Hobbes On Force Why Legitimacy In Monarchy Creation Differs From Resistance

Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan is a cornerstone of Western political philosophy, grappling with fundamental questions of social order, sovereignty, and the legitimacy of government. However, the work is often perceived as paradoxical, particularly in its stance on the use of force. This article delves into the seeming contradiction in Hobbes's philosophy: Why does Hobbes legitimate the use of force in the creation of a monarchy but delegitimize it when resisting a monarchy? Understanding this apparent inconsistency requires a close examination of Hobbes's core arguments about the state of nature, the social contract, the nature of sovereignty, and the right to self-preservation.

To grasp Hobbes's justification for the use of force in establishing a monarchy, it's crucial to first understand his concept of the state of nature. Hobbes posits a pre-political condition where there is no overarching authority to enforce laws or mediate disputes. In this state, individuals are free to do whatever they deem necessary for their self-preservation. This freedom, however, leads to a “war of all against all,” a condition where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In this grim scenario, there is no morality, justice, or societal progress. Every individual is driven by self-interest and a constant fear of death. This understanding of human nature as fundamentally self-interested and fearful is a cornerstone of Hobbes's political thought.

In the state of nature, individuals possess a natural right to self-preservation, which includes the right to use any means necessary to defend themselves. This right, however, creates a situation of constant conflict. To escape this perpetual state of war, Hobbes argues that individuals must enter into a social contract. This contract involves surrendering their individual rights and freedoms to a sovereign power capable of enforcing laws and maintaining order. The social contract is not between the people and the sovereign, but rather among the people themselves, where they mutually agree to submit to a common authority. This distinction is critical because it underscores Hobbes's view that the sovereign is not bound by any covenant with the people and retains absolute authority. The motivation for entering this contract is, fundamentally, self-preservation: individuals trade their freedom for security.

According to Hobbes, the sovereign power must be absolute and indivisible to effectively maintain peace and security. This is because any division of power would inevitably lead to conflict among different factions, thus undermining the very purpose of the social contract. Hobbes identifies three possible forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. However, he argues that monarchy is the most effective form because the interests of the monarch are most closely aligned with the interests of the people. A monarch, being a single individual, is less likely to be swayed by competing interests and is more capable of making swift and decisive decisions.

Hobbes justifies the use of force in the creation of a monarchy because the establishment of a sovereign power requires the subjugation of individual wills to a single, unified will. In the tumultuous state of nature, individuals are unlikely to voluntarily surrender their rights and freedoms unless compelled to do so. Therefore, force, or the threat of force, is necessary to bring individuals to the table and persuade them to enter into the social contract. The creation of the sovereign, in Hobbes’s view, is an act of establishing a power capable of enforcing the terms of the contract and maintaining peace. This initial use of force is legitimized by the ultimate goal of escaping the state of nature and securing self-preservation for all. The sovereign, once established, holds the monopoly on the legitimate use of force, essential for enforcing laws and suppressing dissent. This monopoly is not merely a matter of practical necessity but is intrinsic to the very definition of sovereignty in Hobbes's framework. Without the power to enforce its will, the sovereign would be unable to provide the security that individuals sought in entering the social contract.

The seeming contradiction arises when considering Hobbes's stance on resistance to the sovereign. While he justifies the use of force in establishing the monarchy, he vehemently opposes the use of force in resisting it. This position stems from his understanding of the purpose of the social contract and the nature of sovereignty. Once the social contract is in place, individuals have essentially transferred their right to self-governance to the sovereign. To resist the sovereign is to violate the contract and revert to the state of nature, a condition far worse than any potential tyranny under a single ruler. Hobbes argues that the dangers of anarchy and civil war far outweigh the risks of living under an absolute sovereign, even if that sovereign is unjust or oppressive.

Moreover, Hobbes believes that the sovereign's authority is absolute and indivisible. Any resistance to the sovereign undermines this authority and threatens to destabilize the commonwealth. If individuals were allowed to resist the sovereign whenever they deemed its actions unjust, society would quickly descend into chaos. The right to judge the sovereign's actions, Hobbes contends, cannot rest with individual citizens but must reside solely with the sovereign itself. This concentration of power is necessary to prevent the constant strife and conflict that characterize the state of nature. However, this does not mean that Hobbes condones tyranny. He believes that a wise sovereign will govern justly and for the common good because the sovereign's own well-being is intertwined with the well-being of the commonwealth. A tyrannical ruler risks provoking rebellion, which would ultimately threaten their own power and security.

However, Hobbes's stance on resistance is not without nuance. While he generally delegitimizes resistance to the sovereign, he acknowledges that individuals retain a inalienable right to self-preservation. This right cannot be surrendered in the social contract because it is the very basis upon which the contract is formed. If the sovereign directly threatens an individual's life, that individual has the right to resist. For example, if the sovereign orders a person to kill themselves, that person is justified in disobeying the order. This exception is crucial because it highlights the limits of sovereignty in Hobbes's philosophy. The social contract is designed to secure self-preservation, and it cannot logically require individuals to sacrifice their own lives. This right to self-preservation is not a general right to rebellion but rather a specific right to protect oneself from imminent death. It is a last resort, a recognition that the ultimate purpose of government is to protect the lives of its citizens.

This exception, however, does not undermine Hobbes's overall argument against resistance. The right to self-preservation is a personal right, applicable only in situations where an individual's life is directly threatened. It does not extend to cases of general injustice or oppression. Hobbes maintains that the potential for abuse by the sovereign is a lesser evil than the certainty of chaos and violence in the absence of a strong central authority. The justification for this position lies in his pessimistic view of human nature and his conviction that the primary goal of government is to maintain order and security. Without a powerful sovereign to enforce laws and suppress dissent, society would inevitably descend into a state of war. This is the fundamental premise underlying Hobbes's political philosophy.

The apparent contradiction in Hobbes's stance on force can be resolved by understanding the context and purpose behind his arguments. The legitimization of force in creating a monarchy is justified as a necessary means to escape the state of nature and establish a social order. It is a one-time act that establishes the conditions for peace and security. On the other hand, the delegitimization of force in resisting a monarchy is aimed at preserving that social order once it has been established. Resistance to the sovereign threatens to unravel the social contract and return society to the state of nature. The use of force in the creation of a monarchy is a foundational act, whereas the use of force in resisting a monarchy is a destructive act.

Hobbes's overarching goal is to establish a stable and secure society. He believes that this can only be achieved through a strong, centralized authority capable of enforcing laws and suppressing dissent. The potential for abuse by the sovereign is a risk that must be accepted in order to avoid the greater risk of anarchy and civil war. This is the core of Hobbes's argument, and it explains his seemingly contradictory stance on the use of force. He is not advocating for tyranny but rather for a system of government that prioritizes order and security above all else.

In conclusion, Hobbes's seemingly contradictory stance on the use of force is rooted in his understanding of the state of nature, the social contract, and the nature of sovereignty. He legitimizes force in the creation of a monarchy as a necessary means to escape the state of nature and establish a social order. He delegitimizes force in resisting a monarchy to preserve that social order and prevent a return to chaos. While individuals retain a right to self-preservation, this right does not extend to a general right of rebellion. Hobbes's primary concern is to establish a stable and secure society, and he believes that this can only be achieved through a strong, centralized authority. Understanding this overarching goal is essential for resolving the apparent contradiction in his philosophy and appreciating the coherence of his political thought. Hobbes's work continues to be relevant today because it grapples with fundamental questions about the nature of government, the balance between individual rights and social order, and the role of force in maintaining peace and security.