through taxation "Mine" and "yours" are meaningful only relative to the sovereign's determinations. This has revolutionary implications There is no natural right to property that limits sovereign power. Property is a civil creation,
2:10:09
not a pre-political right Hobbes thus rejects the Lockean idea that property rights exist prior to and independent of government. For Hobbes, saying the government violates property rights is confused The government defines property rights, so it cannot violate them, only change them. Critics argue this gives government unlimited power over economic life If the sovereign can take property at will, then subjects have no economic security. Why work or invest if the sovereign can
2:10:49
confiscate the fruits of your labor? Hobbes responds that sovereigns have strong reasons not to do this Confiscating property arbitrarily impoverishes subjects, weakening the commonwealth and reducing the sovereign's own power. Rational sovereigns will establish stable property rules to encourage productivity The constraint is prudential, not legal, but no less real. Modern economic theory supports Hobbes here Property rights are indeed conventional, defined by legal systems,
2:11:30
and those systems vary across cultures and times. What counts as property, what rights come with ownership, how ownership is transferred, all of this is determined by law There is no single natural system of property rights inscribed in the universe. This does not mean property is arbitrary or that governments should violate property rules capriciously It means property institutions are human creations that can be evaluated by how well they serve human needs.
2:12:07
The sovereign also has absolute power over religion Hobbes was writing in an era when religious disputes caused wars. Different Christian sects, Catholics and Protestants and various Protestant denominations, claimed exclusive access to religious truth and demanded political power to enforce their doctrines Hobbes saw this as catastrophic. If religious authorities can override political authorities, claiming to represent God's will, then sovereignty is divided and civil war
2:12:46
follows Hobbes' solution is to make the sovereign the supreme religious authority in the commonwealth. The sovereign determines which religious doctrines can be publicly taught, which practices can be performed, which books are orthodox There is no sphere of religious life independent of sovereign control. God's commands come through the sovereign, who interprets scripture authoritatively Subjects must accept the sovereign's religious determinations, at least publicly,
2:13:23
even if they privately disagree. This sounds like totalitarian thought control, and in some ways it is Hobbes is willing to sacrifice freedom of conscience to maintain peace. He believes religious differences will inevitably generate conflict if permitted to organize politically Better to have the sovereign control religion than to have religious factions control the sovereign or fight each other for control. But Hobbes includes a crucial caveat While subjects must conform outwardly to
2:14:04
the sovereign's religious demands, they retain freedom of private belief. You can believe whatever you want internally; you must only avoid publicly preaching forbidden doctrines or performing forbidden practices This is cold comfort to those who feel religiously obligated to witness their faith publicly. Hobbes essentially tells them: believe what you will, but keep it to yourself if it contradicts sovereign policy The sovereign's power extends to education, media, and speech.
2:14:42
The sovereign determines what doctrines are taught in universities, what books are published and sold, what ideas can be publicly advocated Hobbes justifies this by arguing that seditious doctrines, ideas that undermine sovereign authority or encourage disobedience, are dangerous and must be suppressed. Just as a body fights off infections, the commonwealth must fight off ideological threats Which doctrines does Hobbes consider seditious? Several, and his list reveals his priorities.
2:15:23
The idea that private individuals can judge whether the sovereign's commands are lawful is seditious because it makes every person a judge in their own case, recreating the state of nature The idea that conscience can override law is seditious because it subordinates political to religious authority. The idea that tyrannicide is permissible is obviously seditious The idea that sovereignty can be divided is seditious because it denies the nature of sovereignty.
2:15:59
The idea that subjects have rights against the sovereign is seditious because it contradicts the social contract Essentially, any idea that challenges absolute sovereignty is seditious and subject to suppression. Hobbes is not shy about this He believes that wrong ideas about politics lead to civil war, so those ideas must be censored. Truth is not a defense Even if the seditious doctrine is true, perhaps the sovereign is acting unjustly, spreading that truth causes harm by
2:16:39
encouraging resistance. Social peace trumps intellectual freedom Modern liberal democracies reject this wholesale. Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of conscience are considered fundamental rights, precisely rights against the government We believe that governments make mistakes, that dissent is valuable, that censorship corrupts truth. The marketplace of ideas, despite its flaws, produces better outcomes than government monopoly on acceptable opinion Hobbes
2:17:21
would see this as naïve. He would predict that unlimited free speech leads to the spread of dangerous ideas, the organization of factions, and eventually violence Whether he is right is an empirical question, and democracies have struggled with it, especially regarding hate speech, incitement, and disinformation. Sovereignty must be not only absolute but undivided This is Hobbes' most controversial claim. He argues that dividing sovereignty is logically incoherent and practically
2:18:01
disastrous If legislative power belongs to one body, executive power to another, and judicial power to a third, who decides disputes between them? Who has final authority? Hobbes insists there must be a final authority, and whoever has it is the real sovereign. The division is illusory Hobbes was particularly concerned with the division between temporal and spiritual authority, between kings and churches. Throughout medieval Europe, popes claimed authority over spiritual
2:18:38
matters and sometimes asserted this authority entitled them to depose kings Kings claimed authority over temporal matters but acknowledged limits based on divine law as interpreted by religious authorities. Hobbes saw this division as the primary cause of instability Two authorities claiming final power in different spheres will inevitably conflict when those spheres overlap, and in practice they always overlap. The solution is to unify all authority in the sovereign There is no spiritual
2:19:21
authority independent of political authority. The sovereign is head of the church as well as head of state Religion becomes a department of government, not a rival power center. Hobbes was an early advocate of what is sometimes called Erastianism, the doctrine that the state should control the church Modern democracies have addressed this through separation of church and state, but not in the way medieval theorists conceived it. The state is supreme in political matters,
2:19:59
and religious organizations are private associations with no political authority They can advocate and organize politically, but they hold no official power. Citizens are free to be religiously observant or not, but religious law does not bind anyone except voluntarily This solution depends on widespread religious pluralism and secular governance, conditions that did not exist in Hobbes' England. The other division Hobbes opposed was between King and Parliament In the
2:20:38
English constitutional conflicts leading to civil war, Parliamentarians claimed to share sovereignty with the King. They argued that the King could not tax, legislate, or govern without Parliamentary consent Hobbes saw this as a recipe for deadlock and war. If King and Parliament disagree, who decides? If they are truly co-equal, then no one decides, and you have civil war Hobbes thought the Civil War proved his point. England descended into chaos because sovereignty was divided,
2:21:20
and only restoring undivided sovereignty could restore peace Modern constitutional theory has developed sophisticated responses to this challenge. Constitutional systems specify procedures for resolving conflicts between branches Courts interpret ambiguous constitutional provisions. Amendment procedures allow for peaceful change Elections permit replacing officials and changing policies. None of this requires a single final authority in Hobbes' sense Instead,
2:22:01
authority is diffused through multiple institutions checking each other, with no single point of control. Hobbes would insist this only pushes the question back Who enforces the constitutional procedures? Who decides how courts should interpret the constitution? Who determines whether elections were fair? Ultimately, someone must have the power to decide these meta-questions, and that someone is sovereign. Constitutional democracies hide this behind procedural complexity,
2:22:40
but the sovereign power exists, perhaps in the electorate, perhaps in an informal coalition of powerful institutions, perhaps nowhere and everywhere The empirical question is whether divided power leads to instability as Hobbes predicted. The answer seems to be no, at least not inevitably Stable democracies function with divided power. But Hobbes might respond that these democracies are not truly divided, that ultimate power resides in the people who can change everything through
2:23:19
constitutional amendment and electoral replacement So democracy is not divided sovereignty but popular sovereignty, which Hobbes would accept as a coherent option. Sovereignty is also inalienable, meaning it cannot be given away or limited by the sovereign's own acts The sovereign cannot promise to be bound by a constitution or to respect certain rights or to consult with a parliament or to share power with co-sovereigns. Any such promise is void because the
2:23:56
sovereign retains the power to break it This follows from the nature of sovereignty. If the sovereign could bind himself, he would no longer be sovereign Someone who cannot break a rule is not the rule-maker but the rule-follower. This creates practical problems How can a sovereign make credible commitments? If subjects know the sovereign can break any promise with impunity, they will not trust promises. But trust is necessary for cooperation Subjects will not invest, lend money,
2:24:38
or undertake long-term projects if they expect the sovereign to confiscate the returns. Investors will not provide capital if they expect arbitrary expropriation Foreign powers will not ally with a sovereign who breaks treaties casually. Hobbes is aware of this His solution is that rational sovereigns will cultivate reputations for keeping promises, even though they legally could break them. The sovereign's interest in future cooperation provides incentive to honor
2:25:14
commitments now But this is a prudential constraint, not a legal one. The sovereign remains inalienably able to break promises, but chooses not to because doing so would be imprudent This is parallel to the situation of individuals in the state of nature regarding laws of nature. They ought to keep covenants but cannot be legally compelled to do so Sovereigns ought to keep promises but cannot be legally compelled to do so. Both face prudential incentives to
2:25:53
cooperate The difference is that for individuals, the state of nature makes prudential incentives insufficient, necessitating sovereign enforcement. For sovereigns, there is no higher enforcement mechanism, so prudential incentives must suffice Critics argue this makes sovereignty incoherent. If the sovereign cannot bind himself, then constitutional government is impossible But constitutional government exists and often works well. Therefore, Hobbes must be wrong about sovereignty
2:26:34
Sovereigns can and do bind themselves through constitutions, and this self-binding is part of what makes them sovereign, not a contradiction of sovereignty. Defenders of Hobbes might respond by distinguishing sovereignty as a concept from sovereignty as a practice Conceptually, sovereignty is absolute and inalienable. Practically, sovereigns can behave as if they were bound, creating constitutional constraints that they follow even though they could violate
2:27:07
them The constraints are real in the sense that violating them has costs, even though they are not legal limits in the sense of being enforceable by a higher authority. A different line of criticism accepts Hobbes' conceptual point but denies its practical significance Even if ultimate authority must reside somewhere, it need not be actively exercised. A constitution can specify procedures such that the sovereign power, perhaps the people, is rarely invoked Most political
2:27:45
activity occurs at lower levels, with conflicts resolved through established processes. The sovereign power exists but remains dormant except in crises This is compatible with Hobbes' logic while avoiding tyranny. Hobbes also addresses the succession problem What happens when the sovereign dies? In a monarchy, sovereignty passes according to succession rules the sovereign established. In an assembly, sovereignty continues in the assembly despite membership changes But what if
2:28:26
the sovereign dies without establishing succession rules, or what if there is civil war over succession? Then the commonwealth dissolves, and everyone returns to the state of nature until a new sovereign is established. This points to a vulnerability in Hobbes' system The commonwealth is only as stable as the sovereign's ability to maintain power. If the sovereign weakens, if succession is disputed, if rivals contest for sovereignty, then civil war erupts Hobbes has not
2:29:05
eliminated conflict but displaced it to fights over who holds sovereign power. This is perhaps progress, since such fights are fewer and less frequent than the constant low-level conflicts of the state of nature But it means Hobbesian peace is precarious, always threatened by succession crises or usurpation. Can the sovereign do wrong? Hobbes' answer is complex The sovereign cannot do injustice to subjects, because subjects authorized the sovereign's acts.
2:29:44
But the sovereign can act imprudently, against the commonwealth's interests, or against God's laws The sovereign is accountable to God, if not to subjects, and will be judged in the afterlife. This provides a moral constraint on sovereignty, even if not a legal one Additionally, Hobbes suggests that sovereigns who fail to provide security lose their subjects' obedience. The social contract's purpose is security, so a sovereign who cannot or will not provide security has failed the contract's
2:30:22
implicit condition Subjects may then legitimately seek a new sovereign who can provide security. This is not rebellion in the usual sense, since the original sovereign has already failed and the commonwealth has dissolved It is more like transferring allegiance to a successor after the previous sovereign's effective death. This provides a minimal standard for legitimacy: providing security A sovereign who does this, however badly in other respects, retains legitimacy.
