PEOPLE | 1588 - 1679

Thomas Hobbes, arguably the most important English political thinker, particularly renowned for his magnum opus, Leviathan, published in 1651 during the tumultuous backdrop of the English Civil War.

While often remembered as a staunch defender of absolute monarchy, his work offers a profound and complex treatment of human nature itself and the fundamental necessity of government, regardless of its specific form.

At the heart of Hobbes's philosophy lies a deeply pessimistic view of human nature.

Drawing inspiration from earlier thinkers like Niccolò Machiavelli, he posited that individuals are

- fundamentally self-interested and self-seeking

- driven by an unlimited appetite

- inherently prone to cowardice and treachery

- and can be corrupted by power with remarkable ease.

This dim view informed his stark depiction of life without a strong governing authority.

Hobbes famously described this hypothetical condition, which he termed the state of nature, as a relentless war of all against all. In such a state, with no higher power to enforce order, life is inevitably nasty, brutish, and short. Every person is the enemy of every other person.

To escape this unbearable existence, Hobbes argued that mankind enters into a social contract.

This involves individuals agreeing to submit to a sovereign authority, effectively transferring certain rights in exchange for the peace and security that only a powerful state can provide.

He maintained that subjects should respect and defend this sovereign power, irrespective of whether it takes the form of a democracy, aristocracy, or monarchy.

While Leviathan serves as a justification for government generally, Hobbes argued specifically in chapter 19 that absolute monarchy is superior to democracy and aristocracy. He was firmly against any separation of powers, believing the monarch should wield both supreme executive and legislative control – the power to make laws.

Hobbes contended that law must ultimately appeal to absolute authority and nothing else, controversially suggesting the king should even possess the power to kill an innocent person without reason. He somewhat naively suggested that diverse representation in the court might, in practice, temper the sovereign's potential cruelty or arbitrariness.

The arguments for the superiority of Absolute Monarchy:

Alignment of Interests: 

In a monarchy, the monarch's private interest is seen as identical to the public interest.

The wealth, power, and reputation of a king depend entirely on the riches, strength, and reputation of his subjects. A king cannot truly be rich, glorious, or secure if his subjects are poor, contemptible, or too weak to defend themselves or the realm.

This suggests the fortunes of the people and the monarch rise together.

By contrast, in democracies or aristocracies, a ruling assembly member might easily enrich themselves at the public expense, as their personal fortune is not as intrinsically linked to the collective well-being as a monarch's.

The interests of nobles or elected representatives might not align with those of the people. WHICH IS WHY THE ULTIMATE AUTHOURITY WE MUST ALL ADHERE TO IS GOD.

Quality and Secrecy of Counsel: 

A monarch can receive wise counsel in secrecy. Advisors to assemblies, Hobbes suggested, are often more adept at acquiring personal wealth than knowledge and tend to offer advice couched in rhetoric designed to excite passions rather than enlighten understanding.

The very nature of an assembly, due to its multitude, makes it inherently difficult to keep advice secret, hindering effective decision-making.

Consistency of Resolution: 

A monarch's resolutions are subject only to the natural inconsistency of human nature. Assemblies, however, suffer from inconsistency arising simply from the number of members.

The absence or diligent appearance of a few individuals can undo decisions made previously, making the assembly prone to changing its mind and course of action repeatedly. This leads to short-termism in decision-making.

Avoidance of Internal Conflict: 

A monarch cannot disagree with himself out of envy or conflicting interests. Assemblies, by their nature, can and often do fall into such disagreements, potentially to the point of causing civil war.

Fewer Flatterers: 

While monarchs are susceptible to flatterers and favourites who may lead to the deprivation of subjects' possessions, Hobbes argued this inconvenience is amplified in an assembly.

Instead of one person having a few flatterers, an assembly means there are hundreds of individuals, each potentially influenced by many more flatterers, leading to widespread self-serving behaviour amongst members.

Permanent State of Intrigue: 

The issue of an infant king requiring a Lord Protector raises concerns about ambitious individuals vying for power.

Hobbes turned this criticism back on assemblies, arguing that they create a permanent state analogous to having an infant king. The assembly multiplies the number of potential "Lord Protectors," fostering constant court intrigue among those seeking power, a situation worse than the temporary issue of a minor monarch.

Despite his advocacy for absolute authority and pessimistic view of human nature, Hobbes holds a complex place in intellectual history.

He is a forerunner to liberalism, in part due to his strikingly individualist conception of humanity, and his depiction of individuals in the state of nature as having an equal shot at survival suggests a kind of latent egalitarianism.

He represents a significant point of departure for later thinkers like John Locke.

Unlike Locke, who saw humans in the state of nature as largely peaceful and good, believing in Tabula Rasa (the blank slate) where individuals are products of their environment, Hobbes saw a fundamental brutality requiring external control.

This contrast highlights Hobbes's enduring influence in defining the terms of debate around human nature and the necessary scope of governmental power.

His deep-seated Realism, shared with Machiavelli and the later Scottish Enlightenment thinkers like David Hume and Adam Smith, placed him in opposition to the utopian idealism seen in figures like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed in the fundamental goodness of man and the perfectibility of society.