Reflection on Morality in Leviathan (week 2)

Today's class discussion revolved around several key themes from Leviathan, including: morality, strength, the state of nature and leadership. I was very intrigued by the conversation that dove deeper into how a social contract can lead to morality.

To further expand the comments I made in class, I think the relationship between the 'social contract' described by Hobbes and morality is contingent on one's definition of those two terms. Ironically, I think defining key vocabulary is exactly the same way Hobbes would start this discussion as well. He considered language as the building blocks that can both develop and destroy an idea.

Lets define morality as a system that determines what is right and wrong which then influences the way we interact with each other. Additionally, lets define the social contract as an agreement made by all individuals in a society to a greater order/sovereign.

Without a social contract to determine a society's morality, multiple identities would evolve. Poignant examples of this include the multitude of religious identities in our world today as well as the competing political parties in any country's government. These identities and parties have different priorities for society, ideas of right/wrong and even perspectives on how humans should interact. I think that the world maintains such a diversity because there is no single mechanism for global governance in the world today - i.e. there is no absolute sovereign with whom society can pledge a single social contract. Instead, we have an endless number of identities. We have religious, political, cultural, social, familial and gender identities to just name a few.

Maybe this multitude of identities is what Hobbes believes is chaos. Not only do they often conflict with one another but there is no way to prove that one is right and the other is wrong other than one's own moral compass. If man's moral compass is so strong that he is willing to die and kill for his identity than sure, every man is at war with another, as mentioned in Leviathan.

Without an absolute sovereign - a.k.a. leader - to define a social contract, the world would be left to its own devise to define morality. As I mentioned before, types of moralities or identities often conflict. Therefore, sure, maybe Hobbes is correct... The world would indeed be without conflict - or chaos - if an absolute sovereign governed our world. But do all citizens of the Earth really all want to follow the same moral compass? I think not.