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 the power left to them through their judgment and reasoning (189). According to this definition, men can be free in the Hobbesian state. To elaborate, the fundamental right of men is to do anything to preserve their life. In the state of nature, this right implies that you must be as atrociously violent as you can to sustain your life. Meanwhile, in the Hobbesian state, violence and unruliness are rendered disadvantageous because punishments should be greater than the benefit that comes with the breach of covenants (202). So, individuals can be as free as they are in the state of nature as long as they are obeying the most fundamental law of nature; obtaining peace whenever they can. If his judgment and reasoning are sound, he will adhere to rules ensuring a peaceful life. Else, he will act unruly and face punishment. Either way, he is as free as he is in nature. The only difference is the set of actions that will help men sustain their lives. They change drastically as men become subjects of sovereign power.

 

Furthermore, it is even possible to argue that Hobbes describes the state of nature as more restricting than a Hobbesian state. According to Hobbes, in the state of nature, men are in a never-ending conflict with each other where everyone is expected to protect themselves by exploiting all the tools of war (87). Hobbes suggests that in such a state there is “no commodious building, no instruments of moving, …, no knowledge of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society”(186). When Hobbes says no arts and no letters, he implies that in such a brutish war, philosophy and literature do not exist. Or when he states no knowledge of the earth or no account of time, he suggests that men cannot keep track of history or examine the world in that state. It is the continual fear and never-ending struggle to survive that impedes people from progress and sophistication. Considering Hobbes’ definition of liberty as the absence of external impediments, the state of nature’s chaotic and war-like nature is an impediment to progress and sophistication. On the other hand, in a Hobbesian state, these impediments coming from nature disappear, allowing philosophy, literature, art, history, and trade to progress. So, while laws and punishments may appear as impediments, Hobbes depicts them as necessary tools for achieving peace and liberty.

On the other hand, Hobbes portrays men as juveniles requiring constant control and punishments to keep them from murdering each other. In his comparison between animals and men, Hobbes posits that because men are prideful, greedy, and competitive they cannot coexist as harmoniously as animals do. They require an outside source to prevent them from acting on these passions. This is because even in the absence of war and conflict, men, according to Hobbes, are disposed to “fall again into war amongst themselves” (224) because of their different interests. For example, because men take pleasure in “comparing himself with other men”(226), common benefits and personal benefits usually differ and may contradict. Men are inclined to “think themselves wiser, and able to govern the public better than the rest”(226), which ultimately culminates in civil wars. According to Hobbes, men will act on these passions if there is no punishment. So, people are to be stripped away of their liberty of not obeying them through severe punishments. He even goes on to say that surrendering your rights and power is not enough. People are supposed to lay down their wills and judgments to the sovereign, which is more than “consent or concord” (227), allowing the sovereign power to take decisions on their behalf. This portrays Hobbes as an arch-enemy of liberty.

Although Hobbes’ notion of liberty does not quite resonate with the traditional idea of liberty, it allows liberty to an extent that doesn’t contradict the integrity of a Hobbesian state. He argues that people can enjoy the liberty provided to them by the sovereign. According to Hobbes, they can trade, choose their style of nourishment, and decide on how they want to raise their children (264). Giving superiority over rules, according to Hobbes, would be absurd as it would contradict the purpose of the state. To put it simply, providing people with complete freedom over rules can drive people into reverting to the state of nature, which would defeat the purpose. Hobbes also does a wordplay, suggesting that liberty and ability are different. While a river cannot flow upward, it is not because of restraint but because of inability. When this logic is applied to the sovereign’s subjects, it could be said that since subjects willingly surrendered their power (264) (their ability to be unruly), they cannot and should not disobey because they are unable to do so.

In conclusion, Hobbes’ political philosophy is often criticized for portraying people as slaves and limiting individual liberties. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that Hobbes does not completely reject liberty. Rather, he allows liberty within the framework of laws that maintain the integrity of the state. His notion of liberty is based on the absence of external impediments, and as long as individuals obey the most fundamental law of nature, they can be free in a Hobbesian state.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edt. C. B. Macpherson. London: Penguin Books, 2017