Thomas Hobbes Leviathan Analysis

Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan, or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill lays out his argument for why it is best to have a strong monarch as the sovereign of a country. He terms this ideal ruler as the “Leviathan”, and the sovereign is granted this power by the people, a notable change from the reasoning of the supposed divine right to rule, used by kings and monarchs as well as their supporters. Hobbes realized that this philosophical reasoning, as opposed to a biblical or religious one, would be more likely to resonate and make more logical, coherent sense to the subjects that the “Leviathan” ruled over. In this work, Hobbes writes of the essential natural right pertaining to all mankind. Hobbes also

discussed his theory of how the state of nature was, meaning how and why men interacted with each other before there was a central government to protect them – from outsiders but also from each other.
In Chapter 14, Of the First and Second Natural Laws, and of Contracts, Hobbes discusses the natural right that all men possess. He writes, “The right of nature…is the liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgment, and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.” What Hobbes is essentially saying here is that every single man has the right to use his abilities to protect his life, against those who would choose to harm or damage him. Worth distinguishing is Hobbes’s concepts of right and law, as he views a right to essentially be a liberty, whereas he views a law to be the exact opposite, it is binding, containing no liberty at all for the man.
In Chapter 13, Of the Natural Condition of Mankind as Concerning Their Felicity, and Misery, Hobbes discusses his view of the condition of nature for man before government is established.

He says that, “Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withal”. He depicts a particularly unpleasant and pessimistic view of human nature sans a power strong enough to keep men from being enemies. He goes on to list a number of things that have no place in such a nature, such as: no industry, no account of time, no arts, and no society, amongst others. And, with possibly his most famous phrase, he declares, “and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” And possibly in recognition of the fact that the natural condition of man will seem abstract to many, he goes on to give examples of the perceived violent and selfish nature of mankind. Hobbes tells us, “Let him therefore consider with himself, when taking a journey, he arms himself, and seeks to go well accompanied; when going to sleep, he locks his doors; when even in his house he locks his chests”. Hobbes’s point is that we always take precautions when going places and when we go to sleep because we are relatively more vulnerable and aware of the potential damage and harm men can do. He also points out that, “this when he know there be laws, and public officers, armed, to revenge all injuries shall be done him”. So, according to Hobbes, even though we know that we have other measures that keep us safe and that we can use for revenge, we still always take precaution because of the brutal and nasty nature of man. Mankind’s inherent destructive nature leads Hobbes to the conclusion that, since each man has the natural right to protect his life, a strong leader who rules with consent of the governed, is

best able to protect all men’s natural right to life, and that this should be the basis for all governments and/or leaders.
Though man may inherently be nasty, and the nature of man be one of every man against every man, there is not a vast inequality amongst men. According to Hobbes, “Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of the body, and mind; as that though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable”. Here Hobbes argues that though some men may be stronger, and some more imaginative or strategic, when everything is added together – which is what is meant by “reckoned together” – there is not a huge discrepancy between one man and another. He goes on to say that, “the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest”. His reasoning for this is that they have access to other ways to kill the strongest than just by brute force by themselves, “either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others”. Because of the equality of men in their ability to kill and destroy one another without a recognized leader to mediate, there arises a perpetual state of nature that is characterized by violence and conflict. Thus, a common leader to rule over the subjects and protect their natural right to life is necessary.
Hobbes clearly values life and the protection of it over everything else. Men, in his hypothetical society, are not afforded total liberty and this is due to their nasty and violent nature. Why would we give full liberty to someone who could use that to harm others without consequence? In fact, men are afforded very little liberty at all, as they are forced to comply with the Leviathan’s commands regardless of their specific desires or wishes. Men are not even granted the right to rebel, no matter how monstrous or tyrannical their leader is. Men do not have to agree with everything the Leviathan does, but you do have to comply, as this is a social contract and the entire system is based off of this consent to be governed. The meaning of all of this is that the first and foremost goal of any government and/or Leviathan is and should be the protection of all men’s lives, not the granting of liberties, improving the life of the citizens or any other goal.
Thomas Hobbes’s theories on government, leaders, and natural rights were certainly different, as well as controversial during his time. However, I do not agree with the notion that citizens should give up all liberties and freedom to a single, sovereign, no matter how powerful that leader may be. Obviously, as a citizen of the liberal democratic United States, which comes with countless freedoms and liberties, I am clearly biased towards the desire of some amount of freedom as I have constantly inundated with talk of how freedom and liberty are of utmost importance in a society. Still, it is a contemptible idea that a person could be born into and grow up in a society where a single person has complete dominion over all of his or her subjects, and yet this person, who did not choose the leader or system of government whereby the leader is granted all of this power, does not have the right to rebel. It seems almost contrary to common sense; if a person has the power to kill you, and you feel that it is plausible that this person will use this power against you, you should have the right to rebel against this person. I do agree with Hobbes that a government’s ultimate objective should be that of protecting the lives of its citizens, and I believe that this is the case for nearly all modern countries. However, I believe that a middle ground can be reached, whereby the government has power, each life is protected as much as possible, but also where citizens have some amount of liberty and freedom so that they can live their lives without total interference from the sovereign. This would improve the lives of each citizen because they are able to think and act for themselves and be more likely to be happy in society, and if they are happier then they will be less likely to want to harm or damage others, thereby also better protecting the lives of each of the citizens. I also agree with Hobbes that a person’s first concern should be his safety and the protection of his life, as little else matters if you are not alive, and so I agree that anything you do that protects your life can be considered moral.
Thomas Hobbes, in his work Leviathan, argues that mankind has an essential, natural right, and that is the right to life and the protection of it. He argues that in the state of nature mankind is violent and nasty. He believes that without a governmental authority or recognized sovereign, it is a war of every man against every man. He has a firm belief that all men are equal and this is due to his idea that even the weakest man is able to kill the strongest, whether through “secret machination, or by confederacy with others”. However, in his ideal system, Hobbes leaves little to no liberty for the common man, as the sovereign controls everything and has unmatched power. Man does not even have the right to rebel, no matter how tyrannical the Leviathan may be, and this is because Hobbes believes that there is no way for the Leviathan to violate the social contract, since the citizens elected to give up their power in exchange for the protection of their lives.