Leviathan [Paperback]

Being a free Kindle edition there is no introduction and no notes - but you do get the full text. The only difference from the original is that there are fewer capitals and italics. Hobbes used them for emphasis very much more than a modern writer would, and their pruning in this edition makes the text easier to read.

Modern political philosophy begins with Hobbes. Before Hobbes, writers for centuries had accepted the divine right of kings or did not think much about the origins of government. Hobbes provides reasons as to how and why men come together to form government. He starts with the assumption that the organized state is a choice. The alternative is the "state of nature", where there is both a "right" of nature and "laws" of nature. Hobbes uses these terms in a very individual way. The "right" of nature is "the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power...for the preservation of his own Life". The "laws" of nature dictate that each person should seek to live with others in peace, and should only retain the right to as much liberty as he is willing to permit others. These "laws" are found by reason, and are utilitarian rather than moral. Hobbes is simply saying that if men think about their situation, reason tells them that giving up their natural rights in exchange for others doing likewise is the best means of self-preservation, even though actually doing it is contrary to human nature.

On human nature Hobbes is cynical. Reason suggests advantages stem from co-operation, but unless men are constrained by an external authority this is outweighed by instinct. Men are fundamentally competitive and selfish. They are also roughly equal in ability so no one person can impose his will on others, and the most one can hope for is to protect oneself from others. Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Men are therefore driven to create government via a pact with others to give up their natural rights to a sovereign authority, which may be either an individual or an oligarchy (Hobbes prefers the former). Hobbes uses the concept of a "social contract". It is not an historical event but a logical device to describe the ongoing basis of consent to government. Hobbes' view of human nature is such that he allocates absolute power to the sovereign. Limited government, he believed, is unworkable for men are too prone to division and selfishness, and "a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." Influenced by the divisive years preceding the English Civil War, Hobbes grants the sovereign the power of censorship, including the ability to prevent discussion of religion because such discussion leads to conflict. Anybody seeking to preach a new religion should be treated as a criminal.

Had Hobbes been writing a century later then religion would almost certainly have played no part in his writings. He himself was not a religious man. His concern with religion stemmed from its role in the conflict leading to the English Civil War, a period during which he lived.

Is there an ultimate right of rebellion against the absolute ruler? The answer is to be found in the nature of the social contract. Men give up their natural right to self-preservation to a sovereign in order to to better achieve it. If a situation arises where the sovereign cannot ensure that safety then society is dissolved. Can any action by the sovereign be challenged? Yes, if a man is conscripted into military service (an obvious threat to life) in circumstances where the survival of the state is not threatened. If the survival of the state is threatened then so are the lives of its citizens, and in these circumstances the sovereign can impose conscription. Hobbes adds that even in this case a citizen should have the right to replace himself with a volunteer if one is available.

"Leviathan" is not an easy book, not helped by the fact that the English is that of a man born just 24 years after Shakespeare. However, it is an important work that makes a good study companion to Locke's "Second Treatise", which argues for limited government.

Alright, Hobbes is not what you would call casual reading. If you like thick political philosophy, you may enjoy this though. Unlike most political works, you should not feel compelled to agree with everything Hobbes states, as it is quite a difficult sell. But he is very enjoyable, unless of coarse you are an eternal optimist or true-blue believer in democracy.

Although vilified by most for his extreme view of an all powerful head of state governing over the cruel and devilish populace, Hobbes creates a senerio that I think most would agree with in some way or form. People, left to their own devices, will inherently murder and steal from each other to the point that civilized life becomes unbearable. It's quite a world picture that Hobbes presents, and quite fascinating as well. The idea I believe Hobbes asks each person to explore is fundamental--what is the true nature of the individual? His answer in short is chilling--the individual is not to be trusted! While we can ask that education and high moral fiber dictate the peoples actions, do we really want to rely on the goodness of our neighbors, or do we want to keep a steady eye on them while holding fast to our sword?

