Revolution and Rebellion from Hobbes Side - Essay Example

Student Name Professor Course Code Date Hobbes on Revolution and Rebellion Introduction Hobbes’ main goal in his concept of ‘The Natural Condition of Mankind’ or ‘State of Nature’ was to justify the government and the need for the people under it to obey it without question. In this effort Hobbes rips society of all government, attempting to see how humans would behave/act if there were no government at all (Williams, 1-2). Essentially, Hobbes views humans rather pessimistically, which perhaps is easy to understand considering the tumultuous times in the English history that he lived, particularly the English Civil Wars between 164o and 1660. Essentially he believes that humans are primarily selfish: driven to impose their superiority over others and to control the limited resources available. In the absence of a government (the state of nature) the unchecked competition that ensues leads to war (Williams 1). In this case, rebellion, which is the main term by which he refers to ‘revolution’, is a tool for killing government and allowing the state of nature to prevail (Jakonen 7). Now questions follow: what is/are Hobbes’ justification(s) for this argument on rebellion/revolution; and, is his argument plausible? Hobbes on Revolution and Rebellion Hobbes’ reasons for being against revolution/rebellion are: one, it is never for a noble cause; and it disrupts the commonwealth (Jakonen 7). This is partly manifest in the fact that Hobbes mostly uses the word ‘rebellion’ in his description of the English Civil Wars. All the people who organized and mobilized people for the ousting of the king, fought in the Presbyterians’ army and/or fought to change England’s constitution from a monarchy to a democracy, as well as all the parties and factions that he named in Behemoth were, to him, rebellious people. Pinpointing the varying reasons and interests of all these groups and people, Hobbes insists the English Civil war was a ‘headless’ rebellion of the multitude (Jakonen 8). In his opinion therefore, the English, once understood as a single entity (a unity), were broken into mobs or crowds, i.e. small groups of people with their own selfish goals and needs. In other words, the people lost all their wits and their ability to see and understand what was best and right for the Commonwealth. Instead, they only started to think of their own selfish interests. According to Jakonen (7), this egoism is to Hobbes the most obvious symbol of the state of nature. To him, this is the state in which England found itself during the civil war (1640-1660). This description reveals not only Hobbes’ view of rebellion/revolution, but also his attitude towards it. It is evident that he considers civil wars as some kind of chaos in which the commonwealth shattered and what took over was a series of wars in which every one fought everyone else. Although he mainly appears to point his finger at the Presbyterians, Hobbes views the whole period in which the civil wars were fought as too jumbled up until it became difficult to hold any particular leading group or faction as responsible (Jakonen 9, 10). Another of Hobbes’ key justifications for his stance can be found in what he explains as the process by which a state of nature turns to an absolutist sovereign, or a political power. He explains that in state of nature there is no justice, no wrong or right: "where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no injustice" he says (quoted in Williams, 11). Nonetheless, he believed in natural rights and laws. Of the nineteen laws he outlines, the first three are the most important. The first two are: hope to live in peace and seek all necessary help to have it; and accept peace as others do. These then necessitate the need for covenants between people so as to put limits on what people can do and/or how one acts. This then leads to the third law; that no one should break the covenant(s) made (Williams 13). Ultimately, these three provide the pathway for the entry of the state of the absolutist sovereign. The sovereign becomes ‘merely’ the overseer and peacemaker between the parties involved in a covenant- not part of the covenant. In other words, it decides what is wrong or what is right and punishes when necessary so as to assert and keep its authority. Most importantly, as Williams (14) puts it, the sovereign receives its power and authority from the parties involved in a covenant, which/who transfer all their rights to the sovereign, i.e. they agree to be governed. And because the subjects have given the sovereign all right to govern, the latter can do as it so wishes for them. Hobbes then argues that the actions of the sovereign are actually actions of the people, albeit indirectly, e.g. when it creates the laws, it is the people who have created the law, when it executes a person, then the person has actually executed him/herself (Williams 14). Having said that, Hobbes now argues that it is of the highest evil for the people to rebel against the sovereign, i.e. forsaking the course that they themselves created (by social contract) (Williams 13). Hobbes feels that the people/subjects are not justified in rebelling: against something that they themselves created, especially now that they have no right (having handed all of it to the sovereign); and against a non-partisan in the covenant, i.e. the sovereign does not take part in the social contract (or covenant) between the subjects. Infact, Williams (14) notes, Hobbes argues that until such a contract is signed, the sovereign does not exist. It is only brought to life by the contract. Simply, the subjects are responsible to each other, and not that the sovereign is responsible to them. In a nutshell, Hobbes finds rebellion/revolution to be some kind of hypocrisy. Analysis & Conclusion On one end, the Hobbes’ state of nature is not realistic. In his description of the ‘natural condition of man’ Hobbes gives a rather pessimistic and false view of humans. He claims that humans are naturally intrepid and basically prefer war, i.e. to attack and fight. But if that were the case, then his claim of humans eventually coming to terms and making covenants becomes impossible. Hobbes presents an oxymoronic society in the state of nature, one in which there is a natural propensity for war on one hand, but in which peace finally prevails. In simple terms, Hobbes rips society of all peace (state of war), but then turns around to say there is still enough peace to heal the war. If this is the case, then it means that no matter the state in which humans find themselves (i.e. state of nature as a result of revolution/rebellion), they are naturally inclined to finally have covenants by which to eventually create the sovereign state and find peace. And although revolutions do seem like mere chaos without any clear direction, this is mostly attributable to some hooligans who take advantage of such moments to create more chaos. Nonetheless, there is always an underlying cause. A clear evidence of this can be seen considering what sets the revolution or rebellion going and the final impact. One of the reasons for the English Civil Wars was to call for the change of the constitution to allow for democracy in the place of monarchy. In the end, the constitutional change occurred. In other words, despite what may have seemed as mere chaos, the people did not really lose sight of the main objective. Hobbes argument of a ‘headless’ rebellion multitudes thus loses its weight. Although Hobbes’ concept provided a key basic framework for future scientific approaches to political science, it is not quite convincing, particularly for the fiction that is his ‘state of nature’. From this point, his succeeding arguments are not that plausible. Works Cited Jakonen, Mikko. Thomas Hobbes on Revolution. La Re’volution francaise, 09 Dec. 2011. Web. 10 July 2012 Williams, Gareth. Hobbes: Moral and Political Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 21 May. 2003, Web. 10 July 2012 Read More