2:31:01
A sovereign who fails this, however well-intentioned, loses legitimacy Hobbes is unconcerned with how the sovereign treats subjects in other respects. Justice, fairness, respect for rights, all of these are secondary to security As long as the sovereign maintains peace and protects subjects from violence, the sovereign's other failings are tolerable. Modern political philosophy rejects this prioritization We believe there are things worse than disorder: tyranny, genocide, totalitarianism.
2:31:44
We believe rights matter intrinsically, not just as means to security We believe justice is not reducible to order, and an orderly but unjust society is not good enough. Hobbes would see this as luxurious moralizing by people who have not experienced civil war He lived through it, saw its horrors, and concluded that almost anything is preferable. The worst tyranny is better than war, because at least under tyranny some people survive and prosper, while war destroys everyone The
2:32:24
disagreement is partly empirical and partly normative. Empirically, is it true that limiting sovereignty risks civil war? Or can limited government be stable? History suggests limited government can be stable, though it requires specific conditions: rule of law, institutional restraints, cultural norms of tolerance and compromise Where these conditions exist, limited government works. Where they do not, attempts at limited government may fail, proving Hobbes right So the answer
2:33:05
depends on circumstances. Normatively, even if absolute sovereignty is safer, is it worth the price? How much tyranny will we accept to avoid how much disorder? Different people will answer differently based on their experiences and values Someone who has lived through civil war may accept Hobbes' trade. Someone who has lived under tyranny may prefer to risk disorder rather than submit There is no universal answer, only the eternal tension between freedom and security.
2:33:43
Hobbes' doctrine of absolute, undivided, inalienable sovereignty is his most distinctive and most criticized contribution to political philosophy It flows logically from his premises about human nature and the state of nature. If you grant those premises, the conclusion is hard to avoid But the premises are contestable, and the conclusion is unpalatable. This is why Hobbes remains a foil for political philosophy rather than a foundation Everyone must respond to him,
2:34:24
but few follow him all the way.
2:34:28
Part 6: "Civil Law, Justice, and the Rights of Subjects": Having established the sovereign's vast powers, Hobbes now examines how those powers are exercised through civil law and what limits, if any, constrain sovereign action Surprisingly, given his absolutism, Hobbes acknowledges meaningful rights for subjects and places practical constraints on sovereignty. These concessions complicate the picture of Hobbes as a simple apologist for tyranny Civil law is defined by Hobbes
2:35:07
as the command of the sovereign, made known to subjects, directed at those who would otherwise follow their own judgments. This definition is spare and positivist Law is whatever the sovereign commands, period. There is no requirement that law be just, reasonable, or in accordance with natural law The sovereign's will makes law, and that is all. However, Hobbes adds crucial qualifications To be law, a command must be made known. Secret laws are impossible If subjects
2:35:50
do not know what the sovereign commands, they cannot be obligated to obey. This creates a transparency requirement The sovereign must promulgate laws publicly. Subjects cannot be punished for violating unknown rules Additionally, civil law does not extend to actions about which the law is silent. Hobbes embraces the principle that whatever is not forbidden is permitted In areas where the law says nothing, subjects retain their natural liberty. This is important because it means the
2:36:30
sovereign cannot regulate everything Practical limits on the sovereign's attention and enforcement capacity mean many areas of life remain unregulated. In those areas, Hobbes famously notes, "the liberty of subjects, depends on the silence of the law " This creates space for civil society independent of state control, at least in practice. The sovereign legally could regulate everything, but chooses not to or cannot manage to Subjects' freedom exists in the gaps of law,
2:37:11
not as a right against law, but as a factual consequence of law's incompleteness. Hobbes is describing freedom as a practical reality without making it a normative constraint on sovereignty The relationship between civil law and natural law is complex. Hobbes insists that natural law and civil law are not separate but the same thing in different forms Natural law consists of rational principles for peace and cooperation. Civil law consists of the sovereign's
2:37:50
commands specifying how those principles apply in the commonwealth The two are not separate bodies of law but different aspects of one legal system. This contradicts traditional natural law theory, which saw natural law as a higher law that civil law must conform to For Aquinas and other medieval thinkers, unjust civil laws are not true laws and need not be obeyed. Hobbes rejects this utterly Civil law is law regardless of its justice. There is no higher law that can
2:38:33
invalidate it The sovereign determines what counts as just, so civil law cannot be unjust. But Hobbes softens this by arguing that rational sovereigns will make civil laws that accord with natural law because doing so promotes peace and prosperity The sovereign's interest aligns with making good laws. Bad laws, laws that violate natural law's principles, will harm the commonwealth and ultimately harm the sovereign So while the sovereign legally can make any laws,
2:39:11
prudence suggests making laws that track natural law. This is another prudential rather than legal constraint The sovereign ought to make just laws but cannot be legally compelled to do so. Subjects must obey even unjust laws, though they can hope the sovereign will realize the imprudence of injustice and reform This is thin protection, but Hobbes thinks it is the best available without risking civil war. Justice, for Hobbes, is defined as keeping covenants, more specifically,
2:39:51
as rendering to each person what is their due But what is due to someone is determined by law, which is determined by the sovereign. So justice reduces to obedience to civil law There is no standard of justice independent of law by which law can be judged. Law defines justice, not the reverse This sounds circular and in a sense it is. But Hobbes thinks this is a virtue, not a vice Disputes about justice are political disputes. If we allowed appeals to justice independent of law,
2:40:35
we would recreate the state of nature, with everyone claiming their own conception of justice and no way to resolve disagreements By making law the standard of justice, Hobbes provides a definite, knowable answer to questions of justice: whatever the law says. This trades off contestability for determinacy Critics charge that this eviscerates justice as a moral concept. Justice becomes whatever the sovereign says it is, which is morally unacceptable If a
2:41:16
tyrannical sovereign commands genocide, is that just simply because the sovereign commanded it? Hobbes seems committed to saying yes, at least within the framework of civil justice. This makes justice a thin concept, merely formal, emptied of substantive moral content It becomes a synonym for legality, losing its critical force. Hobbes might respond by distinguishing between justice in the commonwealth and justice absolutely Within the commonwealth, justice means following the law.
2:41:55
But sovereigns are still bound by natural law, at least in conscience, and ultimately accountable to God A sovereign who commands genocide violates natural law and sins against God, even if subjects must obey the command. The action is civilly just, since legally commanded, but naturally unjust, violating the laws of nature This is not satisfying to victims, but it preserves some moral ground for criticizing sovereign injustice. Property illustrates the same structure
2:42:36
In the state of nature, there is no property, only possession by force. Property exists only in civil society, defined by law The sovereign creates property rights by law and can modify or revoke them by law. Therefore, the sovereign cannot steal from subjects because theft means taking what belongs to another, and nothing belongs to anyone independent of the sovereign's law Whatever the sovereign takes, the sovereign takes rightfully, since the sovereign defines what belongs to whom.
2:43:16
This seems to deny property rights entirely If the sovereign can take anything, then nothing is truly yours. But Hobbes again makes a practical argument Rational sovereigns will establish stable property rules and respect them most of the time, because doing so encourages productivity. Subjects will only invest labor if they expect to keep the fruits They will only make long-term plans if they expect property rules to persist. Arbitrary confiscation destroys incentives and impoverishes the
2:43:57
commonwealth So the sovereign's self-interest creates a de facto right to property, even though there is no legal right against sovereign expropriation. Taxation is analyzed similarly The sovereign has right to tax because the sovereign determines property. No one can claim the sovereign is taking what is theirs, since what is theirs is determined by the sovereign However, the sovereign should tax fairly and moderately, because excessive or unfair taxation
2:44:36
reduces productivity and generates resentment. Again, prudence constrains what law permits Hobbes' account of punishment reveals another facet of his thinking. Punishment is harm inflicted by public authority on someone who has violated the law, for the purpose of disposing the offender and others to obey the law in the future Several elements are crucial. First, punishment must be by public authority, not private revenge Second, it requires a law that was violated. Third,
2:45:18
it must be future-directed, aimed at deterrence and reform, not backward-looking retribution Fourth, there are limits on what can count as punishment. Most surprisingly, Hobbes argues that punishment cannot exceed what is necessary for public good Cruelty for its own sake is not punishment but hostility. The sovereign can wage war against enemies with any level of violence, but cannot punish subjects excessively Why not? Because punishment assumes the offender is still a subject,
2:45:59
still part of the commonwealth. Excessive punishment, punishment beyond what serves any public purpose, treats the subject as an enemy, which dissolves the relationship If the sovereign treats you as an enemy rather than a subject, you may treat the sovereign as an enemy, meaning you are back in the state of nature relative to each other. This provides a real, if limited, constraint on sovereign brutality The sovereign cannot torture or terrorize subjects arbitrarily because doing so
2:46:35
defeats the purpose of punishment and undermines the sovereign's own authority. Punishment must be proportionate to the crime and to the deterrent effect needed Again, the constraint is prudential. A sovereign who ignores it may technically act within his legal authority but acts against his interests and ultimately his legitimacy Hobbes also discusses the rights that subjects retain even after authorizing the sovereign. These are the "true liberties of subjects," and they are surprisingly
2:47:14
extensive given Hobbes' absolutism Most importantly, no one can be obligated to kill, wound, or maim themselves. No one can be obligated to refrain from defending themselves against immediate violence No one can be required to confess to crimes that would result in their punishment. No one can be required to abstain from food, air, medicine, or other necessities of life These rights are inalienable, meaning you cannot give them up even if you try. Why not?
