Excerpt
Leviathan or the Discourse on Human Infallibility
Thomas Hobbes’s discussion of the state of nature is necessary to understand the nature and powers of the sovereign in a commonwealth. A commonwealth is a person, or a group of men who defend people from foreigners and from the injuries of one another, and compel their performance to their covenant by fear [Penguin Classics edition’s page numbers].[1] This essay argues that Hobbes’s claim that the sovereign has the power and right to judge what opinions and doctrines are fit to be taught is flawed because the sovereign’s judgment can be erroneous and consequentially provoke grievances, resulting in civil war. To do so, I will first examine how according to Hobbes’s fundamental law of nature, men endeavour to live in peace, justifying the need for a commonwealth and sovereign to have power and the right to judge what opinions and doctrines are fit to be taught. I will also explain how the sovereign’s right to make judgments helps men to avoid the state of nature. Then, I will analyze how the sovereign can make erroneous judgments, resulting in abuses of speech and dissidence. Finally, I will refute the challenging counter-argument to my thesis, which claims that erroneous doctrines are subjective, for neither the sovereign nor his subjects can realize that erroneous doctrines have been made.
Men have equal intellectual and physical capabilities and from this equality arises competition for power, where men struggle over the same means to attain some future good.[2] Men thus live in a state of fear and uncertainty, a state of war, “wherein the will to contend by Battell is known”, and where there is no place for industry, no commerce or culture of the Earth.[3] Yet, according to Hobbes’s fundamental law of nature, men strive to live in peace and are willing to give up their liberty under a social contract.[4] Such social contract is nevertheless void if there is no common sovereign to compel individuals to perform to their contracts by coercion. As Hobbes puts it, “words are insufficient to bridle people’s ambition and passion; covenants are not effective without the sword.”[5] The sovereign must have the powers and rights necessary to protect his subjects and peace.[6]
The sovereign is thus vested with different powers such as the right to judge what opinions and doctrines are averse, or conducting to peace.[7] The sovereign has the authority to make laws and doctrines, setting constraints to bridle men’s avarice, anger and thoughts. The sovereign’s right to make laws and doctrines is an indivisible right, for it provides unity in politics to preserve peace and concord.[8] Otherwise, men will be free to follow their own train of thoughts to attain their relentless desire for power.[9] Individual thought is so pervasive that it drives men to use any means such as speech to attain power, creating competition and violence, resulting in a state of civil war. Speech is a verbal set of words, which men use to express their desires and preferences.[10] Men can abusively use speech to deceive and grieve one another with the tongue, creating diffidence and conflict.[11] There must be consequentially an authority to set constraints to bridle men’s avarice and thoughts to preserve peace and avoid the division of powers.[12] An example of the failure of the sovereign to constrain men’s passions and different ideologies is during 15th century England, in which following a disagreement between politics and religion, the commonwealth disintegrated, leading to civil war.
The sovereign’s power and right to judge what opinions and doctrines are fit to be taught can be also justified by a negative political morality. The sovereign’s right to judge what opinions and doctrines are fit to be taught allows men to avoid “Diseases of a Common-wealth”, which are doctrines averse to peace and the commonwealth. A doctrine, which leads to the dissolution of the commonwealth, is that every private man is judge of good and evil actions.[13] Men are in a state to debate and accuse each other through their speech. If men are solely driven by their partiality of what is good or bad, there will no unity or any kind, but war.[14] Supernatural inspiration also leads to the partiality of reasoning; people may not recognize one another’s divine inspiration and disagree. Hence to prevent dissidence and civil war, the sovereign must have the indivisible right to judge what opinions and doctrines are fit to be taught, for if the sovereign gives away the power of making doctrines, his subjects will be “frighted into rebellion.”[15] The sovereign must have the capacity to set off constraints on his subjects, who would be otherwise free to extend their liberty of action and impose their opinions on others, resulting in civil war.
I find Hobbes’s argument that the sovereign be judge of what opinions and doctrines are fit to be taught flawed because the sovereign can, by negligence or unskillfulness, make errors in judging what opinions and doctrines are averse or conducting to peace. For Hobbes, false doctrines are worse than ignorance: “between true Science and erroneous doctrines, Ignorance is in the middle.”[16] Erroneous doctrines create wrong definitions—which are settled significations—creating abuses of speech, where men “register their thoughts wrong by the inconstancy of their words”. This can lead to deception and grievances.[17] Therefore, false theories can result in abuses of speech, which create dissidence and conflict between men, bringing men back to the state of nature. This is a fatal flaw to Hobbes’s claim that the sovereign has the right to decide what opinions and doctrines are fit to be taught to men. A commonwealth provides the conditions in which men could go on with life in security, but my criticism demonstrates how the sovereign is not so much capable to protect people by judging what doctrines are averse or conducting to peace because he can make erroneous judgments, leading to dissidence and conflict. By making erroneous judgments by negligence or unskillfulness, the sovereign cannot guarantee unity in thoughts, which is necessary to preserve peace and stability. The actions of men will thus proceed from individual opinions; men will be free to use any means to fulfill their desires for power. Therefore, Hobbes’s claim that the sovereign has the right to judge what opinions and doctrines are averse or conducting to peace is flawed. This is due to the fact that not only can the sovereign make false judgments, creating abuses of speech and dissidence, but also because the sovereign’s inability to guarantee peace fail to unite men, who follow their desires and passions, creating a state of war.
[...]
[1] Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. (London: Penguin Classics, 1968), 227.
[2] Ibid., 183.
[3] Ibid., 186.
[4] Ibid., 192.
[5] Ibid., 223.
[6] Ibid., 227.
[7] Ibid., 235.
[8] Ibid., 233.
[9] Ibid., 95.
[10] Ibid., 100.
[11] Ibid., 102.
[12] Ibid., 236.
[13] Ibid., 365.
[14] Ibid., 224.
[15] Ibid., 236.
[16] Ibid., 106.
[17] Ibid., 103.