● Does Hobbes’s defence of absolute sovereignty amount to a justification of tyranny? -
Yes (conditional yes)
Question analysis: What is a tyrannical regime?
○ A tyrannical regime is one that has unrestrained power. Then Hobbes' defence of
an absolute sovereign (to enforce the social contract) meets the conditions for
tyranny. But he does have implicit restraints on the sovereign: the sovereign
must be able and willing to enforce the contract and prevent a return to anarchy.
●
○ Step 1 - Temporary answer.
■ [No, but... Hobbes' is not clear about why an absolute sovereign would
not immediately become a tyrannical regime.
■ [Yes, but... this is only if we ignore the implicit assumption or purpose of
the social contract.]
○ Step 2 - Reason (Yes...but)
■ Absolute sovereignty involves the power to judge and enforce decisions.
Therefore, the sovereign can by tyrannical but the population cannot
judge it to be so.
■ [but..] this is not true if we include Hobbes' description of "true
liberties".
■ Absolute sovereignty means the centralisation of power - legislative,
judicial, and executive - so there is no check on the leviathan. This
amounts to tyranny.
■ [but...] the social contract is designed to keep people out of the
state of nature. The sovereign can only use its power to that end.
■ Hobbes' sovereign does not have to respect any natural rights (people
have no such rights in the state of nature) - so there is no real minimum
for rights in a political society (e.g. Why should one have the freedom of
speech in a political society, when no such freedom existed in the SON?)
■ [but...] the social contract does provide some right - the right to
peace. The social contract creates the right to a peaceful (maybe
predictable?) life in the political society.
■ Hobbes' does not recognise the right of individuals to resist the sovereign
(because everyone has signed the social contract and recognise the right
of the sovereign to impose any punishment until death).
■ [but...] he does argue that individuals whose life is directly
threatened by the commands of the sovereign can resist the
order, but others have no right to assist those individuals.
Yes (conditional yes)
Question analysis: What is a tyrannical regime?
○ A tyrannical regime is one that has unrestrained power. Then Hobbes' defence of
an absolute sovereign (to enforce the social contract) meets the conditions for
tyranny. But he does have implicit restraints on the sovereign: the sovereign
must be able and willing to enforce the contract and prevent a return to anarchy.
●
○ Step 1 - Temporary answer.
■ [No, but... Hobbes' is not clear about why an absolute sovereign would
not immediately become a tyrannical regime.
■ [Yes, but... this is only if we ignore the implicit assumption or purpose of
the social contract.]
○ Step 2 - Reason (Yes...but)
■ Absolute sovereignty involves the power to judge and enforce decisions.
Therefore, the sovereign can by tyrannical but the population cannot
judge it to be so.
■ [but..] this is not true if we include Hobbes' description of "true
liberties".
■ Absolute sovereignty means the centralisation of power - legislative,
judicial, and executive - so there is no check on the leviathan. This
amounts to tyranny.
■ [but...] the social contract is designed to keep people out of the
state of nature. The sovereign can only use its power to that end.
■ Hobbes' sovereign does not have to respect any natural rights (people
have no such rights in the state of nature) - so there is no real minimum
for rights in a political society (e.g. Why should one have the freedom of
speech in a political society, when no such freedom existed in the SON?)
■ [but...] the social contract does provide some right - the right to
peace. The social contract creates the right to a peaceful (maybe
predictable?) life in the political society.
■ Hobbes' does not recognise the right of individuals to resist the sovereign
(because everyone has signed the social contract and recognise the right
of the sovereign to impose any punishment until death).
■ [but...] he does argue that individuals whose life is directly
threatened by the commands of the sovereign can resist the
order, but others have no right to assist those individuals.
