Concept of Fear in Thomas Hobbes' Beliefs: Analytical Essay

Why, according to Hobbes, should subjects obey the Sovereign?

Prima facie, the reason why subjects should obey the Sovereign according to Thomas Hobbes is a relatively simple one, for protection against their fellow man. Hobbes himself writes in Leviathan that without their Sovereign, the natural state of things is simply ‘warre of every one against every one’ . This basic, natural, instinct for protection against our fellow man is a key motivator to the whole of Hobbes’ argument, however there are also other reasons which Hobbes gives to obey the Sovereign than the somewhat bleak reason of avoiding death. As I will go on to detail in this essay, Hobbes fundamentally believes that the total obedience to one’s Sovereign is not just necessary for a secure life, but for a free and meaningful existence too.

Firstly, it is impossible to understand why total obedience was a prerequisite for Hobbes without understanding his philosophy on rationalism and human nature. Thomas Hobbes had a fundamentally sceptical view of human nature and humanity itself. For Hobbes, the human being was just more matter in the universe, a mechanical being which moved and was motivated in the same way other creatures were, but with the added benefit of rational thought. This ability for rationalism allowed us to understand the world in which we live and come to certain conclusions when applied properly, which Hobbes referred to as Natural Law . Hobbes very much focused on the idea of objective nature in the early parts of Leviathan and how it was unattainable for humans as we cannot see nature in its true form without our own biases and experiences affecting our perception, thus, Hobbes grounded his philosophy in that of the subjective, mainly arguing that the principles in which he based his argument need not be universally true, so long as they can be conventionally agreed as a starting point. This is important as it follows a theme which runs through the entire of Leviathan, compromise, and consensus in the aim of peace. Hobbes thought that such a way of approaching science and nature was a prerequisite for peace as the pursuit of universal values would only cause conflict in Hobbes’ eyes.

Once established, his consensus building approach to philosophy then leads to theories about the natural order of man, what Hobbes referred to as ‘The State of Nature’ . As aforementioned, Hobbes wrote of a bloody and violent natural order where man competed and fought against each other for resources like food and shelter. In Leviathan, Hobbes described the State of Nature as a state of ‘Continuall Feare’ Where man had to struggle for the most basic of things, even down to their own survival. In short, Hobbes summed this up in his famous mantra, that life in this state would be ‘Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. Hobbes views the state of nature as devoid of many things in which society enjoys like art, culture and even business as he theorises why anybody would attempt such endeavours when there is the perpetual risk of death. Humanity itself, Hobbes concluded, was obsessed with and motivated by their appetite for personal gain and advancement or as he put it, ‘a perpetual desire of power after power’, in fact he referred to this as the ‘general inclination of all mankind’. Ergo, such an existence would be miserable and fearful and man would rationally want to remove themselves from it. This is where Hobbes introduces the concept of Sovereignty and the Leviathan state.

Drawing on his rationalism, Hobbes argued that the first of his aforementioned natural laws was as simple as this ‘Every man ought to endeavour peace’. Hobbes believed that the intense fear prompted by living in the state of nature would lead mankind to want to escape it, and that rationalism would lead them to the conclusion that peace must be sought, and crucially, maintained. Therefore, Hobbes theorised how to escape the state of nature and ensure mutual protection for all of mankind, in other words, how to attain order. For Hobbes, the only way that the natural appetites of humanity could be quelled is to simulate the intense fear of the State of Nature, in the form of an all-powerful Sovereign who, thanks to their unlimited power, could do nearly anything to keep others in check. Hobbes believed men should enter into a ‘covenant’ whereby you give up your rights on the condition that all others would do the same and entrust them into the care of the Sovereign. Once this is complete, man has successfully exited the state of nature and created a ‘Commonwealth’ . In short, Hobbes believed that the only way to ensure peace and security was to live under a Sovereign, and once this was achieved, and only once it was achieved, mankind could live the fruitful lives which we naturally seek.

