Hobbes’s Leviathan, Chapters XVI-XXV

These discussion questions are meant to serve as jumping-off points for wider conversation about the issues and questions raised in the text.

Hobbes, of course, has something of a bad reputation. This stems in part because of the manner in which he is often taught: people today often read chapter XIII-XV, and think that they have understood the Leviathan. This leads to the assumption that Hobbes argues in favor of absolutism or tyranny of some sort. But in truth, as we can see, Hobbes actually brings us toward a liberal regime. Hobbes is very much the father of liberalism. How does the liberal commonwealth, dedicated to the protection of the citizen, emerge from the state of nature? What do you see in the earlier chapters (for example, XIII) that point toward this liberalism?
How are the rights and duties of the sovereign and citizen related? Some critics think Hobbes is an authoritarian, and that the government doesn’t really have any obligations to the citizens. Carl Schmitt (an influential 20th century German legal philosopher) criticized Hobbes for being a “bad” authoritarian – i.e., Hobbes accidentally leaves room for claims against the sovereign, individual autonomy, etc. Do you think he si right that this is an error on Hobbes’s part? Or is it intentional? What evidence do you see for both positions?

ANSWER

Hobbes’s Leviathan, Chapters XVI-XXV

It is true and common for people to deduce that the type of government Hobbes promoted was a monarchy because he inferred that it is only in such type of government could peace be guaranteed. However, he did not exclusively state his support for absolutism; instead, he supposed that it is vital that there is a supreme sovereign power of some kind in any society without saying exactly which sovereign power was most appropriate. However, in Chapters XVI-XVV, Hobbes can be appropriately be assigned the title ‘the father of liberalism.’ He suggests that a proper government results from the individual actions of various people who possess different traits. These individual interests went ahead to become the term that was the foundation and development of a liberal government.

This discussion eventually led to the social contract theory, which most people have argued is not about democracy but a monarchy. It is difficult to conclusively deduce which option he stood for with his back and forth. On the one hand, a strong autocratic was vital for peace in the society, and yet, on the other hand, individual interest formed the basis of a government where each individual was entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. However, between Chapters XVI-XXV, he was a liberal and defended liberty and a limited government. Judd Owen calls this the ‘Paradox of Liberalism’, where toleration is “liberalism’s defining characteristic with individual rights being maintained more or less unconditionally” (Owen 2005). The reason is that Hobbes came out in support of individual rights but not entirely because they were dependant on sovereign authority. A liberal was an absolutist who was indifferent and not hostile to a supreme sovereign authority.

References

Hobbes, T. (1965). Leviathan, reprinted from the edition of 1651. Clarendon Press.

Owen, J. (2005). The Tolerant Leviathan: Hobbes and the Paradox of Liberalism. Polity, 37(1), 130-148. Retrieved December 5, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3877065