Pros And Cons Of Political Absolutism

The general argument in favor for political absolutism was that it could minimize, and possibly, eliminate conflict within the state to achieve inner peace. One well-known supporter of this political system is English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan.

He first disapproves of multiple bodies of legislation to govern a state: “If we could suppose a great multitude of men to consent to the observation of justice, and other laws of Nature, without a common Power to keep them all in awe; we might as well suppose all mankind to do the same; and then there neither would be nor need to be any civil government or commonwealth at all, because there would be Peace without subjection.” He states that a government made of many men in charge would be the same if there wasn’t a government at all, rhetorically mocking that no conflicts would arise within these kinds of political systems and peace would just

Following, he suggests the creation of an “awe” in a state, a representative figure that people would look up to and obediently follow under, thus, eliminating all other opposing thoughts that posed a threat to the said state. For example, if this “awe” was to be Catholicism, then all the people within the state followed and would be Catholic and there would be no possibility for any religious conflicts making peace easily achievable. He goes a step further and even claims that “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man.” People, without something absolute to follow under, would nurture different opinions and eventually pit individuals against one another, creating civil