Once this principle is established, it becomes clear why Hobbes believes in such intense obedience to the Sovereign, a key reason being the aforementioned security of the Commonwealth. In its simplest form, Hobbes’ theory requires obedience because if the Sovereign loses control of His subjects, the commonwealth breaks down and the state of nature returns, and with it the ever present fear and threat of death. According to Hobbes, one must obey the Sovereign because by escaping the state of nature and forming a Commonwealth, you have effectively abdicated your right to rebel against the Sovereign and must comply with their wishes. This is because according to Hobbes, once one authorises another to act on their behalf (As the subjects do by creating a Commonwealth), then you must accept the actions of the authorised like they are your own, as Hobbes put it ‘He that complaineth of injury from his sovereign, complaineth of that thereof he is the author himself and therefore ought not to accuse anyone but himself’ . This means that subjects must obey the sovereign as they have authorised them to act on their behalf, and if somehow they now feel inconvenienced by the way the sovereign is acting, then they have nobody but themselves to blame, indeed, ‘humane affairs cannot be without some inconvenience’. Furthermore, in any sense, the concerns of the subject are totally trivial when under the Sovereigns rule when compared to the concerns they would have if they were living under the state of nature, where their very existence is threatened constantly, and as such, it is just and right to recognise this and accept Sovereign rule. In other words, Hobbes believes that subjects should obey the Sovereign is because not only is the security of the subject and others at risk should the sovereign lose control, but also because by entering into the social contract headed by the Sovereign, they have endorsed all their actions as if they were their own.

Moreover, a further reason why Hobbes believes that the Sovereign should be obeyed is due to Hobbes’ conception of liberty and freedom. For Hobbes, liberty could be simply defined as ‘the ability to act according to one’s will without being hindered from performing that act’. Hobbes wrote that in the state of nature, liberty could not exist as the actions which one wanted to perform were hindered by the fear and death intrinsic to the state of nature, thus, only when under a Sovereign could ‘true’ liberty be attained. In the Leviathan state, subjects have true liberty as they are able to go about their actions free from the threat of death and destruction. Indeed, even if the Sovereign where to implement restrictions upon his subjects which could be seen to infringe on ones liberty, Hobbes wrote that these would be artificial, as aforementioned, the actions of the sovereign are the actions of His people, so they would have been effectively endorsed by them. This may seem paradoxical at first, as how can true liberty come close to fruition under the Absolutist regime in which Hobbes supports, however, as Philosopher Philip Pettit writes, ‘it is only the exercise of a power of interference that reduces people’s freedom, not its (unexercised) existence – not even its existence in an arbitrary form . What Pettit means by this is effectively that the Sovereign does not in itself contradict the value of individual liberty which Hobbes espoused as only when the power of Sovereign is used in such a way where liberty IS infringed, does it contradict. Although true that the Sovereign has the power to implement almost any law in the aim of protecting the Commonwealth, a ‘Good’ Sovereign for Hobbes would not impose too much on the lives of the individual and find a good balance between governing too much and too little. Therefore, what Hobbes is saying is that the existence of the Sovereign facilitates and necessitates liberty in its true sense, thus, without our obedience to the Sovereign, true liberty cannot exist.

In contrast, there are a few areas of Hobbes work which appear to contradict his overwhelming argument of obedience for the sake of peace and prosperity. Throughout Leviathan there are some places where Hobbes discusses exceptions to total obedience, such as the idea that man cannot be order to harm himself by the Sovereign. For Hobbes, this would violate the natural law which he reveres as he established that the 1st natural law is to seek peace in the name of self-preservation . This seems contradictory at first as there is a clear limit on the power of the Sovereign, yet this is the only such limit found in his work, as when discussing the rights of the Sovereign, Hobbes awards total judicial rights to Him and also the power to decide even which ideas are acceptable. Indeed, another area where Hobbes’ work seems less black and white is the discussion around sovereignty by acquisition or conquest. Hobbes argues that as soon as the Sovereign no longer controls society, man returns to the state of nature and as such the natural problems of fear and death return. One may argue, that when one Sovereign Commonwealth enters combat with another, (As Hobbes says the sovereign is perfectly entitled to do), they break the aforementioned first natural law which Hobbes describes, the desire to seek peace.

To conclude, Hobbes believes that obedience to the Sovereign is the only thing between man and total destruction. Without an all-powerful Sovereign to coerce the behaviour of man, through the fear of them and the repercussions of disobeying them, society would simply cease to be, and without it, the vicious and brutish nature of mankind would be laid bare. As Runciman points out, it is wrong to say Hobbes was a cynic, rather a sceptic, believing that this was simply the reality of man, the natural order of things. In short, Hobbes thought that the Sovereign must be obeyed to ensure a free and most importantly safe existence, sheltered from the monstrous reality of man, and even if that meant an unspeakably cruel Sovereign, it was infinitely preferable to the only alternative, the state of nature.