2:47:53
Because the entire social contract is premised on the right and desire for self-preservation If you could covenant away your life or your right to defend it, the social contract would be pointless. You enter the social contract to preserve yourself, not to destroy yourself Therefore, any covenant that requires self-destruction is void, even a covenant with the sovereign. This means that if the sovereign orders you to execute yourself, you may refuse If the sovereign sends
2:48:32
soldiers to kill you, you may resist. If you are convicted of a crime and sentenced to death, you may attempt to escape or fight your executioners Doing so is not unjust because you never gave the sovereign authority to demand your self-destruction. At most, you consented to accept punishment for crimes, but you retain natural liberty to preserve yourself if possible But Hobbes adds an important caveat. If you are a soldier, you contracted to fight for the commonwealth,
2:49:11
which includes risking death in battle You cannot refuse military service on grounds of self-preservation. If you are convicted of a crime after fair trial, you cannot justly resist punishment, though you may unjustly resist it, meaning you act wrongly but understandably Hobbes is trying to balance the inalienable right to self-preservation with the requirements of social order. Critics point out that this creates a gaping hole in absolute sovereignty If
2:49:49
subjects can judge for themselves when their self-preservation is threatened and resist the sovereign accordingly, then sovereignty is not absolute. Each subject becomes judge in their own case, exactly what the social contract was supposed to prevent The right of self-preservation reintroduces the very source of conflict that sovereignty was supposed to eliminate. Hobbes defenders respond that this is a feature, not a bug The right of self-preservation is a safety valve
2:50:25
preventing the worst abuses. If the sovereign genuinely threatens subjects' lives, they must be able to resist, otherwise the social contract would be a suicide pact, which is absurd But this right is narrow. It does not permit resistance to taxation, regulation, or most forms of oppression Only when your life is immediately and severely threatened can you resist, and even then you may be punished if you misjudge the threat. The question of whether soldiers must
2:51:04
fight raises the problem of collective action If every soldier can refuse to fight when battle is dangerous, no one will fight and the commonwealth cannot defend itself. Hobbes handles this by distinguishing different grounds for fear If you refuse to fight because you are cowardly, you act wrongly, breaching your covenant to serve. But if you are unable to fight due to overwhelming terror that you cannot control, you have not committed injustice, merely shown weakness The commonwealth
2:51:42
should not rely on cowards or the terrified, but should recruit those with sufficient courage. However, Hobbes notes that once a soldier substitutes another willing soldier in his place, the original soldier is released from duty This creates a market for military service. Those willing to risk death for pay can substitute for those unwilling, and this is perfectly acceptable Hobbes is describing something like mercenary armies or military service as a specialized profession,
2:52:21
not universal conscription. Those who choose military service have consented to the risk, while others need not serve Family relations provide another area where Hobbes discusses rights and duties. Parents have authority over children based on the parents' power to preserve or destroy the infant This sounds harsh, but Hobbes is deriving parental authority from the same principle as political authority: whoever has power over your life and chooses to preserve rather than
2:52:59
destroy you becomes your sovereign, and you owe them obedience in return for preservation. Originally, Hobbes argues, mothers have authority over children because the mother's identity is certain while the father's is uncertain, and the mother has immediate physical control over the newborn This was a radical claim for his time, contradicting patriarchal theories that assumed natural paternal authority. Hobbes treats parental authority as conventional, arising from whoever actually controls
2:53:39
and nurtures the child In practice, he notes, mothers usually transfer authority to fathers through marriage contracts, but this is not natural necessity. In the commonwealth, parental authority is subject to civil law Parents cannot harm children beyond what law permits. Children must obey parents except where parental commands conflict with sovereign commands, in which case sovereign commands prevail Parents have no absolute authority over children's lives,
2:54:18
though they have substantial authority over upbringing and education until children reach maturity. Masters and servants form another relationship Hobbes analyzes Servants who entered servitude voluntarily, through contract, retain rights and can only be required to perform contracted duties. Servants acquired through conquest, effectively slaves, have fewer rights, being in a state of nature relative to their masters But even slaves retain the right to resist if the master attempts to
2:54:58
kill them. Hobbes is not endorsing slavery morally, but analyzing it as a political relationship that can arise from conquest The distinction between subjects and slaves is that subjects consented, directly or through ancestors, to obey the sovereign in exchange for protection. Slaves were conquered and submit only because the conqueror spared their lives But over time, conquest-based authority can transform into consent-based authority if the conquered come to identify with the
2:55:35
commonwealth and view themselves as subjects rather than slaves. Hobbes sees political legitimacy as existing on a spectrum from pure coercion to full consent, with most actual governments falling somewhere in between Corporations, meaning groups authorized by the sovereign to act as collective bodies, have rights and capacities defined by their charters. They can own property, make contracts, and sue and be sued in their corporate capacity But their powers are limited by
2:56:13
the sovereign's grant. The sovereign can revoke their charters, regulate their activities, or dissolve them entirely Corporations exist at the sovereign's pleasure, not by natural right. This applies to churches, guilds, trade associations, municipalities, and other collective bodies None have authority independent of sovereign authorization. If they claim such authority, they are seditious and can be suppressed Hobbes is particularly concerned with religious organizations claiming divine
2:56:54
authority superior to political authority. All such claims must be rejected Churches are corporations chartered by the sovereign, subject to sovereign regulation like any other organization. Hobbes insists on the rule of law, meaning that the sovereign should govern through known, public, general rules rather than arbitrary commands This is not a legal requirement, since the sovereign legally can command anything. But it is a practical necessity for effective governance Subjects cannot
2:57:35
plan their lives if they do not know what the law requires. They cannot cooperate if rules are constantly changing They cannot trust the government if it acts arbitrarily. Stable, predictable law is in the sovereign's interest because it promotes prosperity and social order Additionally, Hobbes argues for equity, meaning fair application of law to similar cases. The same law should apply to all, without favoritism or discrimination This follows from natural law,
2:58:16
which requires impartiality. A sovereign who plays favorites generates resentment and undermines loyalty Equal treatment under law is both just and prudent. These practical constraints—respect for property, moderation in punishment, rule of law, equity in application—add up to something resembling limited government, even though Hobbes denies legal limits on sovereignty The sovereign should govern well, and good governance means following these principles.
2:58:55
A sovereign who ignores them will face practical consequences: reduced prosperity, increased resistance, and potential overthrow So while sovereignty is legally absolute, it is practically constrained by the requirements of effective rule. Critics remain unsatisfied Practical constraints are not the same as rights. If the only reason the sovereign should not oppress you is that oppression is imprudent, not that oppression is unjust or violates your rights,
2:59:32
then you have no real protection The sovereign might calculate that oppressing you is worth the costs. Minority groups, dissidents, foreigners, all can be rationally oppressed if the benefits to the majority or to the sovereign exceed the costs Hobbes provides no principled ground for objecting. Defenders might respond that Hobbes provides what is actually achievable given human nature and political realities Absolute moral principles sound nice but do not protect anyone when they conflict
3:00:12
with powerful interests. Practical constraints based on self-interest are more reliable because they align incentives A system that works with human nature as it is, rather than as we wish it were, may be more humane in practice than systems based on ideals that no one follows. The debate reflects a fundamental divide in political philosophy Do we design institutions assuming humans will be virtuous and hoping to encourage virtue? Or do we design institutions assuming
3:00:52
humans will be selfish and trying to channel selfishness toward good outcomes? Hobbes firmly takes the latter approach. His subject may have fewer formal rights than liberal theory grants, but those rights might be more secure because they are based on interests rather than principles Whether this tradeoff is worthwhile remains contested. Hobbes' account of civil law, justice, and subjects' rights is thus more nuanced than his reputation suggests Yes,
3:01:29
he grants the sovereign legal absolutism. But he constrains that absolutism through prudential reasoning, inalienable rights to self-preservation, and advice about effective governance The result is a system that could be tyrannical in the wrong hands but need not be in the right hands. Everything depends on whether the sovereign governs rationally in the commonwealth's interest or irrationally for short-term gain Hobbes thinks rational governance is more likely than
3:02:04
not because it serves the sovereign's interests, but he provides little protection when it fails. Part 7: "Religion, Church, and State: The Theological-Political Problem": Parts Three and Four of Leviathan, comprising roughly half the text, address religion and its relationship to political authority This might surprise modern readers who think of Hobbes primarily as a political theorist. But in his context, the theological-political problem was the problem Religious conflict tore Europe
3:02:44
apart in the wars of religion and drove England into civil war. Any political theory that could not address religion would be irrelevant Hobbes takes on this challenge directly, producing an account of religion's role in the commonwealth that shocked his contemporaries and remains controversial today. Hobbes' strategy is to appropriate religion for political purposes while defanging its potential to challenge political authority He accepts, at least nominally,
3:03:22
that the Bible is the word of God and that Christianity is true. But he reinterprets Christian doctrine to eliminate any claims that religious authorities can override political authorities The sovereign becomes the supreme religious authority in the commonwealth, and all religious life comes under sovereign control. Whether Hobbes truly believed the Christianity he professed or used it strategically to advance his political project remains debated Hobbes begins by
3:03:58
analyzing religious belief psychologically and anthropologically. Religion arises, he argues, from anxiety about the future, curiosity about causes, and the tendency to attribute events to invisible agents Humans, being the only creatures that think about tomorrow, worry about what will happen. Unable to see all causes, we imagine invisible powers causing what we observe This generates belief in gods, demons, spirits, and other supernatural agents. Religion is natural to humans,
3:04:42
not in the sense of being true, but in the sense of being a predictable product of human psychology Different peoples worship different gods based on their cultures and experiences. Pagans worshipped many gods, assigning different gods to different domains Jews worshipped one god, Yahweh, who claimed exclusive allegiance. Christians worship the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a doctrine Hobbes finds philosophically problematic but accepts as revealed truth
3:05:22
The diversity of religious beliefs shows that religion is human, too human, shaped by psychology, culture, and accident rather than pure reason. But Hobbes is not simply dismissing religion as superstition He treats the Bible as authoritative revelation, though he interprets it in ways that support his political conclusions. The key interpretive move is to argue that God's commands to humans are always mediated through political authorities God spoke to Adam and Noah directly,
3:06:02
but after the formation of political societies, God speaks through sovereigns. The sovereign interprets scripture authoritatively, determines what counts as orthodox doctrine, and enforces religious conformity This subordinates religious to political authority completely. There is no direct pipeline from God to individuals that bypasses the sovereign Prophets who claim to speak for God without sovereign authorization are false prophets or enthusiasts, self-deceived by their own imaginations.
3:06:42
True prophets are authenticated by miracles, but the age of miracles has passed In the Christian era, religious authority resides in the institutional church, which is properly subject to the sovereign. Hobbes rejects key Catholic doctrines that would give religious authorities power over political authorities The Pope has no authority over kings. The church cannot excommunicate rulers or release subjects from obedience Priests have no special power to interpret
3:07:20
scripture or mediate between God and humans. The sacraments have no magical efficacy but are symbolic acts whose meaning is determined by the sovereign Transubstantiation, the doctrine that bread and wine literally become Christ's body and blood, is philosophical nonsense based on Aristotelian categories that Hobbes rejects. These were fighting words in seventeenth-century Europe Rejecting papal authority challenged Catholic doctrine. Denying priestly power challenged both
3:08:01
Catholic and high-church Protestant positions Reinterpreting sacraments challenged central Christian practices. Hobbes was accused of atheism, heresy, and undermining Christianity, accusations he denied while continuing to press his revisionist interpretations Hobbes also reinterprets heaven, hell, and the afterlife in ways that reduce their political significance. The Kingdom of God is not an otherworldly realm but a this-worldly kingdom to be established when Christ returns Until then,
3:08:42
there is no kingdom of God on earth except in the commonwealths of Christian sovereigns who rule in God's name. Heaven is not an immaterial realm of disembodied souls but will be a resurrection of bodies on earth after Christ's return Hell is not eternal conscious torment but either annihilation, ceasing to exist, or temporary punishment followed by annihilation. The eternally burning hell of traditional theology is a metaphor, not a literal place Why these reinterpretations?
3:09:22
Because traditional doctrines of heaven and hell give religious authorities enormous power. If priests control access to eternal bliss or damnation, they control something more important than anything the political sovereign can offer or threaten Subjects will obey priests rather than kings if they believe their eternal souls are at stake. Hobbes needs to eliminate this rival source of authority By making the afterlife either non-existent for the
3:09:57
damned or postponed until the general resurrection, he removes the priests' leverage. Hobbes also reinterprets the Trinity and the nature of Christ in ways that avoid philosophical problems while maintaining nominal orthodoxy How can three persons be one God? Hobbes suggests this is a mystery we accept on faith, not a philosophical doctrine we need to explain. Jesus is both God and man, but the mechanism of incarnation is beyond human understanding The Holy
3:10:34
Spirit is God's power and presence, not a separate person in the usual sense. These formulations allow Hobbes to affirm Trinitarian Christianity while avoiding the metaphysical commitments that he finds problematic Scholars debate how sincere Hobbes was in all this. Some see him as a crypto-atheist using religious language strategically to avoid persecution while subtly undermining religious belief Others see him as a sincere if unorthodox Christian trying to
3:11:15
rescue Christianity from political entanglements. Still others see him as agnostic, genuinely uncertain about theological matters but convinced that religious authorities must be subordinated to political authorities regardless of theological truth The textual evidence is ambiguous enough to support multiple readings. Hobbes affirms biblical authority, but his interpretations are so revisionist that they seem designed to empty religion of independent authority He professes Christian belief,
3:11:55
but his materialism seems incompatible with key Christian doctrines about the soul, angels, and God's nature. He discusses scripture extensively, but often to show that it does not mean what traditional interpreters claim Perhaps the fairest assessment is that Hobbes was deeply concerned with religious conflict and convinced that subordinating religion to politics was necessary for peace. Whether he personally believed Christian doctrines mattered less to him than
3:12:31
ensuring those doctrines could not justify rebellion or civil war He was a political thinker first, a theologian second, and his theology serves his politics rather than the reverse. The practical implications are clear: in a Hobbesian commonwealth, the sovereign controls all aspects of religious life The sovereign determines which doctrines can be taught, which practices can be performed, which books are permitted, which religious organizations are recognized.
3:13:07
There is no religious freedom in the modern sense, no separation of church and state, no individual liberty of conscience except in the privacy of one's mind Religious conformity is required outwardly, though private belief remains free. You must attend the state church, participate in state-approved worship, and avoid publicly advocating forbidden doctrines What you actually believe internally is your business, though the sovereign would prefer that your internal beliefs align with your
3:13:44
external conformity. Hobbes thinks this is a small price to pay for peace Forcing people to worship in a particular way harms no one essentially, since God judges hearts, not external actions. But allowing public religious diversity invites faction and conflict, harming everyone Modern liberal democracies reject this entirely. We believe religious freedom is a fundamental right, that the state should neither establish a religion nor prohibit free exercise,
3:14:22
that individuals must be free to worship or not as they choose We believe religious diversity is compatible with social peace, indeed may promote it by giving everyone a stake in tolerance. The wars of religion that Hobbes witnessed were not solved by state control of religion but by recognizing religious pluralism and privatizing religion Hobbes would likely respond that modern religious freedom works only where religion has become weak and privatized,
3:14:58
no longer making totalizing truth claims or demanding political power. When religious believers insist their faith requires political implementation, when they view other religions as not merely wrong but dangerous, when they organize politically to enforce religious law, then religious conflict returns Modern secularism is a truce, not a solution, and the truce holds only as long as religion remains relatively weak. This debate continues in contexts where
3:15:35
religion remains politically potent In societies with strong religious identities and political religions, Hobbesian concerns remain relevant. Can liberal democracy accommodate religious groups that reject liberal principles? Can religious freedom extend to religions that do not reciprocally recognize others' freedom? When religious law conflicts with civil law, which prevails? Hobbes would insist that civil law must prevail or else sovereignty is divided and
3:16:14
conflict inevitable The treatment of Christianity in Leviathan is also a extended argument against religious justifications for resistance. Hobbes examines biblical passages often cited to justify disobedience to tyrants and reinterprets them to support obedience When Jesus says "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," Hobbes interprets this as assigning political matters to political authority and religious matters to religious authority,
3:16:52
with the sovereign being the religious authority in a Christian commonwealth. So the passage actually mandates complete obedience to the sovereign When Peter and the apostles say "We must obey God rather than men," Hobbes argues this applies only to situations where men command what God forbids. But since God's commands come through the sovereign, this means obeying the sovereign is obeying God The only exception would be if the sovereign commanded apostasy, renouncing Christianity entirely.
3:17:31
In that case, one may refuse, but must accept martyrdom rather than rebelling Passive disobedience is permitted; active resistance is not. Hobbes similarly reinterprets passages about church authority, excommunication, and religious liberty In each case, he argues that properly understood, the Bible supports sovereign religious authority and denies religious grounds for resistance. This is one of the most extensive exercises in biblical interpretation in political philosophy,
3:18:11
and whether it is persuasive depends largely on whether one accepts Hobbes' starting assumption that political authority must be absolute The Kingdom of Darkness, the title of Leviathan's fourth part, describes false religious doctrines that undermine political authority. Hobbes traces these doctrines to several sources: misinterpretation of scripture, adoption of Aristotelian philosophy incompatible with Christian truth, retention of pagan superstitions, and priestly ambition for power The
3:18:50
kingdom of darkness is not literally Satan's rule but the rule of ignorance, superstition, and bad philosophy that has corrupted Christianity and empowered priests at the expense of political stability. Hobbes attacks what he sees as priestcraft, the manipulation of religion by clergy for their own benefit Priests have taught doctrines that give themselves power: that they mediate between God and humans, that they control salvation through sacraments,
3:19:23
that they can interpret scripture authoritatively, that they can excommunicate rulers, that they have authority independent of political power. All of this, Hobbes argues, is self-serving deception, designed to give priests power they do not rightfully possess The solution is to recognize that religious and political authority are united in the sovereign. The Christian commonwealth is both a political and religious body, with the sovereign as head of both church
3:19:56
and state There is no independent priestly authority, no separate religious sphere, no ground for conflict between temporal and spiritual powers. Unity of authority ensures peace, while division invites war This vision of state-controlled religion became known as Erastianism, after the theologian Thomas Erastus, though Hobbes goes further than Erastus did. It influenced the development of state churches in Protestant Europe, where kings became supreme governors of
3:20:34
national churches It was rejected by Catholics, who insisted on papal authority, and by many Protestants, who advocated for religious liberty or church independence from state control. The theological-political problem that Hobbes addressed has not disappeared but has changed form Modern democracies have largely adopted some form of religious pluralism and separation of church and state, though implementations vary widely. But questions about religion's role in
3:21:12
public life persist: Can religious arguments be used in political debates? Should religious organizations receive public funding? May religious believers refuse to follow laws that violate their consciences? Can religious symbols be displayed in public spaces? Different democracies answer these questions differently, reflecting different understandings of religion's proper role Hobbes would view all of this as dangerous confusion. Either the state controls religion, ensuring unity and peace,
3:21:50
or religion remains private and politically impotent, which amounts to the same thing What cannot work, in his view, is allowing politically powerful religious organizations independent of state control. That is a recipe for the conflicts that tore Europe apart in his century Whether Hobbes was right depends partly on one's theology and partly on one's assessment of political risk. If you believe religious truth is more important than political peace, you will reject Hobbes' subordination of
3:22:28
religion to politics If you believe individual religious conscience cannot be coerced, you will reject Hobbes' requirement of outward conformity. But if you believe that religious conflict is among the worst political evils, and that only firm state control can prevent it, Hobbes' arguments retain force The theological-political problem remains one of the deepest challenges in political philosophy, and Hobbes' attempted solution, however unsatisfying to most readers, must be reckoned with.
3:23:04
Part 8: "International Relations and the State of Nature Among Nations": Having analyzed political authority within the commonwealth, Hobbes briefly but significantly addresses relations between commonwealths Sovereign states, he argues, exist in a state of nature relative to each other, facing the same problems individuals faced before creating civil society. Yet international relations differ in crucial ways from the individual state of nature, and Hobbes' brief remarks have generated
3:23:42
centuries of debate about what he actually believed about international politics The basic argument is straightforward. In relations between commonwealths, there is no overarching authority, no world government to enforce agreements or resolve disputes Each sovereign is supreme within their territory but has no superior authority above them. Therefore, sovereigns exist in a state of nature, with all that entails: no common judge, no enforceable law, and the constant possibility of violence
3:24:21
International relations are anarchic in the technical sense, meaning without a governing authority, not necessarily chaotic. Hobbes explicitly states that sovereigns, because of their independence, are in continual jealousies and in the state and posture of gladiators, having their weapons pointed at each other and their eyes fixed on one another This sounds like the international state of nature is as bad as the individual state of nature, a war of all against all but at the level
3:24:56
of states. This reading has made Hobbes the intellectual godfather of realism in international relations theory, the school of thought that views international politics as a realm of power, interest, and conflict unconstrained by morality or law However, Hobbes immediately qualifies this picture in important ways. He notes that the posture of war among sovereigns does not produce the same misery as the state of nature among individuals Even though states are armed and suspicious,
3:25:35
their industries and the prosperity of their subjects are upheld. Farmers can plow, merchants can trade, manufacturers can produce, all because the sovereign maintains internal order even while preparing for external conflict The international state of nature does not prevent civilization from flourishing within states. Why the difference? Several factors distinguish international from interpersonal anarchy First, the stakes are different. In the individual state of nature,
3:26:15
your life is constantly at risk In the international state of nature, the sovereign's position may be at risk, but most subjects can live normal lives even during international tensions. Wars happen, but they are episodic, not constant Between wars, peace prevails, at least domestically. Second, the equality that makes the individual state of nature so dangerous does not exist between states States vary enormously in power. Some are superpowers, some are minor states This inequality
3:27:00
creates a kind of order. Weak states submit to or ally with strong states Strong states compete with each other but with more restraint because the costs of war between great powers are enormous. The hierarchy that cannot exist naturally among individuals can exist among states, providing informal structure to international relations Third, states are corporate persons, not natural persons, and corporate persons can be more rational than individuals. States have institutions, advisors,
3:27:41
long time horizons, and the capacity for strategic calculation that frightened or passionate individuals may lack A monarch might be foolish, but their counselors might be wise. An assembly might deliberate carefully before rushing to war States can learn from history, form enduring alliances, and develop reputations for trustworthiness or aggression. This makes international cooperation possible even without a world government Fourth, the laws of nature apply to states as
3:28:20
they do to individuals, counseling peace when possible and restraint in war. A sovereign who launches aggressive wars risks retaliation, coalition-building by threatened neighbors, and depletion of resources Rational sovereigns will pursue peace when it serves their interests and will fight only when necessary for security or when potential gains clearly outweigh costs. The laws of nature, operating through state interests, produce a kind of international order
3:28:54
even in anarchy Hobbes thus presents a more nuanced picture of international relations than is often recognized. Yes, states exist in a condition of anarchy Yes, war is always possible. Yes, power matters enormously But no, this does not mean constant war or the impossibility of cooperation. States can and do cooperate through alliances, treaties, trade, and diplomacy International law, while lacking a sovereign enforcer, can shape behavior through reciprocity, reputation,
3:29:39
and coordinated enforcement by multiple states. This reading aligns Hobbes not with the most pessimistic realism but with a more moderate position sometimes called rationalism or the English School in international relations theory This school, which includes thinkers like Martin Wight and Hedley Bull, argues that even in anarchy, states can form an international society with shared norms, institutions, and practices that regulate conflict without eliminating it.
3:30:17
Hobbes can be read as an early theorist of international society, showing how rational actors can cooperate for mutual benefit despite lacking a common authority However, other passages suggest a darker view. Hobbes notes that sovereigns maintain spies and fortifications on their frontiers, signs of mutual distrust He suggests that sovereigns may legitimately wage preventive war, attacking potential threats before they materialize. He provides no mechanism for
3:30:56
international cooperation beyond temporary alliances of convenience He never discusses international law as a meaningful constraint on state action. His emphasis on self-preservation and power-seeking applies to states as to individuals, suggesting that international politics will be competitive and conflictual The debate about Hobbes' international relations theory reflects genuine ambiguity in his text. He devoted relatively little attention to international relations compared to
3:31:34
domestic politics, leaving many questions unanswered Does he think a world government is desirable but impractical? Or does he think states should remain independent? Do the laws of nature bind states as strictly as they bind individuals? Can there be justice in international relations, or only power? Hobbes does not clearly answer these questions, allowing multiple interpretations. One crucial question is whether the international state of nature is an
3:32:09
analogy or an identity Is international anarchy like interpersonal anarchy, facing similar problems requiring similar solutions? Or is it fundamentally different due to the factors mentioned above? If it is truly analogous, then logically, a world government should be created through an international social contract, just as domestic governments were created through domestic social contracts. Several commentators have noted that Hobbes never proposes this, which seems inconsistent Classical
3:32:48
realists like Hans Morgenthau argued that Hobbes should have extended his logic to call for world government but failed to do so, revealing an inconsistency in his theory. Neorealists like Kenneth Waltz argue that the absence of overarching authority and the prevalence of anarchy in international relations is the cornerstone of their theory, but they do not follow Hobbes in proposing a solution Instead, they accept permanent anarchy and theorize about how states can achieve security within it.
