Essay on Thomas Hobbes
Governing a country is an extremely important matter. Many countries around the world have very different opinions on how this should be done. In “Hobbes Leviathan,” Thomas Hobbes claims that there are three distinct forms of government that can exist. The first of these is monarchy where there is a single sovereign person who rules with absolute power. The second is Democracy in which entire assemblies of people rule such that the assemblies are all considered one sovereign power. Last, an aristocracy in which an assembly of nominated people rule such that the assembly as a whole has the sovereign power. According to Hobbes, these are the only three forms of government and all others can be reduced to these. Also, Hobbes claims that Monarchy is the best of the three. Considering that Hobbes definitions of these three forms are all very general, I accept that any form of government can fit into one of them. However, I completely disagree that a monarchy is the best of the three and believe that Hobbes presents a very poor justification to support this.
According to Hobbes, any government can be labeled as a monarchy, democracy, or aristocracy. He first mentions other names of government like tyranny, oligarchy, and anarchy and claims that these are “not the names of other forms of government, but the same forms disliked (Hobbes 134).” Hobbes continues to explain how other examples of government can fit his three general categories as well. He claims that an elected king is either a monarch or an aristocracy since “none have the right to give that which they have not right to posses (Hobbes 134).” Hence, if the elected king chooses his successor, this king is the monarch, and if and assembly chooses then that assembly has the sovereign power and hence you have an aristocracy. Also, he claims that if you have a king whose power is limited then “the sovereignty is the assembly which has the right to limit it (Hobbes 134).” Thus, in this case you either have a democracy or an aristocracy. Finally, Hobbes describes how one nation with an established government can be in control of a different common-wealth. He claims that if these people in the common-wealth are “governed by an assembly chosen by themselves out of their own number, the government is called a democracy, or aristocracy, yet when they an assembly not of their own choosing, it’s a monarchy (Hobbes 135).” Hobbes definitions of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy can basically be reduced to rule by many, rule by few, or rule by one respectively, which is about as general as one can get. Hence, I agree that one can logically reduce any government down to fit one of these three categories.
Although I agree that Hobbes has logically determined three general categories that any form of government can fit under, I do not think he has established a logical justification to prove a monarchy is the best choice. Hobbes gives six arguments to attempt to show that a monarchy is the best form and that the other two leave a common-wealth at great risk of falling into civil war. First, Hobbes attempts to argue that a monarchy’s “private interests are the same as his public interests (Hobbes 131).” I believe this statement is completely illogical. The private interests of a monarch can very well be different then his or her public interests. For example, the CEO of a corporation is very much like a monarch. Hobbes himself claims that the “father, and master bring before the institution of the common-wealth, absolute sovereigns in their own families, they loose afterward no more of their authority, then the law of the common-wealth takes from them (Hobbes ).” Hence, the CEO in a corporation is essentially a sovereign ruler for that company who must follow the rules of the common-wealth. However, there have been many examples of CEO’s cheating their companies to give themselves most of the profit and causing the company to eventually fall into bankruptcy. Even though the sovereign CEO’s riches “arise only from the riches, strengths, and honor of his subjects” he still embraced private interests which harm his subjects and ultimately his company (Hobbes 131). Hence, this could just as easily happen to a sovereign king over a common-wealth. Second, Hobbes claims that the monarchy will receive better advice since the monarch can choose any advisor he or she wants and hear this advisor in private. However, an assembly can not receive advice in private so they can only listen to the specific advice from those that are accepted by the public. However, I would argue that having the issue brought out into the public is a better system since the assembly can then receive advise directly from their advisors and indirectly from outspoken outsiders and hence hear all aspects of the situation and become better suited to make a rational decision. Third, Hobbes claims that a monarch’s policies will be consistent since he has one mind, but an assembly will have very inconsistent policies since people can not all think alike. However, I see no reason why the sovereign cannot suddenly change his mind on certain policies. For example, if the sovereign has a personal dispute with a sovereign from a different common-wealth, he may become angry and declare it illegal to trade with this common-wealth. However, if the sovereign then makes friends once again with this other sovereign, he will quickly reverse his policy. As for an assembly, this could not so easily happen since one member’s personal feelings would hardly convince the entire assembly. Fourth, Hobbes claims that since a monarch cannot disagree with himself, there is little chance of civil war. Conversely, with an assembly, if the members disagree, a civil war is likely to happen. I believe this is also very illogical since any assembly can simply allow the majority to rule and hence avoid this problem altogether. Certainly a civil war can occur if different members of an assembly so strongly disagree that they attempt to rally people to stand by them and fight for their way, but a revolution is just as likely to occur in a monarchy if the public begins to disapprove of the sovereign which can be just a dangerous as civil war. Fifth, Hobbes claims that all share a common “great and inevitable inconvenience” since both assemblies and monarchs may deprive a person in the common-wealth “for the enlightening of a favorite or flatterer (Hobbes 132).” However, he believes that this is worse with an assembly since the assembly has more favorites and flatterers. Even though Hobbes blatantly contradicts himself since he previously claimed that a monarchs “private interests are the same as his public interests,” but now claims that the monarch is serving a private interest which goes completely against his public interest, I must admit that this is one problem that may occur more often in an assembly (Hobbes 131).” Finally, Hobbes claims that a monarch can peacefully and easily choose his next successor, but with an assembly there will be competition for a seat which can cause a civil war. I think this is the worst point Hobbes makes of all. For one, the subjects in the common-wealth can simply live under a covenant that determines some system for choosing the next to enter the assembly. Typically, they would simply allow the majority to rule and vote in members. Hobbes extends this point by claiming that a sovereign must be “artificially eternal” or the common-wealth will “return to war on every age (Hobbes 135).” He believes there must be a system to allow the changing of the sovereign power so the sovereign can live on eternally. Hobbes claims that either the sovereign should choose the next successor or allow tradition to handle this. He states that a child of the sovereign is preferred, but if not then “the children of other men” and if not that then someone else and so on (Hobbes 137).” However, Hobbes never mentions the immense problem that could arise since those in line to become sovereign may attempt to kill the ones who have precedence over them or the one who is next to become king may even want to kill the sovereign himself. Hence, the sovereign’s life would constantly be in danger from those inside his own kingdom. Also, if the sovereign is murdered, some may accuse his replacement for the crime which would throw the system into confusion, leaving them with no sovereign and return them “into the condition of war (Hobbes 135).”
In my opinion, Hobbes argument favoring a monarchy is illogical and manipulative. He seems to point out many things that he claims will cause a sovereign assembly to fail, yet never mentions the many problems of a monarchy. I cannot help to wonder what Hobbes would think if he were alive today and could observe so many functioning nations under sovereign assemblies living as peaceful as one could hope for.
____________
Attention! Free sample Philosophy essays and Philosophy essay examples can be used in instructional purposes only. Remember all free Philosophy papers you can find anywhere online are 100% plagiarized. If you want to order a custom Philosophy essay, Philosophy research paper, Philosophy term paper or Philosophy thesis/dissertation written by highly qualified writers - you should contact professional writing services which are committed to provide high-quality custom papers in Philosophy. You can find top custom writing companies listed rightside at our blogroll side-bar.
