Monday, September 12, 2016
Hobbes, of material exsistence and contracts
I greatly appreciated that Hobbes, writing at a time when it was dangerous to do so, spent a significant portion of his time logically laying out that man need not resort to incorporeal explanations for nature. His outline of the natural state of man appealed to me, most specifically when he was discussing the difference between good and evil, and how the highest good is survival of man. I find this idea to be something which is often overlooked by both religions and ideologies alike as each attempts to preserve themselves at the expense of the humans who make those systems up. Hobbes' advocacy for an early form of humanism (a system of thought with humans of singular importance) was revolutionary, and while hard to read, relatively easy to understand.
I also enjoyed Hobbes' argument for a social contract. I have long debated with my libertarian friends and family about the merits of government, and how without government there is only chaos and death. As Hobbes laid out how the natural state of man is just one man warring against all others I found myself nodding in agreement and wanting to read more (I know, hard to believe considering all the misspellings).
I do think Hobbes went a little far in saying that the people who make a contract with their leader can never revoke that contract (Hobbes 1651, p. 97). Without the ability of people to hold their leader accountable their are not truly represented. Society does need the ability make a contract with a leader which is binding, but just as all modern contracts have clauses in the case of extreme circumstances, the social contract must have such a clause in order to prevent abuse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Tim, I agree with your statement that Hobbes went too far when he wrote that the contract that the subjects make with their leader can never be revoked. In my blog post I raised the question what he would think about former leaders like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot who all turned around and killed their own citizens or let them starve to death. I am convinced that, if he were alive today and see what's going on in today's world where there are leaders like Assad and Kim Jong-un, he would shake his head and say to himself, "what was I thinking when I wrote that people's contract with their leader cannot be revoked?"
ReplyDeleteI agree with your that leadership is necessary, otherwise there would be chaos and death. However, I cannot say that I enjoyed reading his arguments about the social contract. I think he is just too pessimistic when it comes to the human state of nature.
Tim, I am glad that you brought up this point of how society can/should react if a social contract is not being fulfilled by a leader. This is one of the most crucial elements of good governance in our society today but it was not discussed much, if at all, in class this week.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me think about one of the strongest features of our government in the USA - our system of checks and balances. I truly believe that this institutionalized process in our government prevents our leaders from becoming the very type of absolute sovereign that Hobbes idealizes. Of course, to utilize our system correctly, our people must have basic education and the ability engage our checks and balances when appropriate but they also don't have a fear that the current leaders will react with coercive power. Yes, this was not always the case and our government has failed at not using coercive power against its people but it is wholly agreed that it is not an ideal situation.
Thanks again for bringing up this topic.