3:33:25
Why did Hobbes not propose world government? Several explanations are possible First, he may have thought it impractical. Creating a domestic sovereign from a state of nature is difficult but possible because people can communicate, assemble, and create institutions Creating a world government from independent sovereign states is vastly more difficult because states are already organized for self-defense, have conflicting interests, and cannot easily be brought together for
3:34:01
collective decision-making. The practical barriers are insurmountable Second, Hobbes may have thought world government undesirable. Competition between states, while risky, may promote good governance by allowing subjects to compare their rulers with foreign rulers and potentially migrate if oppressed It may encourage innovation and cultural diversity. It may prevent global tyranny, since even a bad domestic government is limited in the harm it can do by the
3:34:39
existence of foreign rivals A world government would be an absolute sovereign with no external check, which could become monstrous. Third, Hobbes may not have seen international anarchy as sufficiently problematic to require solution As he notes, the international state of nature does not produce the same misery as interpersonal anarchy. States can prosper and subjects can flourish even when international relations are anarchic War between states is terrible, but it is occasional,
3:35:18
not constant, and affects soldiers more than civilians in Hobbes' era. The costs of international anarchy may not justify the enormous risks of attempting to create world government Fourth, Hobbes may have thought that well-ordered commonwealths, governed by rational sovereigns following natural law, would achieve sufficient international cooperation without needing world government. His vision is not of isolated states in constant conflict but of multiple states trading, forming alliances,
3:35:54
respecting treaties, and only occasionally fighting when interests clash irreconcilably This is international society, not international government, but it may be good enough. Modern international relations continue to grapple with Hobbesian themes The United Nations was an attempt to create something like an international sovereign, an authority that could enforce peace and resolve disputes. But the UN lacks the crucial feature of Hobbesian sovereignty: the power to compel
3:36:31
obedience The Security Council can authorize force, but it cannot compel powerful states to obey its resolutions. The International Court of Justice can judge disputes, but only if states consent to its jurisdiction International law binds states only to the extent they choose to be bound, which is to say, hardly at all when vital interests are at stake. This vindicates Hobbes' skepticism about international law Without a sovereign to enforce it, international law is mere words,
3:37:13
binding in conscience perhaps but not in practice when obeying would be dangerous. States follow international law when it serves their interests and violate it when necessary for survival or major advantage The laws of war, prohibiting certain weapons or protecting civilians, are frequently violated with impunity by powerful states. Treaties are broken when circumstances change International institutions lack independent power and depend entirely on state cooperation.
3:37:51
Yet the picture is not entirely bleak Despite international anarchy, most states obey most international laws most of the time. Treaties are generally honored Diplomacy resolves most disputes peacefully. Trade binds states in mutual dependence, raising the costs of conflict International organizations coordinate cooperation on shared problems. Nuclear weapons have made great power war catastrophically costly, creating a kind of forced peace among nuclear states The post-World War Two
3:38:36
international order, while imperfect and contested, has produced the longest period without great power war in modern history. How do we explain this? Hobbesians would point to changes in state interests Nuclear weapons make war between major powers suicidal, so rational sovereigns avoid it. Economic interdependence means trade is more profitable than conquest, so states prefer commerce to war International institutions reduce transaction costs and provide information,
3:39:15
making cooperation easier. But none of this contradicts Hobbes' basic framework States cooperate when cooperation serves their interests, which it increasingly does. The international state of nature is less nasty than Hobbes expected, but not because states are less self-interested than he thought Rather, the conditions of modernity make cooperation more advantageous than it was in his time. Conversely, where cooperation breaks down, Hobbesian dynamics reassert themselves
3:39:54
When states perceive existential threats, they prepare for war, form rival alliances, engage in arms races, and sometimes fight preventive wars. When international order breaks down, as in failed states or civil wars, the Hobbesian state of nature reemerges domestically with all its horrors The Syrian civil war, the collapse of Libya, the conflicts in Sudan and Yemen, all demonstrate what happens when sovereignty collapses. The results vindicate Hobbes' claim that
3:40:31
any government is better than anarchy Contemporary debates about global governance reflect Hobbesian concerns. Should we create stronger international institutions with real enforcement power? Should the UN have its own military force? Should international courts be able to prosecute individuals for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Should there be a global government addressing climate change, pandemics, and other collective action problems?
3:41:07
Hobbesians are skeptical Giving international institutions real power risks creating a global Leviathan with all the dangers of absolute sovereignty and none of the accountability that comes from smaller scale. Who would control a world government? How would it be held accountable? What would prevent it from becoming tyrannical? Without answers to these questions, it may be better to muddle through with international anarchy, accepting its costs as less dangerous
3:41:43
than the risks of global government Liberals respond that international institutions need not be sovereign to be effective. They can coordinate state action, provide information, establish norms, and facilitate cooperation while leaving ultimate authority with states This multilateral cooperation is a middle path between Hobbesian anarchy and world government. Whether it is stable or merely a temporary stage before either world government or reversion to anarchy remains
3:42:21
to be seen Hobbes' contribution to international relations theory is thus ambiguous but profound. He identified the central problem, that international anarchy creates security dilemmas and cooperation problems similar to interpersonal anarchy He showed how rational self-interest, properly understood, counsels peace and cooperation even without a superior authority. But he also recognized that self-interest can lead to conflict when interests clash or when fear drives preventive action
3:43:03
His framework for analyzing these dynamics, emphasizing power, interests, and the absence of overarching authority, remains central to international relations theory centuries later. Whether Hobbes himself was a realist, a rationalist, or something else is less important than the fact that his concepts provide tools for analyzing international politics The state of nature, laws of nature, security dilemma, social contract, and sovereign authority all have
3:43:37
applications to international relations, even if Hobbes did not fully develop those applications. Later theorists have taken his ideas and run with them in various directions, some toward pure power politics, others toward international society and cooperation Hobbes' legacy in international relations is not a single theory but a framework that continues to generate insight and debate. Part 9: "Contemporary Applications: Game Theory, Rational Choice, and Political Science": Hobbes wrote in
3:44:18
the seventeenth century, but his ideas have found new life in twentieth and twenty-first century social science Game theory, rational choice theory, evolutionary psychology, and behavioral economics all provide frameworks for testing, refining, and applying Hobbesian insights. These modern disciplines vindicate some of Hobbes' arguments while challenging others, showing where he was prescient and where he was mistaken Game theory, the mathematical study of strategic interaction,
3:44:59
formalizes Hobbesian problems with remarkable precision. The state of nature is essentially a multi-player Prisoner's Dilemma, a situation where individual rationality produces collective disaster Each person, acting rationally to maximize their own security, contributes to a situation where everyone is insecure. Cooperation would benefit all, but cooperation is individually irrational without enforcement The classic Prisoner's Dilemma involves two criminals interrogated separately.
3:45:41
Each can cooperate with the other by remaining silent or defect by confessing If both cooperate, both get light sentences. If both defect, both get moderate sentences If one defects while the other cooperates, the defector goes free while the cooperator gets a harsh sentence. The rational choice for each prisoner is to defect regardless of what the other does But this produces the mutually defective outcome where both get moderate sentences, worse than if both had cooperated.
3:46:23
Replace prisoners with individuals in the state of nature, confession with aggression, and silence with peaceful cooperation Each person faces the same incentive structure. Aggression is individually rational because if the other person is peaceful, you gain advantage, and if the other person is aggressive, you must defend yourself But if everyone reasons this way, everyone is aggressive, and everyone suffers the war of all against all. This is Hobbes' insight formalized The
3:47:04
game-theoretic solution is exactly what Hobbes proposed: an external enforcer who changes the payoffs. If a sovereign can credibly threaten to punish defection, cooperation becomes the rational choice The sovereign acts as a commitment device, allowing mutually beneficial cooperation that would otherwise be impossible. Game theory thus vindicates Hobbes' core argument that escaping Prisoner's Dilemma-type situations requires enforceable agreements backed by power However,
3:47:42
game theory also shows that Hobbes may have overstated the problem. Repeated Prisoner's Dilemmas can produce cooperation without external enforcement through strategies like tit-for-tat: cooperate initially, then do whatever the other player did last round This strategy succeeds because it is nice, never defecting first, retaliatory, punishing defection, forgiving, returning to cooperation after the other player cooperates, and clear, making the pattern easy to recognize.
3:48:21
In repeated interactions, tit-for-tat and similar strategies can sustain cooperation This suggests that the state of nature might not be as inescapable as Hobbes claimed. If people interact repeatedly and can observe each other's behavior, they can develop reputations for cooperation or defection Cooperators can preferentially interact with other cooperators, excluding defectors from beneficial exchanges. Over time, norms of cooperation can emerge without
3:48:58
central enforcement This is essentially how much of civil society actually functions, through informal norms, reputation, and social pressure rather than state coercion. Hobbes might respond that repeated games require certain conditions: stable populations, reliable information about others' past behavior, expectations of future interaction, and relatively low stakes In the state of nature, these conditions may not hold. Population is mobile, information is scarce,
3:49:37
interactions may be one-shot, and stakes can be life or death Under these conditions, cooperation collapses, vindicating Hobbes' pessimism. Moreover, even when repeated game cooperation works, it is fragile A few defectors can destabilize cooperative equilibria. New entrants who have not built reputations can defect opportunistically Misunderstandings can trigger retaliation spirals. As populations grow and diversify, informal enforcement becomes difficult At some scale,
3:50:23
formal institutions backed by coercive power become necessary, again vindicating Hobbes. Rational choice theory more broadly has embraced Hobbesian assumptions about human motivation The theory assumes that people are rational utility maximizers pursuing their preferences given constraints and information. This is essentially Hobbes' account of human psychology updated with modern terminology Hobbes saw humans as desire-satisfaction machines calculating how to achieve their ends.
3:51:05
Rational choice theory formalizes this into a general framework for predicting and explaining behavior Public choice theory, the application of rational choice to politics, is deeply Hobbesian. It assumes that political actors, like economic actors, pursue their interests Politicians seek reelection, bureaucrats seek to expand their agencies, voters pursue their preferences, and interest groups seek favorable policies. The political process is a marketplace
3:51:44
where these interests clash and compromise Good institutions are those that channel self-interest toward public benefit, just as Hobbes argued. The key insight is that you cannot rely on virtue or goodwill in designing institutions Assume people will act selfishly, and design institutions that make selfish behavior produce good outcomes. Separation of powers works not because politicians are virtuous but because ambitious politicians check other ambitious politicians Electoral
3:52:25
competition works not because politicians are altruistic but because they need votes. Rule of law works not because rulers are just but because rulers benefit from stable, predictable rules This is thoroughly Hobbesian: harness self-interest rather than fighting it. However, rational choice theory has been criticized for oversimplifying human motivation Behavioral economics and psychology show that people are not perfect rational calculators. We use heuristics, fall prey to cognitive biases,
3:53:07
care about fairness and reciprocity beyond self-interest, engage in costly punishment of norm violators, and sometimes act altruistically We are boundedly rational, meaning we try to be rational but face computational and information limits. We are also socially influenced, caring about what others think and conforming to social norms These findings complicate the Hobbesian picture. If people are not purely self-interested, then perhaps cooperation is easier than
3:53:45
Hobbes thought If people have intrinsic preferences for fairness and reciprocity, then they may cooperate even when defection would be individually advantageous. If people engage in costly punishment of norm violators, then informal enforcement can sustain cooperation without a sovereign Humans may be more naturally social than Hobbes acknowledged. On the other hand, these findings also support Hobbes in some ways Cognitive biases make the state of nature more dangerous, not less.
3:54:26
If people overestimate their abilities, underestimate risks, and see threats where none exist, they are more likely to initiate conflicts If people care intensely about honor and reputation, they will fight over insults and slights. If people conform to group norms, then tribes and factions form, creating in-group cooperation but out-group hostility Human psychology is complex, but the complexities do not obviously make the state of nature more manageable.
3:55:03
Evolutionary psychology offers another lens on Hobbesian themes Natural selection shaped human psychology to solve adaptive problems faced by our ancestors. Many of these problems involved cooperation and conflict: forming alliances, deterring aggression, punishing free-riders, distributing resources, attracting mates, raising offspring We evolved psychological mechanisms for navigating these situations: capacities for empathy and aggression, cooperation and competition, trust and suspicion.
