Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher, profoundly influenced Western political thought with his articulation of social contract theory. His magnum opus, *Leviathan* (1651), provides a stark depiction of human nature and the necessity of absolute sovereignty to maintain social order. Hobbesian political obligation isn’t based on divine right or natural law in the traditional sense, but rather on rational self-interest and the avoidance of a brutal, anarchic existence. Understanding Hobbes’s concept requires examining his pessimistic view of the ‘state of nature’ and how individuals rationally choose to surrender certain freedoms for security.
The Hobbesian State of Nature
Hobbes believed that in the absence of a common power, life would be a “war of all against all” (*bellum omnium contra omnes*). This state isn’t simply chaos, but a condition driven by fundamental human passions – a relentless pursuit of power and a fear of death. In this state, there is no morality, justice, or property; only a constant threat of violence. Individuals possess a ‘right of nature’ – the liberty to use their power to preserve their own nature – but this right is ultimately self-defeating as it leads to perpetual conflict. Crucially, Hobbes doesn’t see humans as inherently good or evil, but as fundamentally self-interested.
The Social Contract and Absolute Sovereignty
To escape the state of nature, individuals rationally enter into a social contract. This isn’t a contract *between* the people and the sovereign, but a contract *among* the people themselves to surrender their rights and liberties to a sovereign power. This sovereign can be an individual or an assembly, but it must possess absolute and indivisible authority. The purpose of this surrender is not to achieve liberty or justice, but to secure peace and self-preservation.
The Nature of Political Obligation
Hobbesian political obligation is thus founded on self-preservation. Individuals are obligated to obey the sovereign, not because the sovereign is just or legitimate in a moral sense, but because disobedience threatens the stability of the state and a return to the horrors of the state of nature. Even a tyrannical sovereign is preferable to anarchy. This obligation is not reciprocal; the sovereign is not bound by the contract and is not accountable to the people. The sovereign’s power is limited only by its inability to guarantee security – if it fails in this fundamental duty, the people have a right to resist (though this is a last resort).
Limitations and Criticisms
Hobbes’s theory has faced significant criticism. Critics argue that his pessimistic view of human nature is overly bleak and that his justification for absolute sovereignty is dangerous. John Locke, for example, argued for limited government and natural rights that pre-exist the social contract. Furthermore, the lack of accountability inherent in Hobbes’s system raises concerns about potential abuse of power. However, Hobbes’s emphasis on the importance of order and security remains relevant in contemporary political thought, particularly in situations of state fragility or conflict.
| Feature | Hobbes's View |
|---|---|
| State of Nature | War of all against all; driven by self-interest and fear |
| Human Nature | Fundamentally self-interested; not inherently good or evil |
| Social Contract | Agreement among individuals to surrender rights to a sovereign |
| Sovereignty | Absolute, indivisible, and unlimited |
| Political Obligation | Based on self-preservation and fear of anarchy |
Conclusion
Hobbes’s notion of political obligation, rooted in a pessimistic assessment of human nature and a desire for security, remains a cornerstone of political philosophy. While his advocacy for absolute sovereignty is controversial, his emphasis on the fundamental need for order and the rational basis for obedience continues to resonate. His work serves as a powerful reminder of the fragility of social order and the potential consequences of unchecked individual liberty, prompting ongoing debate about the balance between freedom and security in the modern state.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.