The Moral Dimension of Thomass Hobbes Political Philosophy

2017

In the course of knowledge, the aspect that gives enlightenment about a state, government, politics, liberty, justice and authority by exploring the question that come up in any of these aspects and tries to come up with recommendations to minimize friction and conflict in a state is commonly referred to as Political Philosophy. Overtime, the definition of political philosophy has been modified to suit different eras and epochs but it remains unchanged on the premise that it gives stance to how a state should be set up, what system of government minimizes conflict and ensures inclusiveness within a polity as well as summarize the rights and duties of individuals within the state. Many scholars have been brought to limelight through their ideological stance on what is or what ought to be in a state, before it can said to enjoy governance and authority and the boundary between the right of the governed and the governor and some of these ideals have been criticized on various ethical, moral philosophical and religious grounds but these scholars have made their mark as far as the field of Political philosophy by bringing forth their ideological thoughts, one of such scholar is Thomas Hobbes.

2003

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) is best known for his political thought, and deservedly so. His vision of the world is strikingly original and still relevant to contemporary politics. His main concern is the problem of social and political order: how human beings can live together in peace and avoid the danger and fear of civil conflict. He poses stark alternatives: we should give our obedience to an unaccountable sovereign (a person or group empowered to decide every social and political issue). Otherwise what awaits us is a "state of nature" that closely resembles civil war – a situation of universal insecurity, where all have reason to fear violent death and where rewarding human cooperation is all but impossible.

History of European Ideas, 1989

This is a translation of Leo Strauss, “Quelques remarques sur la science politique de Hobbes,” in Recherches Philosophiques (1933: 2), 609-22. It is translated from the French by Murray S. Y. Bessette. Note the French text is a translation by Alexandre Kojève of the original German, which can be found in Leo Strauss, Gesammelte Schriften, 6 Bde., Bd.3, Hobbes' politische Wissenschaft und zugehörige Schriften, Briefe, m. Sonderdruck von Bd.1 für die Subskribenten, ed. Heinrich Meier (Germany: Metzler, 2001). In light of the fact that Leo Strauss was close to and friendly with Alexandre Kojève and that he read French, I presume the French is a very good (although necessarily imperfect) reflection of Strauss’ authorial intent. Moreover, insofar as the article in question was only available in French until 1999 (a full 66 years), the French text remains of some interest, especially as there may be significant divergences, either omissions or additions, from the German. Thus, I would invite anyone with sufficient proficiency in German to make the necessary comparison.

History of European Ideas, 1989

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 2001

Hobbes often wrote as if his particular contribution to political philosophy was to make the requirements of justice precise and authoritative for both subjects and sovereigns. This makes it appear as if his theory of justice and his arguments from justice for mass obedience to the sovereign are the centrepiece of his political philosophy. I am going to suggest that this theory is more limited in scope and application than Hobbes sometimes seems to claim it is. In order to function properly, his political philosophy requires the support of a whole range of moral requirements beyond the requirements of justice.

Hobbes's Moral Philosophy. Elements of Thomas Hobbes's moral theory are found in works such as his The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic (written in 1640, two portions of which were published in 1650 with the titles Human Nature or the Fundamental Elements of Policy and De corpore politico, the entire work being published only in 1889), De cive, published in Paris in 1642, Leviathan, or the Matter, Form and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil, published in 1651, De corpore (1655) and De homine (1658). Hobbes's sensist-nominalist and materialistic ethics or moral philosophy is a mixture of egoistic hedonism, 1 where "moral good and evil are equivalent to pleasure and pain for the individual man," 2 individualistic utilitarianism, wherein a certain amount of pleasure must be renounced in favor of self-preservation, security and peace in the artificial body of the State, and moral positivism, 3 where good and evil are determined by the Sovereign and where all rights originate with the State, proceed from the State. Aside from his egoistic hedonism, individualistic utilitarianism, and moral positivism, Hobbes also affirms a "a crude version of the theological approbative theory," 4 in various passsages of his works (see, for example, the opening paragraph of chapter IV of his Philosophical Rudiments Concerning Government and Society, in The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, volume II, ch. IV, Molesworth edition, 1841, pp. 50-51), but as Vernon J. Bourke observes, "very few writers in his century were able to accept this pious declaration as genuine. Many wrote in rebuttal. One of the first of these critics was John Bramhall…who called the Leviathan a 'horrendous monster.' Bramhall's original objections to Hobbes had to do with the denial of free will in Hobbesian psychology. 5 In later essays Bramhall accused Hobbes of overturning all law with his teaching on the 'irresistible power' of God. 6 " 7 Although Hobbes attempts, in certain passages of his works, to ground his egoistic hedonism, individualistic utilitarianism, and moral positivism in a "crude version of the theological approbative theory," it should nevertheless be stressed that, for Hobbes, "it is the State, or more precisely the Sovereign, that determines good and evil. In this sense the State is the fount of morality…St. Augustine certainly did not believe that the sovereign determines moral distinctions. For him there is an objective moral law, with transcendent foundations, which is independent of the State and to which all sovereigns and subjects are morally obliged to conform their conduct. For Hobbes, however, there is no such moral law. It is true that he allowed that the sovereign is responsible to God and that he did not admit that he had eliminated any idea of objective morality apart from the sovereign's legislation. But at the same time philosophy, according to his own assertion, is not concerned with God, and he explicitly asserted that it is the sovereign who determines what is good and what is evil. In the state of nature good

Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 2020

Purpose. The purpose of the study lies in critical reconstruction of Thomas Hobbes's social contract theory as an important principle not only of modern political anthropology, but also of modern and postmodern social projects. As well as, in the unfolding of the fundamentally important both for the newest social-philosophical and philosophical-anthropological discourses of the thesis that each individual is the origin of both personal and institutional freedom and justice, making the contract first of all with himself, with his desires and sorrows and then with other people and the state. Theoretical basis. The principle of social contract offered by Hobbes became a new social, methodologically significant and relevant principle of regulation of activity, which indicates essential for the modern political philosophy and the philosophy of law transition from teleological (ancient and medieval) to legal (modern) ideas of justice. For an in-depth study of the philosophical and anthropological aspects of Hobbes's contractualism, we used the historical-comparative and contextualization method, as well as the works of leading native and foreign researchers of Hobbes, who uphold the provisions on the organic affiliation of fundamental sociophilosophical and philosophical-anthropological questions about the nature of man, the relation of coercion, freedom and justice with the discourse of social contract. Originality. On the basis of a consistent analysis of the anthropological component of Hobbes's theory of social contract, an in-depth understanding of modern contractualism and contemporary discussions in the field of its existential and anthropological component is offered, as well as the thesis that political anthropology is the core of the philosophical anthropology because it makes possible the methodologically important understanding of the basic problems of human existence-the interaction of justice and freedom, self-interest and public good, as well as it quite clearly outlines the ways to overcome the dilemmas of liberalism and communitarianism, individualism and holism. Conclusions. Political anthropology of T. Hobbes constructed in the context of a modern social project, justified the issue of interaction between freedom and justice, which is fundamentally important to nowadays, through the search for such a way of social relations, in which an individual, being in the realm of social existence, would seek to limit his own selfishness and freedom for the sake of the common will of the majority. Thanks to Hobbes, the idea of external humility in disobedience to the inner, of freedom of conscience as a "human and citizen", of an understanding of individual independence, which is not just a permissible but accepted by state power, has been acquired with exceptional theoretical and practical meaning. Thanks to Hobbes's works, the essence (and the falsity of simplified interpretations of the latter's heritage) was revealed by the relationship between the cooperative and the conflicted vision of man.