3:55:46
This supports Hobbes' naturalism Human behavior is not infinitely malleable by culture but is constrained by evolved psychology. Certain patterns recur across societies because they reflect universal features of human nature Conflict over resources, status competition, male-on-male violence, revenge, warfare, all appear in virtually all human societies because they reflect evolved tendencies. Political institutions must work with these tendencies, not against them However,
3:56:28
evolution also produced capacities for cooperation, altruism, and morality that extend beyond narrow self-interest. Humans evolved in small groups where reputation mattered and cooperation paid off We have emotional mechanisms, shame, guilt, empathy, moral outrage, that motivate prosocial behavior. We engage in reciprocal altruism, helping others who help us We even exhibit genuine altruism toward kin and sometimes toward strangers. These capacities make humans less
3:57:12
Hobbesian than pure egoism suggests The debate reflects a deeper question: is human nature fundamentally selfish or social? Hobbes emphasized selfishness, competition, and fear. Critics emphasize cooperation, empathy, and morality The truth is probably that humans have capacities for both, and which dominates depends on circumstances. In situations of scarcity, danger, and anonymity, selfish tendencies dominate In situations of abundance, safety, and repeated interaction,
3:57:57
cooperative tendencies dominate. Institutions matter because they create circumstances that bring out our better or worse natures Contemporary political science also grapples with Hobbesian questions about the origins and functions of the state. Why do states exist? What makes them legitimate? How do they maintain order? Comparative politics examines these questions across different countries and historical periods, testing whether Hobbesian logic holds
3:58:33
universally or only in specific contexts One finding is that states do indeed emerge primarily to solve collective action problems and provide security, vindicating Hobbes. Hunter-gatherer bands lack states because they are small enough for informal governance Agricultural societies develop proto-states to coordinate irrigation, defend territory, and collect taxes. Modern states provide security, enforce contracts, supply public goods, and manage economies While the specific
3:59:14
functions vary, the core security and coordination functions are universal. However, the process of state formation is more varied and contingent than Hobbes suggested States did not arise from rational social contracts but from conquest, gradual institutionalization, external competition, and historical accidents. Many states are predatory, extracting resources from subjects without providing much security Weak states exist in a twilight zone, neither fully collapsed nor fully functional.
3:59:55
State capacity varies enormously, with some states highly effective and others barely functioning Hobbes' theory better explains why we need states than how states actually form or why they vary so much. Failed states provide natural experiments testing Hobbesian predictions When states collapse in places like Somalia, South Sudan, or parts of Syria, what happens? Generally, Hobbesian dynamics emerge: warlords fight for control, militias prey on civilians, trade collapses,
4:00:34
production declines, life becomes nasty, brutish, and short. But even in failed states, some order emerges through clan structures, religious authorities, or local strongmen Complete anarchy is rare and temporary. This suggests both that Hobbes was right about the need for authority and that authority need not be state-based to provide some order Democracy poses interesting challenges for Hobbesian theory. Can the people be sovereign, or does sovereignty require a unified decision-maker?
4:01:15
Hobbes allowed for sovereignty by assembly, suggesting democracy is possible within his framework But he worried about the inefficiency and instability of assemblies. Modern democracies have addressed these concerns through representation, constitutional constraints, and regular elections The people are sovereign in the sense that government ultimately depends on popular consent, but day-to-day governance is delegated to elected representatives and appointed officials. However,
4:01:52
democracies face Hobbesian problems internally Majority tyranny can oppress minorities. Electoral competition can become so bitter that losers refuse to accept results, threatening civil conflict Constitutional crises arise when different branches claim authority and no one can definitively resolve the dispute. Polarization can make compromise impossible, paralyzing government These are all Hobbesian problems about how to achieve collective decision-making without descending into conflict.
4:02:34
The solutions involve institutional design that limits what government can do even with majority support, constitutional rights that cannot be overridden, judicial review that enforces constitutional limits, and norms of democratic restraint where winners do not exploit their power fully These mechanisms address Hobbes' concerns about sovereignty being divided or limited by creating complex systems that appear divided but ultimately function as unified decision-makers on most issues.
4:03:14
Whether these systems are truly stable or merely have not yet faced sufficiently severe stress tests remains an open question Hobbes' influence on contemporary social science is thus pervasive but contested. His assumptions about human nature, the necessity of authority, and the dangers of anarchy shape how political scientists, economists, and international relations scholars think about politics His emphasis on incentives, interests, and institutional design guides policy
4:03:51
analysis and reform efforts. His skepticism about idealism and his insistence on realism about power inform strategy and statecraft At the same time, modern social science has identified limits to Hobbesian logic. Cooperation is more achievable than he thought, human nature is more prosocial, informal institutions can do much of what he assigned to the state, and democracy can be stable despite divided power Yet in each case, the conditions that make these
4:04:29
alternatives to Hobbesian absolutism work are specific and fragile. Remove those conditions, and Hobbesian dynamics reassert themselves The state of nature is always lurking beneath the surface of civilization, held at bay by institutions that must constantly be maintained and defended. That insight remains Hobbes' enduring contribution Part 10: "Comprehensive Critiques: Where Hobbes Fails and Scholarly Debates": After surveying Hobbes' philosophy and its applications,
4:05:10
we must now confront its failures, contradictions, and limitations. No philosophical system is perfect, and Hobbes' is no exception Critics from his own time to ours have identified numerous problems with his arguments, assumptions, and conclusions. Understanding these critiques is essential for appreciating both Hobbes' contributions and his blind spots The most fundamental critique attacks Hobbes' account of human nature as empirically false and methodologically flawed.
4:05:49
Is it really true that humans are fundamentally selfish, competitive, and glory-seeking? Anthropological evidence suggests not Small-scale societies exhibit extensive cooperation, sharing, and altruism. Hunter-gatherer bands are generally egalitarian, not hierarchical Warfare exists but is not constant. Many societies emphasize harmony, consensus, and collective welfare over individual competition Rousseau argued that Hobbes projected the vices of civilized humans onto natural humans.
4:06:33
Greed, ambition, and vanity are products of social comparison and inequality, not original human nature In a true state of nature, before property and social hierarchy, humans would be neither good nor bad but simply concerned with immediate survival and reproduction, occasionally encountering other humans but not systematically competing with them. Modern evolutionary theory supports a middle position Humans evolved capacities for both cooperation and competition, altruism and selfishness,
4:07:15
trust and suspicion. Which predominates depends on circumstances In situations resembling ancestral conditions, small groups with repeated interactions, cooperation predominates. In situations of anonymity, scarcity, and perceived threat, competition predominates Human nature is flexible, not fixed in a Hobbesian mold. Moreover, Hobbes' methodology for discovering human nature is questionable He tells us to look inward, examine our own motives, and generalize.
4:07:57
But introspection is unreliable We do not have transparent access to our own motivations. We rationalize our behavior rather than understanding it objectively We are subject to self-serving biases that make us see ourselves as more reasonable and others as more selfish than reality warrants. Generalizing from introspection, especially the introspection of a single seventeenth-century English man, is unlikely to yield universal truths about human nature The state of nature
4:08:36
faces similar empirical challenges. Hobbes treats it as both a historical claim and a logical deduction, but neither version succeeds As history, the state of nature is fiction. Humans have always lived in social groups with norms, customs, and structures of authority The war of all against all never existed. Isolated individuals in pure anarchy are a philosophical thought experiment, not a description of human prehistory As logical deduction,
4:09:15
the state of nature rests on questionable assumptions. Hobbes assumes that without government, there is no law, no property, no justice But law can exist without government through custom and social norms. Property can exist through recognition and defense by communities Justice can exist through reciprocity and reputation. Stateless societies are not necessarily lawless or chaotic They have different forms of order, based on kinship, tradition, and decentralized enforcement.
4:09:57
Hobbes' critics also attack the social contract as incoherent or implausible The contract is supposed to be unanimous, but how do you get everyone to agree simultaneously? What about those who refuse? The contract binds descendants, but how can you be bound by agreements your ancestors made? The contract creates obligations that cannot be withdrawn, but how can you consent to irrevocable obligations? The contract authorizes the sovereign to do anything, but how can authorization be unlimited
4:10:37
when the purpose is limited to providing security? These problems suggest the social contract is a fiction, perhaps a useful fiction for thinking about political legitimacy, but not an actual historical event or even a plausible hypothetical agreement. Actual governments arose through conquest, tradition, gradual institutionalization, and other non-consensual processes Calling them products of contract stretches the concept of consent beyond recognition.
4:11:14
Hobbes seems to be using social contract language to legitimate whatever governments actually exist, which evacuates the contract of normative force The doctrine of absolute sovereignty generates its own set of problems. Hobbes claims sovereignty cannot be limited without creating the problems it was meant to solve But this seems empirically false. Constitutional democracies have limited governments with divided powers, yet they are often more stable than
4:11:50
absolute monarchies The United States has operated for over two centuries with sovereignty divided among federal and state governments and among executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Far from producing chaos, this division seems to prevent tyranny while maintaining order Hobbes might respond that these systems have hidden sovereigns, ultimate decision-makers who resolve disputes. In the U S., perhaps the Supreme Court is sovereign, or perhaps the people through
4:12:29
constitutional amendment But this response seems ad hoc. If we must torture the concept of sovereignty to fit constitutional democracy, perhaps sovereignty is not the right concept Perhaps we should abandon talk of absolute sovereignty and instead analyze the distribution of power, the mechanisms of accountability, and the norms that sustain constitutional order. The internal contradictions in Hobbes' system pose another set of problems He argues for absolute sovereignty but
4:13:09
acknowledges inalienable rights of self-preservation.
4:13:15
These cannot coexist coherently If subjects retain the right to resist when their lives are threatened, and they judge for themselves when this condition obtains, then sovereignty is not absolute. Each subject becomes judge in their own case, recreating the very problem sovereignty was meant to solve Hobbes tries to minimize this by making the right of resistance very narrow, but the contradiction remains. Either sovereignty is absolute, in which case subjects have no rights against it,
4:13:52
or subjects have rights, in which case sovereignty is limited Hobbes wants both, but the two positions are logically incompatible. He needs inalienable rights to make the social contract non-suicidal, but those rights undermine absolute sovereignty Similarly, Hobbes argues that the sovereign determines justice but also that natural law binds the sovereign. Which takes precedence? If natural law binds absolutely, then the sovereign is not absolute If the sovereign can override natural law,
4:14:36
then natural law is not binding. Hobbes sometimes suggests natural law binds in conscience but not in action, but this distinction is murky What does it mean to have an obligation you need not fulfill? The relationship between authorization and responsibility creates further problems. Hobbes claims that because subjects authorize the sovereign's acts, the sovereign cannot injure subjects But this seems to misunderstand authorization. If I authorize you to do X and you do Y instead,
4:15:18
you have exceeded your authorization You cannot claim I authorized Y merely because I authorized you generally. Yet Hobbes seems to make this move, claiming that general authorization covers all specific acts, no matter how harmful or unexpected This makes the social contract a blank check, which rational people would not sign. Why authorize someone to do literally anything, including harming you, when the purpose of authorization is to gain security? A rational contract would authorize the
4:15:57
sovereign to provide security and specify that acts beyond or contrary to that purpose exceed authorization Hobbes cannot admit this without limiting sovereignty, so he makes authorization comprehensive, but this makes the contract irrational. Hobbes' treatment of religion faces multiple objections His reinterpretations of Christian doctrine are so revisionist that they seem incompatible with traditional Christianity. His claim that the sovereign controls all
4:16:34
religious matters contradicts the idea of religious conscience and the church's spiritual authority His materialist metaphysics seems incompatible with beliefs in an immaterial God, angels, and souls. His subordination of religion to politics offends both religious believers who think religion transcends politics and secularists who think religion should be separate from politics Whether Hobbes was sincere in his religious professions remains disputed.
4:17:10
His contemporaries accused him of atheism, and some modern readers agree Others see him as a sincere if heterodox Christian trying to rescue Christianity from political manipulation. Still others see him as agnostic or indifferent, using religious language strategically The ambiguity itself is a kind of failure. If Hobbes' religious views are so unclear that readers cannot determine what he actually believed, then his theology is not serving the clarifying function that his political
4:17:48
philosophy aims for The problem of political change reveals another limitation. Hobbes' system is static, designed to maintain order once established but providing no mechanism for reform or improvement The sovereign cannot be legally opposed or criticized. Subjects must obey even unjust laws There is no process for peaceful political change beyond hoping the sovereign will voluntarily reform. This means bad governments can persist indefinitely, with no legitimate recourse for subjects
4:18:30
Hobbes might respond that subjects can replace a failing sovereign, but only if the sovereign has already failed to provide security, meaning the commonwealth has effectively dissolved. This is revolution, not reform There is no middle ground where subjects can pressure the sovereign to govern better without rebellion. This makes Hobbesian regimes brittle, able to maintain order when strong but collapsing into anarchy when they weaken, with nothing in between Constitutional
4:19:09
democracy addresses this by providing peaceful mechanisms for political change: elections, legislative oversight, judicial review, constitutional amendment. These allow for reform without revolution, criticism without sedition, and accountability without anarchy They show that political change need not mean civil war. Hobbes' inability to accommodate peaceful reform is a major limitation of his system The problem of minority oppression is even more serious.
