![]() ![]() ![]() Much of Leviathan explores how humans might exist outside of civil society, without government. This is done within the framework of Hobbes’ philosophy – based on the assumption that his assertions about human nature are correct. It is concluded that such critiques of a Hobbesian sovereign are unsatisfactory, therefore sovereignty can and must be absolute due to the necessity to limit human nature from disrupting or preventing lasting peace. These reasons mirror the two main sections of this article – the first section presents Hobbes’ argument for why sovereignty must be absolute while a second gives a brief overview of its critiques and considers their validity. ![]() Second, critics of this argument often point to discrepancies between Hobbes’ descriptions of human nature and his account of the logic of social contracts. First, Hobbes’ argument for an absolute sovereign relies heavily on his account of human nature. ![]() Focusing on ideas explored in Leviathan and some surrounding literature, the following pages will take a more holistic approach, examining several of Hobbes’ concepts concurrently. This suggests that his defence of absolutism – defined as ‘unconditional and unified sovereign authority no collective right of resistance’ (ibid.) – is separated from his explorations of human nature and the logic of the social contract before being discredited. Deborah Baumgold (2017, p.215) states that Hobbes’ theory is read ‘for its accounts of human nature and the logic of the social contract rather than its defence of absolute government’. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |