Thomas Hobbes, a philosopher hailing from 17th-century England, offers valuable insights into the intricate matter of political obedience. His analysis delves into the extent to which we should patiently submit to rulers, particularly those who are lacking in adequacy, and when it becomes justifiable to initiate revolutions and overthrow governments in the pursuit of an improved society. Hobbes’s perspective is tightly intertwined with a significant event that deeply influenced his beliefs: the English civil war, which took place when he was 64 years old. Notably, Hobbes continued to produce influential works until his demise at the age of 91.
The English civil war was a brutal, divisive, costly, and lethal conflict that endured for nearly a decade. It witnessed a clash between the forces of the king and parliament, resulting in the loss of approximately 200,000 lives on both sides. Hobbes himself was inclined towards peace and exhibited a cautious nature, harboring a strong aversion to all forms of violence. This disposition developed early on in his life when his father, a clergyman, faced disgrace and abandoned his family after engaging in a physical altercation with another vicar.
Hobbes’s most renowned work, “Leviathan,” was published in 1651. In this seminal piece, he presents a definitive, persuasive, and eloquent argument for adhering to governmental authority, even if it is imperfect, in order to avert the perils of chaos and bloodshed. Understanding the basis of Hobbes’s conservatism requires recognizing the context of 17th-century Western Europe, where political theorists began questioning the reasons why subjects should obey their rulers more directly. For centuries, the prevailing answer had been the theory of the divine right of kings, which posited that monarchs were appointed by God, thereby necessitating obedience under the threat of damnation. However, as religious observance waned, this theory lost its persuasiveness, prompting thoughtful individuals to propose an alternative perspective known as the social contract theory. According to this theory, ultimate authority resided not in kings but in ordinary people who empowered kings and should only follow their orders as long as their interests were adequately served.
Hobbes recognized the fallacy of the divine right of kings theory, especially considering the diminishing religious belief of the time. Privately holding atheistic views himself, he also harbored deep concerns about the potential consequences associated with the social contract theory, which could foster frequent upheavals whenever individuals became dissatisfied with their circumstances. Having personally witnessed the beheading of King Charles I during the English civil war, an experience that left a profound impact on him, Hobbes was motivated to ensure the prevention of such barbaric scenes in the future. In “Leviathan,” he presents a clever argument that seeks to reconcile the social contract theory with the defense of unwavering obedience to traditional authority. To achieve this, Hobbes transports readers back in time to what he terms “the state of nature” before the existence of kings, urging them to contemplate the emergence of governments.
A pivotal aspect of Hobbes’s argument is his assertion that the state of nature would have been an unpleasant realm. In the absence of central authority to keep them in check, humans would quickly descend into conflict, discord, and intolerable disputes. This condition would resemble the English civil war, albeit with individuals clad in bearskins wielding crude tools. Hobbes famously describes life in a state of nature as “nasty, brutish, and short.” Driven by the fear of chaos, people willingly formed governments. However, they did so under significant duress, seeking refuge in the embrace of strong authority. Consequently, Hobbes argues that individuals have an ongoing duty to obey this authority, even if they are afforded limited rights to voice their grievances. The only circumstance under which people may rightfully protest against absolute rulers or a “Leviathan,” as Hobbes terms them, is if their lives are directly threatened. However, if a ruler merely suppresses opposition, imposes burdensome taxes, damages the economy, and detains dissidents arbitrarily, such circumstances do not warrant taking to the streets and demanding a change in government.
In summary, Thomas Hobbes’s contributions shed light on the complex issue of political obedience. Informed by his experiences during the English civil war, he underscores the significance of obeying governmental authority, even imperfect ones, to prevent chaos and bloodshed. While challenging the notion of the divine right of kings, Hobbes also cautions against the potential pitfalls associated with frequent revolutions prompted by dissatisfaction. Through “Leviathan,” he presents an intricate argument that merges the social contract theory with a defense of unwavering submission to traditional authority. By examining the state of nature and the emergence of governments, Hobbes underscores the necessity of obedience while acknowledging limited avenues for legitimate protest.