Thomas Hobbes: The Leviathan

According to Hobbes what is the difference between a servant and a slave?

A servant is bound my contractual obligation, while a slave does not owe the captor for it is not a consensual partnership. A slave has the right to revolt. The slave has no obligation to obey because there is no covenant between him and his master.

Can a sovereign be accused of injustice by his/her subjects? What is the reason for this, according to Hobbes?

A sovereign cannot be accused of injustice against his subjects because the covenant that establishes the sovereign is not a contract between the sovereign and the subjects. Rather it is between the subjects themselves, making the sovereign the creation of this covenant

According to Hobbes, the concepts of justice and injustice can only exist when? What do you think are the implications of this idea?

According to Hobbes, the concepts of justice and injustice can only exist within the realm of covenants, and therefore property laws. He believes that in a natural state, "nothing can be unjust; the notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have no place". However, justice by definition is the breaking of a valid covenant, which includes propriety, which are held accountable by the state. With this in mind, justice and injustice are at the discrepancy of the state rather than the citizens. - The concepts of justice and injustice only exist when there is a common power ruling the people. This implies that actions can only be right and wrong when they occur in a society with a set standard. This implies that nothing is universally/inherently wrong, even things like murder and torture.

According to Hobbes, who should rule the children of a family in society—the man or the woman? How is this determined?

Either can rule decided by contract. (ex amazons) its not an absolute even though men is usual

In the state of nature, what is the situation concerning property and ownership (propriety)?

Hobbes argues that "justice is the constant will of giving to every man his own", and therefore when there is no propriety, there is no injustice. At the same time, where there is no commonwealth, there is no propriety. Therefore, no propriety means no commonwealth, which means no injustice.

According to Hobbes, are all men equal? In what way?

Hobbes argues that all men are equal, with the same aptitude for natural talents. All men are capable of recognizing this mutual equality; however, it is because of man's constant desire for power that the equality is often discredited. Men then create systematic inequality among men through civil laws. All men are equal physically in the sense that the weakest one could take down the strongest. All men are equal intellectually because everyone is satisfied with the amount of intellect they have.

What does Hobbes answer to those who feel he is too harsh on human nature (i.e. what is his proof that we should mistrust one another)?

Hobbes argues that humans naturally deviate towards chaos and self interests, and the only way to control their tendencies is through a government. A government is to be establishes either through willful submission by men, or through force. However, human nature gravitates away from submission, permitting governments to access power by force. Hobbes also argues that we should mistrust one another because humans naturally tend to break covenants when not held accountable, requiring forceful rule by a higher power.

Hobbes on government and justice/injustice

Hobbes believes that "Where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice" The concepts of justice and injustice are described as "qualities, that relate to men in society, not in solitude." These "qualities" only exist when there is a civil state with subjects. In the context of the alternate situation of war, Hobbes believes that actions cannot be classified as just or unjust, perhaps since men are not obliged to keep their contracts or covenants with one another by fear of a higher power. In his view, Hobbes thus establishes that in the state of nature the concepts of justice or injustice don't exist. This implies that in order for covenants to be kept and for justice (or injustice) to exist, there must be a common power.

Before there is a state, or a civil state (government) what does Hobbes say is the condition of humanity?

Hobbes states that preceding a state or civil state is a period of war. War galvanizes citizens through fear, instilling a mass desire for peace and stability. However, to build the civilization, a society requires peace for the revitalization of land and economic structure. So the government will come from the consequences of war, while the state itself will come from the peace period following.

Hobbes on warfare, conquest;

If you conquer a place by conquest/warfare: commonwealth by acquisition The people who you conquer don't want to die, so they say words/use gestures that indicate they are making a covenant with you since the alternative is death Congratulations! You have established a commonwealth with them, you are their sovereign now.

Hobbes on dominion by generation (Paternal dominion)

In the state of nature, the paternal domination isn't derived from the generation as if the parents begat the child, but rather from the child's consent. Both parents has the rights to dominion the child, but since two people are not able to have the same thing without a war, there needs to be a contract made to establish the dominion over the child between the parents. In the state of nature, women has the dominion. Mother has dominion in state of nature since only she knows who the father is; otherwise they can determine dominion by contract (Amazons example) In civil society, determined by contract.

Hobbes on justice and injustice, sovereign cannot be unjust

It appears that Hobbes believes that the very action of electing a representative of one's interests, i.e. the sovereign power, means giving consent to every action of this power: "For he that doth anything by authority from another, doth therein no injury to him by whose authority he acteth" Thus, a sovereign cannot be accused of injustice by his or her subjects as, by Hobbes' logic, every action of the sovereign's is with the implicit approval of the subject, who gave the sovereign the right to act on their behalf. The sovereign will never be oppressive unless he physically restricts his subjects.

Name three liberties that are reserved for subjects in Hobbes

Liberty to do what would reasonably profit them. Liberty to buy from and sell to other subjects. Liberty to choose their own housing, and their way of life.

Hobbes on covenants and commonwealth

Make a commonwealth by individuals making a covenant with each other to give up rights to the sovereign If majority makes the covenant and you live in that area you are bound by it too

Who should rule the children in the state of nature? Why?

Naturally, mothers should rule over children because according to Hobbes, it is women alone who know the father of their children, and there is no marriage, so fathers have no dominion over their children.