4:19:49
Hobbes provides no protection for minorities, whether ethnic, religious, or political The sovereign can oppress minorities if doing so serves the majority's interests. There is no appeal to rights, justice, or fairness that minorities can make against oppression They must simply endure it, hoping the sovereign will calculate that oppression is imprudent. For those on the receiving end, this is cold comfort Modern liberal democracy addresses this through constitutional rights,
4:20:28
judicial protection of minorities, and norms of tolerance and pluralism. These mechanisms recognize that majority rule alone can be tyrannical and that justice requires protecting individual rights even against majority preferences Hobbes lacks these protections because he denies any rights that limit sovereignty. His system can accommodate efficient tyranny but not justice for the oppressed The gendered dimensions of Hobbes' theory have attracted increasing scholarly attention.
4:21:07
Although Hobbes argues for natural equality and suggests that mothers, not fathers, have natural authority over children, his system is deeply patriarchal in practice He assumes the generic human is male. His examples of human motivations, seeking glory, competing for dominance, fearing violent death, reflect stereotypically masculine concerns His account of the state of nature as constant warfare may describe male experience more than female experience. Women's roles in reproduction,
4:21:48
caregiving, and maintaining social bonds disappear from his analysis Feminist critics argue that Hobbes' emphasis on independence and conflict misses the fundamentally interdependent nature of human life. Humans are born helpless and require years of care Families and communities, not isolated individuals, are the basic units of social life. Cooperation and care, not just competition and fear, are central to human existence A political philosophy that starts from
4:22:27
individuals in conflict and derives society from contract cannot adequately account for these realities. Additionally, Hobbes' social contract theory has been criticized for excluding women from the original position In practice, if not in theory, the contractors are male heads of household. Women are subsumed under their husbands or fathers, not independent parties to the contract This exclusion matters because it means women's interests may not be represented
4:23:05
in the social contract's terms. The commonwealth serves male citizens primarily, with women's status derivative and secondary The theory's application to colonialism and race is even more troubling. Hobbes describes indigenous Americans as living in the state of nature, implying they lack civilization and government This characterization was used to justify European colonization and dispossession. If indigenous people live in the state of nature, then they have no property rights,
4:23:45
no legitimate authority, and no claims against European settlers Hobbes himself may not have intended this application, but his framework enabled it. More broadly, the social contract tradition has been criticized for being historically white and male, reflecting and reinforcing racial and gender hierarchies The equal individuals in the state of nature are implicitly white men. Others, women, non-Europeans, slaves, are excluded from the contract or included only as subordinates This is
4:24:26
not just about Hobbes personally but about the entire social contract tradition he helped found. The critiques have led to attempts to reconstruct social contract theory on more inclusive foundations Hobbes' psychology has been challenged as overly simplistic. Reducing human motivation to appetite, aversion, and the passions ignores the complexity of human mental life What about abstract reasoning, aesthetic appreciation, intellectual curiosity, moral commitment, spiritual yearning?
4:25:05
Hobbes can perhaps accommodate these as forms of desire, but this seems to stretch the concept. Not everything we care about reduces to pleasure, pain, or self-preservation Moreover, Hobbes' account of rationality as purely instrumental is too narrow. Reason does not just calculate means to ends; it can also evaluate ends, criticize desires, and recognize obligations that transcend self-interest Practical reasoning is not just cost-benefit analysis but involves interpreting situations,
4:25:48
weighing values, and making judgments that cannot be reduced to calculation.
4:25:54
Hobbes' mechanical model of mind misses this dimension of human agency The methodology of Leviathan has also been criticized. Hobbes aims for geometric certainty, building political conclusions from indisputable premises through rigorous deduction But political and moral questions are not amenable to geometric proof. The premises are contestable, the concepts are vague, and the conclusions do not follow with logical necessity Hobbes achieves apparent rigor through overly simplistic
4:26:35
assumptions and equivocation on key terms. The geometric method is more rhetorical device than genuine demonstration Additionally, Hobbes mixes incompatible methods. Sometimes he reasons a priori from definitions, like geometry Sometimes he appeals to introspective psychological observation. Sometimes he makes empirical historical claims These methods pull in different directions, and Hobbes does not adequately integrate them. The resulting system is less coherent
4:27:17
than its geometric presentation suggests The normative status of Hobbes' theory is deeply ambiguous. Is he describing how politics actually works or prescribing how it should work? Is he justifying political authority or merely explaining it? Is he defending absolute sovereignty as ideal or as least bad? Hobbes sometimes seems to argue normatively that we ought to obey absolute sovereigns because they are legitimate Other times he argues descriptively that
4:27:54
we do obey whoever has power because we have no alternative. These are different claims, and conflating them causes confusion If Hobbes is purely descriptive, explaining why people obey power, then he is not providing a justification of authority but merely a causal account. If he is purely normative, arguing that we ought to obey, then his arguments must engage with moral philosophy in ways he seems to avoid Hobbes wants the benefits of both, empirical realism and normative force,
4:28:34
but providing both requires more argument than he gives. Finally, Hobbes' vision is profoundly pessimistic, and this pessimism may be self-fulfilling If we believe humans are selfish and untrustworthy, we will treat each other accordingly, eliciting the very behavior we expect. If we build institutions assuming the worst about human nature, those institutions will bring out the worst If we create omnipotent sovereigns because we fear anarchy, we create opportunities for tyranny.
4:29:13
There is a circularity where Hobbesian assumptions lead to Hobbesian outcomes Conversely, if we assume humans are capable of cooperation, trust, and virtue, and we build institutions that nurture these capacities, we may get better results. This does not mean naively ignoring human capacity for evil It means recognizing that human nature is plastic, capable of both good and evil, and that institutions shape which predominates. Hobbes' unrelenting focus on the negative
4:29:53
side of human nature may blind us to possibilities for better politics based on our positive capacities These critiques do not refute Hobbes entirely. He identified real problems: the difficulty of cooperation, the necessity of authority, the dangers of civil war He provided insights that remain valuable: the importance of incentives, the need for institutions, the limits of pure reason in politics. But his solutions are flawed, his assumptions questionable,
4:30:33
and his conclusions often unacceptable The enduring value of Hobbes lies not in accepting his system wholesale but in grappling with the problems he identified and the solutions he proposed, recognizing both their insights and their limitations. Part 11: "Legacy, Influence, and Final Assessment": Thomas Hobbes died in sixteen seventy-nine at the age of ninety-one, having lived through one of the most turbulent centuries in English history His final years were spent peacefully at
4:31:12
the Cavendish family estate, where he continued writing, translated Homer, and engaged in mathematical disputes that damaged his reputation as a mathematician but showed his intellectual vitality. He died unrepentant about his controversial views, secure in his belief that he had discovered truths about politics that his contemporaries were not ready to accept His immediate influence was mixed. Leviathan was widely read but even more widely condemned He was accused of atheism, materialism,
4:31:52
determinism, and justifying tyranny. His works were officially censored Oxford University burned his books. The church hierarchy saw him as dangerous to religion Republicans saw him as an apologist for absolutism. Royalists were uncomfortable with his purely secular justification of monarchy, preferring divine right theory Almost everyone found something objectionable in Hobbes. Yet Leviathan could not be ignored Its arguments were too powerful, its prose too vivid,
4:32:34
its vision too compelling to dismiss. Political philosophers felt compelled to respond, usually by trying to refute him but sometimes by adapting his insights to more palatable conclusions Hobbes became the thinker you had to argue against to establish your own position. His influence was often negative, providing the views that others defined themselves against, but negative influence is still influence John Locke, writing a generation after Hobbes, constructed his political philosophy
4:33:12
partly in response to Hobbesian absolutism. Locke accepted the social contract framework but argued that the contract creates a limited government with reciprocal obligations between rulers and ruled He accepted that the state of nature poses problems but argued it is not as bad as Hobbes claimed, since natural law binds people even without government. He accepted the importance of security but argued that property rights and individual liberty are equally important
4:33:49
Locke's Second Treatise on Government reads as a systematic critique of Hobbes, appropriating his methods while rejecting his conclusions. The influence on Locke was profound Locke's social contract, limited government, natural rights, consent of the governed, and right of revolution against tyranny all develop by modifying Hobbes. Without Hobbes to argue against, Locke might not have developed his liberalism as he did The history of liberal political philosophy begins with
4:34:26
Hobbes not because liberals agree with him but because they define liberalism through rejecting his absolutism while accepting his contractarian framework. Rousseau engaged with Hobbes even more explicitly The Social Contract opens with Hobbes' problem: how to reconcile social order with individual freedom. But Rousseau rejects Hobbes' solution, arguing that sovereignty belongs inalienably to the people collectively The general will, not an absolute monarch or assembly, is sovereign.
4:35:06
Citizens are simultaneously subjects, bound by law, and sovereigns, makers of law Freedom consists in obeying laws you gave yourself. This is radically different from Hobbes, but the framework, the problem, and the method are all Hobbesian Rousseau also corrected Hobbes' account of human nature. In the Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau argues that Hobbes mistakenly projected civilized vices onto natural humans In the true state of nature, humans were neither good nor bad but innocent,
4:35:49
concerned with immediate survival and compassionate toward others' suffering. It was society, particularly private property and inequality, that corrupted humans and generated the competition and conflict Hobbes described Rousseau's philosophy can be read as a sustained argument with Hobbes about human nature and society. Kant, too, engaged with Hobbes while developing his own political philosophy Kant agreed that the state of nature is a condition to
4:36:26
be escaped but rejected Hobbes' empirical psychology in favor of transcendental moral philosophy. For Kant, political obligation rests not on self-interest or consent but on the categorical imperative, the moral law that binds rational beings as such The state's legitimacy comes from embodying right, not from providing security. Citizens have duties to obey lawful authority, but authority itself is constrained by principles of right that no legitimate state can violate Kant also addressed
4:37:08
international relations explicitly where Hobbes had been brief, proposing in Perpetual Peace a federation of republican states that would maintain peace without world government. This combines Hobbesian realism about state interests with Kantian idealism about the possibility of perpetual peace It shows how Hobbes' framework can be adapted to very different conclusions. The Kantian tradition in international relations, emphasizing international law, human rights, and global institutions,
4:37:44
is the anti-Hobbesian position, but it is defined in dialogue with Hobbesian realism Hegel criticized Hobbes for reducing the state to a contract among individuals for mutual advantage. For Hegel, the state is not an artificial construct but the highest expression of ethical life, the actualization of freedom in history The state embodies the rational structure of social and political existence, transcending individual interests. Hegel rejects Hobbes' atomistic starting point,
4:38:21
insisting that individuals are always already social beings formed by culture, language, and institutions The social contract is a useful fiction but not the deep truth about political life. Utilitarian thinkers like Bentham and Mill engaged with Hobbes' emphasis on consequences and utility Bentham appreciated Hobbes' secular, rationalist approach to politics and his focus on promoting happiness and avoiding misery. But Bentham rejected Hobbes' absolutism,
4:38:59
arguing that utility requires limited government with constitutional constraints, democratic accountability, and individual rights The greatest happiness principle might support strong government, but it also requires protecting individuals from governmental abuse. Utilitarian liberalism borrows Hobbes' consequentialism while rejecting his authoritarianism Marx criticized Hobbes as an ideologist of the bourgeoisie, naturalizing capitalist social relations
4:39:36
by projecting them onto the state of nature. The competitive individuals Hobbes describes are not universal humans but specifically bourgeois subjects shaped by market competition and private property Hobbes' political philosophy legitimates bourgeois rule by making it seem natural and necessary. A truly critical political philosophy would reveal the historical contingency of these arrangements and envision alternatives While Marx's critique is harsh, it shows Hobbes' continuing relevance to
4:40:15
debates about capitalism and class. In the twentieth century, Hobbes experienced a revival in multiple fields Political philosophy rediscovered him as analytic philosophy brought new tools for examining his arguments. Scholars like Rawls, Hampton, and Kavka analyzed the logic of the state of nature, the rationality of covenants, and the structure of sovereignty with unprecedented rigor They showed that Hobbes' arguments, despite their archaic presentation,
4:40:52
raise deep questions about rationality, cooperation, and political obligation that remain unsolved. Carl Schmitt, the controversial German legal theorist, found in Hobbes a kindred spirit emphasizing sovereignty, decisionism, and the friend-enemy distinction in politics Schmitt's interpretation, developed during the Weimar Republic and early Nazi period, stressed Hobbes' authoritarian elements and his claim that sovereignty consists in deciding the exception,
4:41:27
the ability to suspend normal law in emergencies. This reading influenced debates about dictatorship, constitutional crisis, and the limits of liberal democracy It also showed how Hobbes could be appropriated for illiberal purposes. Leo Strauss offered a different interpretation, arguing that Hobbes marks the beginning of modernity's break with classical political philosophy Ancient and medieval thinkers grounded politics in natural right and teleology, asking how to achieve the good life.
