Ana içeriğe atla

Hobbes' Notion of Freedom

Hobbes' Notion of Freedom

Hobbes is in favor of the idea that people are to controlled. Through fear and punishments, their behaviors need to be governed. Although this idea appears to be against liberty, Hobbes suggests that people are free to act within the constraints of laws. This essay will discuss how Hobbes views liberty and whether he considers subjects of the sovereign as free or not. According to Hobbes, liberty is not an absolute right but a privilege that is granted by the sovereign. He believed that the only way to secure freedom and safety was to submit to the authority of the sovereign. The sovereign, in turn, had the power to enforce laws and punish those who broke them, ensuring that the social contract was maintained. Hobbes' definition of liberty was, therefore, limited by the power of the sovereign, as he viewed it as the only means of achieving a peaceful society.

However, when the traditional sense of liberty is taken, it is impossible to claim that Hobbes viewed the subjects of the sovereign as free. He suggested that individuals are free to do whatever they desire so long as the sovereign permits so(264). Upon touching on the importance of laws he denotes that it would be an absurd request to ask for complete freedom over laws (263). Hobbes’ comment on how absurd such a request would be is very rational. This is because laws only become meaningful and effective when there are punishments for those who disobey them.  To elaborate in chapter XV Hobbes contemplates on the importance of fear and punishments. He posits that punishments should be greater than the benefit one would receive upon breaching a covenant so that obeying laws can be compelling (202). Providing superiority over laws would make violence compelling leading humanity to revert to the state of nature

In conclusion, Hobbes believed that liberty was not an absolute right but a privilege granted by the sovereign, and it was limited by the power of the state. He argued that the only way to secure freedom and safety was to submit to the authority of the sovereign, who had the power to enforce laws and punish those who broke them. While this idea may appear to be against liberty, Hobbes believed that individuals were free to act within the constraints of laws. Therefore, Hobbes viewed the subjects of the sovereign as not entirely free in the traditional sense of the term.

Yorumlar

Yorum Gönder

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Rhetoric in Hobbes' Leviathan

  Hobbes’ Word Play Hobbes argues in favor of a monarch or an oligarch. To be more precise, he is in favor of the idea that multiplicity comes with complexity, harming the integrity of the state. In his opinion, men are mostly power-driven, greedy beings who must surrender themselves to a sovereign power that can spread the terror of punishment. According to Hobbes, this fear of punishment is the only effective motivating force that can keep people from brutally murdering each other. While this Hobbesian idea of the state portrays the sovereign’s subjects almost as though they are slaves, this essay will argue that Hobbes is not fundamentally against liberty and allows it within the constraints of laws. Hobbes's description of liberty suggests that only external impediments are against freedom. He states that liberty is “the absence of external impediments” (189) and, although these impediments may take away man’s power to do what he would, they do not prevent men from using th...
1 yorum
Devamı

Rousseau on Legitimacy of State

Hobbes'dan sonra Rousseau okumayı Proust'tan sonra Daphnes ve Chloe okumaya benzetiyorum. Proust aşkı öyle yapay, çıkarcı ve öyle çirkin yansıtıyor ki, ondan sonra okuduğun her romana ister istemez Proust'un realist bakış açısından bakıyorsun. Belki de realizm sevdamı bırakmalıyımdır. Hobbes'un determinist bakış açısı da birçok argümanını epey ikna edici kılıyor. Bazen bu bakış açısından kaçmak istiyor insan. Hobbes kimmiş lan, ben ölümlü tanrıya irademi falan teslim edemem, gayet özgürüm demek istiyor. Yine de gel gör ki Hobbes haklı. Nasıl, Kant ödev ahlakında nasıl ki herkes davranışlarının topluma yansıdığını varsayarak hareket etmeli diyorsa, Hobbes da yapılmak istemediğini yapma diyor. Buna karşı çıkmak da biraz zor. Rousseau abi Social Contract'ında denese de Emile kitabındaki ikna ediciliğini devam ettiremiyor gibi hissediyorum. Birazdan okuyacak olduğun yazıda da oldukça soyut fikirler göreceksin ve yer yer kendine e ama niye diye soracaksın. Bil ki ben de ...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı

Hobbes’ Paradox

Hobbes’ Paradox Resolved According to Hobbes, people are born with passions that ultimately lead them into a never-ending war. They require artificial power to stop killing each other. Unless such a power is erected, Hobbes suggests, leaving the state of nature is impossible since people are not inclined to cooperate and trust each other. The core reason why it is impossible to leave the state of nature is because of the innate passions people have that drive them to be constantly in conflict. Hobbes states that in the condition of nature, “any reasonable suspicion” renders any covenant or promise invalid since “bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions…” (196). Here, Hobbes highlights the importance of punishments, suggesting that without the motivating fear of punishments, covenants are practically invalid. It is also important to understand what Hobbes means by the condition of nature. He argues that because men are born equal, they...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı