Critical Analysis Of Thomas Hobbes’ Political Theory

As a significant figure in the history of political theory, Thomas Hobbes came out with a political theory based on his understanding of “The Laws of Nature” and “Human nature”, which is written in the book Leviathan (Lloyd et al. plato. standord. edu). In the 15th chapter of this book, Hobbes introduced the political theory of a “fool” on reason and “justice” (Hobbes, 15. 4). He then attempted to refute this thought (Hobbes, 15. 5). Hobbes’ opinion is, at least partly, logical, but his refute is not powerful enough that the theory of the “fool” has left a problematic issue in his own political theory.

In the 15th chapter of Leviathan, Hobbes introduced his third law of nature that “men perform their covenants made (Hobbes, 15. 1)”. If there is no such law, Hobbes argued that covenants will be “…in vain…but empty words”, so that the people still stays “in the condition of war. ” (Hobbes, 15. 1). He then introduced the thought of the “fool” which thinks that “there is no such things as justice” and “every man’s conservation and contentment being committed to his own care, there could be no reason why every man might not do what he thought conduced thereunto […] ” (Hobbes, 15. 4). The fool pointed out a possibility that “justice” (as Hobbes said, “unjust […] is no other than the not performance of covenant, and whatsoever is not unjust is just. ” (Hobbes, 15. 2)) sometimes doesn’t stand with “reason” (Hobbes, 15. 4).

To refute this thought, Hobbes argued that maintaining the covenant within a “party” that “has performed already” is “not against reason” (Hobbes, 15. 5). He first pointed out that “when a man doth a thing, which notwithstanding anything can be foreseen and reckoned on tendeth to his own destruction, howsoever some accident, which he could not expect, arriving may turn it to his benefit; yet such events do not make it reasonably or wisely done (Hobbes, 15. 5)” and in addition, with in a “condition of war […] no one can hope by his own strength, or wit” and “everyone expects the same defence by the confederation that anyone else ” (Hobbes, 15. 5). “Breaketh his covenant” can lead to the consequence that one “cannot be received into any society that unite themselves for peace and defence”(Hobbes, 15. 5). If one was “cast out of society”, one “perisheth”, so that it is unreasonable to go against “justice”(Hobbes 15. 5; 15. 2). Hobbes’ argument seems to be logical, but when one look back to history, flaws can be easily found within his arguments. For his first argument, it is apparent that he ignored two facts: that humans sometimes tend to take risk when facing great benefit, and when not doing something can cause death, or severe consequence such as being sent to Gulag, one will tend to do that thing.

An example would be the record of Chen Sheng, who is the leader of a great rebel in China, from Records of Grand Historian which records: “Now if we escape we will die, and if we rebel we can still die. If the possible consequences are the same, then why not rebel for the sake of our country? (Sima, 48. 2)” As the example shows, sometimes it can be reasonable to do something even when it can harm one’s life. Hobbes tried to counterargue this statement by saying the result of a rebellion “cannot reasonably be expected” (Hobbes, 15. 6), but his explanation is not persuasive enough in front of the case provided. For his second argument, he took the thought that one who “breaketh his covenant […] cannot be received into any society […]” as granted (Hobbes, 15. 5), but is it always the case? France who drew her sward towards her catholic sisters can still obtain trust and support from her allies, and Italy who betrayed the Alliance was still accepted into the Axis. Even in complex situations as international relationship, the countries who break their covenants with other countries can still be accepted into alliances, then what will happen in simple situations between natural people shall be obvious.

As both of Hobbes’ statement have flaws, it seems like his refute against the fool is unpersuasive. The fool’s thought do create a problematic issue within Hobbes’ political theory as Hobbes’ theory doesn’t support revolutions. His political theory supports “inviolable observation (Hobbes, A review and conclution. 17)” and “in the revolution of states there can be no very good constellation for truths of this nature to be born under (as having an angry aspect from the dissolvers of an old government, and seeing but the backs of them that erect a new)” (Hobbes, A review and conclution. 17). Consider that Hobbes “fled to Paris” when he “feared for his safety”, it might be reasonable that he came up with this conclusion (Sorell, Exile in Paris). But in reality, it is common that one can see the harm of the regime itself can do to the people. The factors that can bring harm to the people include but is not limited to lust, stupidity and simple desire of power, and the harm that it can bring can be visually seen in cities such as Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Under this situation, if one doesn’t rebel against his own regime, one can gain no secure towards his/her life, and him/herself can only become a particle within trenches, bombs and labor camps, and it is obvious that there are people who realizes this fact, but there are some regimes that don’t. Sailors of Kiel decided to revolt when facing meaningless battles, and the Ceausescu couple was executed by their soldiers.

As Jefferson has written, “when the government becomes destructive to the end”, people has the right and duty to “alter or to abolish” their contract and to “institute a new government” (Jefferson, Paragraph 3). Only because the existence of the revolutions, regimes have to consider their policies carefully, so that the “safety and happiness” of the people can be secured and the government itself can also be pushed towards perfection instead of corruption (Jefferson, Paragraph 3). In conclusion, the “fool’s” opinion does create a flaw in Hobbes’ theory, and his attempt to fix it seems not persuasive enough. It is a fact that Hobbes’ theory has a large impact on the history of political theories and provided a unique perspective on viewing the relationship of people and regimes (Lloyd et al. plato. stanford. edu). But when it comes to reality, most of the political theories will come up with flaws and inaccuracies. However, these flaws did not make the greatness of those theories and theorists dim, and they shall always be remembered as our imperfect forerunners.