4:42:07
Hobbes rejected this, founding politics instead on fear of death and the desire for self-preservation This shift inaugurated modern liberalism, with its emphasis on rights, consent, and limited government, but at the cost of abandoning the quest for human excellence. Strauss' Hobbes is the first modern, for better or worse Hannah Arendt engaged with Hobbes critically in The Origins of Totalitarianism, arguing that aspects of his thought, particularly his elevation of
4:42:45
self-preservation above all other values and his conception of humans as isolated individuals, contributed to the conditions that made twentieth-century totalitarianism possible. This is a harsh judgment, blaming Hobbes partly for horrors two and a half centuries after his death But it reflects how seriously Arendt took ideas as shaping political possibilities. For her, Hobbes' mistakes were not merely theoretical but had practical consequences In international relations theory,
4:43:24
as discussed earlier, Hobbes became the foundational figure for realism, whether or not he was actually as realist as his reputation suggests. Morgenthau, Waltz, Mearsheimer, and other realists invoke Hobbes to support claims about the inevitability of power politics, the limits of international law, and the dangers of idealism in foreign policy Critics of realism must therefore engage with Hobbes, either reinterpreting him as less realist than commonly thought or accepting his
4:44:02
realism while arguing it is incomplete or wrong. Game theorists and rational choice theorists, as discussed, found in Hobbes a precursor who identified cooperation problems and their solutions with remarkable insight The Prisoner's Dilemma, collective action problems, social dilemmas, and related concepts all appear in inchoate form in Hobbes' analysis of the state of nature. Formalizing these ideas mathematically vindicated many of Hobbes' intuitions while also showing their limits The
4:44:42
contemporary economics of cooperation builds on Hobbesian foundations while going far beyond anything Hobbes imagined. Hobbes also influenced legal philosophy, particularly legal positivism His definition of law as the sovereign's command, with no necessary connection to morality, became central to positivist legal theory. Hart, Kelsen, and other positivists developed sophisticated versions of this view, arguing that law's validity depends on social facts,
4:45:19
not moral merit This opposes natural law theory, which insists that unjust laws are not truly laws. The debate between positivists and natural law theorists, which continues today, has Hobbes as a founding figure on the positivist side In popular culture, Hobbes has become shorthand for pessimistic views of human nature and authoritarian politics. "Hobbesian" describes situations of ruthless competition, war of all against all, or life that is nasty, brutish,
4:46:00
and short The cartoon character Hobbes, the stuffed tiger in Calvin and Hobbes, was named for Thomas Hobbes by cartoonist Bill Watterson. This popularization shows how deeply Hobbes has penetrated cultural consciousness, though often in simplified or caricatured form What is Hobbes' legacy? At the most abstract level, he established the framework for modern political philosophy. Questions about the basis of political obligation, the justification of state power,
4:46:40
the relationship between individual and society, and the balance between freedom and security are all framed in terms Hobbes helped establish Even those who reject his answers must engage with his questions. More specifically, Hobbes established social contract theory as a method for justifying political authority The idea that government rests on consent, that political obligation must be rationally justified, that we can imagine a pre-political
4:47:14
condition to clarify what government accomplishes, all these ideas come from the contractarian tradition Hobbes founded. Subsequent contract theorists modify and improve his version, but they work within his paradigm Hobbes also established philosophical realism about politics, the insistence on seeing politics as it is rather than as we wish it to be. He refused to assume humans are virtuous, societies are just, or reason will prevail He started from the worst-case scenario and asked what
4:47:55
institutions could manage even the worst aspects of human nature. This realism can be excessive, becoming cynicism or pessimism, but it is a necessary corrective to utopianism Political philosophy must grapple with human failings, not just human potential. The concept of sovereignty as supreme authority within a territory, though not invented by Hobbes, was given its most rigorous formulation by him Debates about sovereignty, whether states are truly sovereign in a globalized world,
4:48:34
whether popular sovereignty is coherent, whether international law limits sovereignty, all reference Hobbesian conceptions. Even critics who reject absolute sovereignty must explain what they mean by sovereignty and why Hobbes was wrong about it Hobbes' materialism and naturalism influenced the development of scientific approaches to politics. If humans are natural creatures subject to natural laws, then human behavior can be studied scientifically If politics arises from human nature,
4:49:12
then understanding human nature illuminates politics. This naturalizing move made possible later developments in political psychology, behavioral economics, evolutionary approaches to politics, and neuropolitics Whether these scientific approaches vindicate or refute Hobbes remains disputed, but they operate in a framework he helped create. Perhaps most importantly, Hobbes forced political philosophy to confront the problem of order How is social cooperation possible?
4:49:50
Why do people obey laws? What prevents society from dissolving into chaos? These questions are fundamental, and every political philosophy must answer them. Hobbes' answer, absolute sovereignty enforcing cooperation, is not the only possible answer, but it sets the standard against which alternatives must be measured Can you achieve order without absolute sovereignty? If so, how? Every political philosophy since Hobbes must answer these Hobbesian questions. What should we make of Hobbes today?
4:50:29
He cannot be accepted wholesale His absolutism is incompatible with modern liberal democracy. His pessimism about human nature is excessive His subordination of religion to politics is unacceptable to believers and secularists alike. His exclusion of women, racial minorities, and colonized peoples from full consideration is morally indefensible His reduction of morality to prudence is philosophically inadequate. These failures are not marginal but
4:51:07
central to his system Yet he cannot be dismissed. The problems he identified are real The state of nature, understood as the problem of cooperation in the absence of enforcement, exists wherever authority is weak or divided. Failed states, civil wars, international anarchy, all exhibit Hobbesian dynamics The need for authority to maintain order is undeniable. The difficulty of balancing freedom and security persists The dangers of divided sovereignty are real,
4:51:49
even if constitutional democracy has found ways to manage them. The importance of incentives in institutional design is fundamental Hobbes is best read neither as oracle nor as villain but as a profound thinker who saw important truths and made important mistakes. His truths: cooperation requires institutions, institutions require authority, authority requires power, power must be concentrated enough to be effective His mistakes: authority need not be absolute, power need not be undivided,
4:52:32
individuals have rights that limit legitimate authority, human nature is more social than he acknowledged, order is compatible with freedom. We should read Hobbes as presenting extreme positions that mark one boundary of political possibility At one extreme is Hobbesian absolutism: unlimited sovereign power, no rights against the state, order at any cost. At the other extreme is pure anarchism: no authority, complete freedom, spontaneous order Between these
4:53:12
extremes lie actual political systems, combining elements of authority and freedom in various proportions. Hobbes helps us understand why pure anarchy does not work, even if his alternative is unacceptable The method of reading Hobbes matters. We can read him charitably, interpreting ambiguities in his favor, giving him credit for insights while acknowledging limitations Or we can read him suspiciously, looking for hidden agendas, crypto-atheism, defense of tyranny.
4:53:51
Charitable reading reveals a complex thinker grappling with real problems Suspicious reading reveals a dangerous ideologist whose influence has been harmful. Both approaches have merit, and the truth probably combines them For students of political philosophy, Hobbes is indispensable. You cannot understand Locke, Rousseau, Kant, or later social contract theorists without understanding what they were reacting against in Hobbes You cannot understand debates about sovereignty, authority,
4:54:30
rights, and obligation without understanding Hobbesian positions. You cannot think clearly about international relations without engaging with Hobbesian realism Hobbes is not the last word in political philosophy, but he is an essential word that anyone serious about politics must confront. For practitioners of politics, policymakers and citizens, Hobbes offers warnings and insights The warning: do not take order for granted.
4:55:06
Civil society is fragile Institutions that maintain peace must be zealously protected. When authority weakens or divides, violence can erupt quickly The costs of civil conflict are so enormous that enormous effort to avoid it is warranted. This does not mean accepting tyranny, but it means recognizing that some authority is necessary and that destroying authority is dangerous The insight: institutions must work with human nature, not against it. Do not assume people will be virtuous or
4:55:50
self-sacrificing Design institutions that channel self-interest toward public benefit. Use incentives, not just appeals to conscience Concentrate power enough to be effective but not so much that it becomes tyrannical. This is easier said than done, but the principle is sound For moral philosophy, Hobbes presents enduring challenges. Can morality be derived from self-interest? Can obligations be reduced to contracts? Is justice conventional or natural? Is there such a thing as natural law
4:56:34
binding even without enforcement? Hobbes answered these questions in one way, but the questions remain open Subsequent moral philosophy has largely rejected his answers while continuing to grapple with his questions. The final verdict on Hobbes must be mixed He was a genius who transformed political philosophy, but also a man of his time whose assumptions now seem dated or wrong. He identified real problems but proposed unacceptable solutions He pioneered
4:57:14
methods that remain valuable but reached conclusions that must be rejected. He influences us profoundly but we cannot follow him Perhaps the right way to honor Hobbes is not to agree with him but to engage with him seriously, to understand why he thought as he did, to appreciate his insights while recognizing his limitations, and to build on his work while correcting his errors. Political philosophy progresses not by rejecting the past but by engaging it critically,
4:57:49
taking what is valuable and discarding what is not Hobbes gave us indispensable tools for thinking about politics. How we use those tools is up to us Four centuries after Leviathan was published, we still live in Hobbes' world: a world where political authority requires justification, where individuals question rather than automatically accept hierarchy, where cooperation is difficult and must be worked at, where violence lurks beneath the surface of civilization,
4:58:27
where the problem of order remains pressing. Hobbes did not solve these problems definitively, but he formulated them with unsurpassed clarity and power For that alone, he deserves to be read, taught, and debated as long as humans live in political communities. The image from Leviathan's frontispiece endures: the great artificial person, the sovereign, composed of countless human bodies, standing over the landscape with sword in one hand and crosier in the other,
4:59:03
symbolizing temporal and spiritual power united This is Hobbes' vision of political order: many becoming one, individuals subordinated to collective authority, power concentrated to maintain peace. We may reject this vision, but we cannot escape the question it poses: how shall we live together? What authority will govern us? How can we balance freedom and security, individuality and community, rights and order? These are the eternal questions of political philosophy,
4:59:42
and Thomas Hobbes remains our most challenging guide to them We are all, in some sense, Hobbes' children, whether we acknowledge him or not. His ghost haunts political philosophy and political practice We argue with him, reject him, adapt him, but we cannot ignore him. That is the mark of a truly great philosopher: not that we agree with him, but that we must engage with him By that standard, Thomas Hobbes achieved an enduring greatness that few thinkers in any field can match
Here to help you learn
Sign in to keep a private conversation with your course tutor.
Ask me anything about the material…
Sign in to chat