Thomas Hobbes' Ideas on Monarchy Essay

Hobbes states that the proper form of civil government must have a supreme ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. He believes that the goal of the people is to escape the state of war, and that they are willing to transfer their rights in order to leave it. “Whensoever a man transfers his right, or renounces it; it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself; or for some other good he hopes for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself.”3 He believes that all men are equal in the state of nature despite any preexisting differences between them because they are ultimately powerful enough to defend themselves and their resources. “Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of the body, and mind; so that though there be found one man sometime manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet

2. The political philosophies of Hobbes and Locke differ from one another. Humanity, according to Hobbes, naturally is in a state of war due to the fact that men are generally equal in ability to one another. In this state of nature, there are no laws other than the laws of nature, which state that humans will naturally seek security. In order to achieve this security of property and themselves, men will give up their rights to an authority that can enforce the laws of nature through punishment and fear. This is then called the Commonwealth, or the Leviathan. Hobbes, however, did not support the divine right of kings. He believes that the right of the sovereign is derived from the individuals who relinquish their rights in order to create the Commonwealth.

Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to connect the philosophical commitments to politics. He offers a distinctive definition to what man needs in life which is a successful means to a conclusion. He eloquently defines the social contract of man after defining the intentions of man. This paper will account for why Hobbes felt that man was inherently empowered to preserve life through all means necessary, and how he creates an authorization for an absolute sovereign authority to help keep peace and preserve life. Hobbes first defines the nature of man. Inherently man is evil. He will do whatever is morally permissible to self preservation. This definition helps us understand the argument of why Hobbes was pessimistic of man, and

Change is in the inevitable byproduct of society. As societies evolve they change according to the life style of the people who inhabit them. Without change, society would never progress and thus would be frozen in a single moment in time. Thomas Hobbes and John Lock were two English philosophers who observed tremendous changes in English politics between the years of 1640 and 1690. In closely examining the views of both of these philosophers in subject areas such as the nature of man in society, the relationship between a society and its government, and the affect that both philosophers’ novels had on the government, it can be concluded that both Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies created prominent change in the methods of government.

Thomas Hobbes was an enlightened thinker who lived in the 17th century and through the upheaval that was the English Civil War. While observing the Civil War, Hobbes concluded that people are “naturally cruel, greedy, and selfish” (Ellis 183). Hobbes argued that a strict government was the only way to control people because, without it, they would fight, steal, and oppress each other. He said the only way to keep the people at bay was to have them obey strict laws. His favored government was an absolute monarchy because it “could impose order and compel obedience” (Ellis 183). In an absolute monarchy, the citizens give up all of their rights in order to be protected by their leader.

The european philosopher Thomas Hobbes had many ideas on government that have been proved right throughout the course of history. Hobbes believed that the a one leader was the best form of government. One example of how his philosophies were proved accurate is during the Puritan Rule of England. The House of Commons ruled over England for a period of time. This idea of government did not end up well since the House of Commons couldn't form as a government. After this Cromwell becomes dictator of England and his rule is absolute. During his rule he improved his country both economically and militarily. This proves that Hobbes was right because one ruler had better results for the country over an oligarchy. Another example of how Hobbes was proven right throughout history is during the French Revolution.

Initially, Thomas Hobbes introduces a concept on the state of nature and its effects as well as how peace can be achieved. In Leviathan, Hobbes defines what living in a state of nature would be like and the three causes of fights. He recognizes that without fundamentals of law humanity would be corrupted and horrible, as he established that competition, diffidence, and glory are the reasons for disturbances in nature. According to Hobbes in order to maintain peace and safety there must be a powerful central government. Either a man or an assembly of men would have absolute power over every individual. He believed in a monarchy, such as dictatorship. He believed in Commonwealth, which is a single person who withholds all the sovereign power and he may use this

In times of uncertainty, Jaques Bossuet and Thomas Hobbes were able to contribute their ideologies and beliefs surrounding legitimate political rules as well as the responsibilities of the sovereign and its citizens to shine a light on a time that we would otherwise have very little knowledge on today. In Jaques Bossuet 's written work titled, On the Natures and the Properties of Royal Authority, he shares his experiences and personal views regarding the correlation between the higher power of God and the rulers of the sovereign. Thomas Hobbes in his famed written work, Leviathan, on the other hand, shares his own unique doctrine which allows us to see the important relationship between the rationale of man and the sovereign. While Bossuet was a Bishop and Hobbes was a philosopher, their independent and credible experiences were able to develop fascinating points and ideas that allow us to look back and learn about the times at hand. Their respective works are still widely spread and circulated across the globe which allows for a deeper and more critical understanding of their work. Jaques Bossuet and Thomas Hobbes share their respective philosophies that at first glance are quite different, with no apparent similarities coming to light. However after deep analysis of both texts, the connection of their empirical knowledge becomes more and more evident and is able to be more critically evaluated. While neither Bossuet or Hobbes provides an ideal form of rule, one can’t help