Hobbes on property or property

No private property in the state of nature, only in the state of civil society In the state of nature, all men have the right to all things. Therefore, there is no idea of individual ownership as men may acquire what they desire and lose the same thing to someone else who has an equal right to possess that thing. This reasoning could be why Hobbes says, "where there is no commonwealth, there is no propriety; all men having right to all things". In Hobbes' state of nature, there is "no own, that is, no propriety" - on a literal level, ownership is not feasible because of the universal nature of it.

What would Hobbes say in answer to a complaint that a state was oppressing its subjects?

Oppression is only taking place when someone has physically restrained a subject to prevent them from doing what they will. Therefore, unless all subjects are in chains because of the state, the state is not oppressing its subject

Hobbes on women and children

Since all human beings are equal in the state of nature, women and men are created equal, have the same abilities and intelligence and strength: "For there is not always that difference of strength, or prudence between the man and the woman, as that the right can be determined without war" He says that people who think men are more superior by nature are therefore wrong. According to him, the only reason men get more dominion in the domestic sphere is because most sovereign rulers who make the laws are male, so the laws favor fathers instead of mothers. However, he contradicts himself: "And there is allowance to be made for natural timorousness; not only to women (of whom no such dangerous duty is expected) but also to men of feminine courage. Feminine courage = cowardice. In saying that all women are naturally timorous and only some men are naturally timorous, he contradicts his own statement that all men and women are created equal in nature. Children can choose who to live with/who has dominion over them when they come of age, but before that they have to live with whichever parent takes care of them. Mother has dominion in state of nature since only she knows who the father is; otherwise they can determine dominion by contract (Amazons example) In civil society, determined by contract.

Hobbes on the state of Nature (our lives, solitary, poor, etc.)

State of nature is a state of war because everyone has equal rights to everything and there are no covenants to restrict us, so human beings fight to gain access to what they want (no private property) For Hobbes state of nature is a dismal state everyone wants to get out of: the life of man in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" There is a very high level of distrust in the state of nature, and even in the state of man - this is seen in how we lock our doors and possessions away and always arm ourselves. No justice or injustice in the state of nature: "Where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice" The concepts of justice and injustice are described as "qualities, that relate to men in society, not in solitude."

Hobbes on slavery and servitude; Hobbes on despotic dominion

The difference between a servant and slave seems to be related to the ideas of contract and conquest. He says that in a situation of conquest or war, if the vanquished, "to avoid the present stroke of death", makes a covenant with the victor, they essentially are at the victor's service for any purpose, so long as they retain their lives and "liberty of [his] body". At the making of this contract (due to conquest), a man becomes a servant to his master. However, if a man is a captive ("which is kept in prison, or bonds, till the owner of him that took him or bought him of one that did shall consider what to do with him"), being held against his will or consent, then at that point he is considered a slave. It seems that the primary difference between the two is that while a servant is contracted at the point of being vanquished, a slave is held captive and has not consented to a contract with the victor in exchange for his life. Hobbes goes on to explain that it is because of this lack of contract that slaves "have no obligation at all" and can escape or even try to hold captive and kill the master, while servants are bound to obey whatever the master orders as long as they are not in physical danger of death.

Hobbes' answer to those who complain about a sovereign's power

The following words of Hobbes would be his answer to a complaint that a state was oppressing its subjects: "And though of so unlimited a power, men may fancy many evil consequences, yet the consequences of the want of it, which is perpetual war of every man against his neighbor, are much worse." In this line he essentially asserts that although men may find the actions of the state to be wronging or oppressing them many times, it is better to endure an oppressive state than to have no civil state at all, i.e. to be in the state of nature - the "perpetual war" that brings only death and destruction. He would also remind the complainer that since the state was created by covenant with the sovereign, they have willfully given up their rights to complain of any injustice that the oppression might be caused by, since "every subject is author of every act the sovereign doth" - in Hobbes' view, the subjects would practically be the creators of their own oppression because of agreeing to give up certain rights in exchange for the protection of the state; furthermore, he would assert that this oppression is a lesser evil as compared to the natural state of war.

Hobbes on inalienable rights

The right to defend oneself from harm or death i.e the right to life is completely inalienable. The right to "security of a man's person", right to defend oneself to save oneself. This is the one right even the sovereign power cannot take away.

Hobbes on rights of a ruler or sovereign

The sovereign cannot be unjust, because the covenant has given him the right to do whatever he feels is necessary. He cannot be called oppressive unless he's put all his subjects in chains.

Hobbes on religion

We can't enter a covenant with God. God is not a king, a kind is not a God, vice versa. The sovereign must be the head of the church as well as the head of the state.

Name two rights we do NOT give up when we set up a covenant (contract) of government?

When setting up a covenant, we do not give up the right to life and the right to defend one's self, as Hobbes clarifies in his definition of the natural state and covenants. 1. The right of self-preservation/protection from other men 2. The right to live in peace

Hobbes on individual rights and the law of Nature

When we set up a covenant, we retain: 1. The right of self-preservation/protection from other men 2. The right to live in peace "A law of nature is a precept or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved" (79) There are three liberties that subjects retain: 1. Liberty to do what would reasonably profit them. 2. Liberty to buy from and sell to other subjects. 3. Liberty to choose their own housing, and their way of life.