While I find it hard to believe any person would call themselves a die-hard Hobbesian, I think most people will find themselves answering in agreement to much that he has to say. After all, even many of the founding fathers feared the impulses of the masses and sought refuge in a powerful central government to keep the monsters at bay. Here's a tip: keep short notes while you read. Don't get caught up in all the details, and you'll enjoy this book.

For those who dislike the archaic spelling in Hobbes, this edition with modernized text and spelling is the one for them. The opening sentence suffices to show the difference. The following is the original text:
"Concerning the Thoughts of man, I will consider them first Singly, and afterwards in Trayne, or dependence upon one another." (With Singly and Trayne in italics)
The modernized text in this edition is:
"Concerning the thoughts of man, I will consider them first singly, and afterwards in train, or dependence upon one another." (No italics)

There is a decent introduction by Gaskin, a bibliography, an index and explanatory notes, and this edition is very competitively priced.

As a student at Oxford I chose an optional paper "Political theory from Hobbes". It was "from Hobbes" because modern political philosophy begins with him. Before Hobbes, writers for centuries had accepted the divine right of kings or did not consider the origins of government. In Hobbes we find concepts that became standard in political thought: human nature, state of nature, social contract, absolute and limited government, civil disobedience, censorship, etc.

Hobbes supposes that organized society is a choice. The alternative is the "state of nature" with both a "right of nature" and "laws of nature", but Hobbes uses the terms in an idiosyncratic way. The "right of nature" is "the liberty each man has, to use his own power...for the preservation of his own life" and doing anything that is necessary to achieve this. In addition there are a number of "laws of nature". The first dictates that each person should seek to live with others in peace, and the second is that each person should only retain the right to as much liberty as he is willing to permit others. These (and other laws that follow from them) are found by reason and are utilitarian rather than prudential. Morality does not enter into it. Hobbes is simply saying that if men think about their situation, reason tells them that giving up their natural rights in exchange for others doing the same is the best means of self-preservation, even though this is contrary to human nature.

On human nature Hobbes is cynical. Men have the power of reason that suggests possible advantages of co-operation but this is outweighed by instinct. Men are competitive and selfish. They are also roughly equal in ability, so no one person or group can impose his will on others. Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Hence men are driven to create government via a pact in which all give up their natural rights to a sovereign authority, which may be either an individual or an oligarchy (Hobbes prefers the former). Hobbes uses the concept of a "social contract". It is not an historical event but a logical device to describe the ongoing basis of consent to government. Very importantly, Hobbes assigns absolute power to the sovereign. Limited government is unworkable, for men are too quarrelsome and selfish and "a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." Hobbes was influenced by the divisive years preceding the English Civil War in which he lived. Among the ten rights Hobbes awards the sovereign the sixth is the power of censorship of opinions he deems harmful to the state. Control of religion is not among the ten rights but Hobbes later argues that the sovereign must seek to restrain discussion of religion because it is a source of conflict. As for anybody seeking to preach a new religion, he should be treated as a criminal. Hobbes was not a religious man but he could not avoid discussing the role of religion in the age in which he lived.

Are there circumstances in which people are justified in breaking the law, and is there an ultimate right of rebellion? The answer is to be found in the nature of the social contract. Men consent to an absolute ruler in order to better secure self-preservation. If a situation arises where the sovereign fails to achieve that then society is dissolved. On civil disobedience Hobbes observes that a criminal going to his execution retains his natural right to resist, but he is not saying it is a "moral" right, and in fact the sovereign is right to execute him. On conscription, Hobbes seems at first sight ambiguous because he declares that a man's natural right to protect his own life extends to refusing to die in military service if conscripted. However, further reading shows that the sovereign has the right to require people to risk their life if the existence of the state is threatened. On the other hand men should have the right to put a volunteer in their place (if one is available) and the sovereign does not have the right to demand the sacrifice of my life if the existence of the state is not threatened.

"Leviathan" is not an easy book, not helped by the fact that the English is that of a man born just 24 years after Shakespeare. However, it is an important work that makes a good study companion to Locke's "Second Treatise", which argues for limited government. Those who prefer the original to this modernized text have many choices, including the Macpherson edition.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 12 reviews  4.2 out of 5 stars