The source which will be analysed is the frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes most famous work ‘Leviathan’ and ‘Leviathan’ as a whole. The frontispiece is considered as prominent as the arguments put forth by Thomas Hobbes in the ‘Leviathan’ itself. The frontispiece depicts a crowned figure grasping a crosier and a sword. This figure, or ‘Leviathan’, represents the all-powerful, comprehensive state. When looked at closely, the torso and arms of the figure are made up of hundreds of individual people, who are all looking up at the head of the ‘Leviathan’, which represents the sovereign. Hobbes uses this image to argue that the sovereign rules in accordance with its subjects giving approval or permission on something and not just through the sovereign’s divine right to rule. Hobbes’s powerful image, like Hobbes’s principles can be considered a paradox; the state represented as a democratic autocracy. The arguments presented by Hobbes in Leviathan were met by a sea of opposition, which in turn led Hobbes to be caught up in more controversy than any writer before his time, which lasted throughout his entire life. Surprisingly, ‘Leviathan’ demonstrated no distinct bias from Hobbes in support of monarchical rule, just Hobbes strong support for autarchy or absolutism. The ‘Leviathan’ also highlighted support towards the Puritan regime, which was led by Oliver Cromwell, as Hobbes argued that the freedom of each citizen is in fact obtained by the commonwealth . Hobbes returned to England

In truth, many of Hobbes’s statements regarding sovereign authority seem to imply the inevitability of a terrifying and oppressive regime. In Chapter 17, Hobbes equates the sovereign to a “Mortall God,” who possesses “the use of so much Power and Strength conferred on him, that by terror thereof, he is inabled to forme the wills of them all…” (Hobbes, Leviathan, II.xvii). Furthermore, the sovereign is described as retaining the use of “coercive power to tye their hands from rapine and revenge…” (Hobbes, Leviathan, II.xviii). Through this coercive power, the sovereign is said to significantly restrict the liberties of his subjects by controlling “what Goods he may enjoy and what Actions he may doe…” (Hobbes, Leviathan, II.xviii). These stringent

Leaders have the potential to influence their followers’ behaviors and attitudes. However, followers also can affect the leader’s behavior and attitudes. Even the situation itself can affect a leader’s capacity to influence followers (and vice versa) (page, 118). Accordingly, Thomas Hobbes believed that the only true and correct form of government was the absolute monarchy.

Thomas Hobbes' View on Government         Thomas Hobbes in his controversial work, the Leviathan, declares that such       a government based on the rule of the common people, would result in       anarchy and total pandemonium.         But before one can understand Hobbes' view on government, it is important       to understand how Hobbes feels about people. Hobbes has a very       materialistic view on the world because of his belief that the movements       of physical objects will turn out to be adequate to explain everything in       the universe (Kemerling).

It is hardly adequate to argue that Hobbes commits himself to upholding that it is permissible for a political authority to do anything he likes over his people. Instead, what one finds in him is a statement such as, “It is a weak Soveraign, that has weak Subjects; and a weak People, whose Soveraign wanteth Power to rule them at his will.” As indicated above, a close reading of his texts as a whole reveals striking obstacles to interpret him as recommending a despotic rule of the commonwealth. Although the idea of ruling despotically looks very Hobbesian, it is not quite very supported by a close reading of Hobbes’s overall political philosophy. His overall argument indicates, rather, that the sovereign cannot command anything except what

Thomas Hobbes, who was one of the erudite people, who displayed the thought of the administration that the administration ought to be in a hand of a flat out ruler that, can guarantee the security of the individuals. As indicated by him, people are conceived malice and that a general public can have wellbeing just when there would be a control of an intense total government. He said that it regards have a lord or an effective total government that must have control over individuals' lives. On the off chance that there is not a flat out government then society would be in confusion and it would bring about more issue in the nation.

It is interesting to note that Hobbes emphasizes “transgression of the law” rather than sovereign prerogative. This runs counter to most individual’s understandings of the Sovereign as a despot, ruling according to his present whim rather than an established system of laws. Hobbes appears to place more weight on adherence to clearly promulgated laws than on the “omnipotent will” of the sovereign. (Potential Argument for Legal positivism)