LEVIATHAN (or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil)
By Thomas Hobbes
1651
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm
I've concluded my initial explanations and thoughts regarding Hobbes' proposed image of Leviathan, which comprises the first half of The Introduction. I've spent what I think to be a lot of time on this topic, and the majority of thought and writing went into my initial thoughts regarding Hobbes' description of where the subjects, or the general public, fit into Leviathan model. So much writing both surprised me, in that I wasn't originally intending to write so much on this paragraph, as I was merely reviewing the image and its parts; and yet didn't surprise me, as the proposed image of Leviathan obviously spurred me into deep thought regarding it and individual liberty (especially the comparison of the Riches of the People represent the Strength of Leviathan), unabashedly looking to the future of when we discuss the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I thought that I was direct in my questions in response to Hobbes' words, but I never attempted to claim authoritative interpretation. I tried to maintain expressed in my writing the acknowledgement that I was responding to a very narrow selection of words from basically page 1 of a very large book. I also attempted to have frequent though hopefully not taxing amounts of clarification that I recognize I have a lot more book to read, deferring drawing conclusions pending Hobbes' upcoming explanations further clarifying his vision and positions. I anticipate therefore that we will refer back to my posts on The Introduction to see if we can answer the questions raised here as we read. As my learning increases, I reserve the right to alter and refine my interpretations, my thoughts, and my opinions. As always, I do not expect my reader to rely on what I have written describing what I have read for your opinions, but I will continue to post links to the text (as above) for your reference, which approach I will try to continue throughout my BOOK Reviews, as often as I am able.
Before proceeding to the second half of The Introduction, may I share one last reflection from the first half of The Introduction, namely regarding Hobbes' brief comparison of "the Pacts and Covenants" which first "made, set together, and united" the "parts of this Body Politique" (that is, Leviathan). I hope that Hobbes describes in more detail his vision of the founding of Leviathan as we continue to read, because I currently have many questions at this point. Most importantly, who among the people got together and formed Leviathan? Was it the people as a whole? Was it a group of selected representatives? If so, how were these representatives selected? Is it a voting process at all? Is Leviathan envisioned to be the society's first government, as part of a reformation, as or as part of a revolution? In any case, how was it then determined who would be the Sovereign? How much power is delegated from the Body Politique to the central government? Overall, what is this process?
Such a discussion would be important, in my opinion, because Hobbes seems to be hinting (at least at this point) at the idea of government by consent, a concept which appears in the Declaration of Independence, and one which I did not expect to glean from Hobbes who less than two paragraphs ago (in his The Introduction) characterized the ordinary citizen as merely the energy source of Leviathan.
The concept of government by consent stems from the principle of natural law which is all men are created equal before the law, that is, the Law of Nature and Nature's God, who was the Creator of It. It is important to understand that 'natural law' as understood by the Founders not only included Physical law which described Man's body, the world in which He lived, and the various rules governing their interaction; but also a natural Moral law, which defined Good and Evil, which informed Man's conscience such to discern between Good and Evil in their thoughts and actions, then which exerts a moral force on the conscience of Man to perform Good behavior and refrain from engaging in Bad behavior; and that that Moral subset of natural law was just as active and unchanging as the Physical subset. For example, Morality was as unchanging as gravity for the Founders. Natural law therefore embraces the existence of absolute truth and everlasting principles. That is to say, principles that do not change with time or circumstance. We note also that, in the cases of both the Physical and Moral components of Natural law, neither was created, decided, or put in place by Man, but by Nature's Creator, and were certainly already in place by the time Man started organizing himself into societies and governments.
It is important to note however that, as a general rule (ignoring, for a moment, examples of miracles found in Scripture), Man, encased in his physical body, has no choice in his adherence to the Physical laws of Nature. He cannot choose whether or not He falls if He jumps off a cliff. He cannot choose whether the fire burns His skin or whether His skin will permit the fire to burn it. And Physical laws are merciless, you could say that they are 'no respecter of persons.' For example, the acceleration of gravity does not change for man, woman, smart, dumb, famous, unknown, suicide, accident, adult, child, dog, cat, etc; and the same could be said for things like the length of the day, the change of seasons, the passage of time, or the aging of the body, just to name a few.
Without a doubt a working knowledge and understanding of the Physical laws is advantageous in Man's pursuit for preservation and prosperity. Evading harm or death to oneself is one of Man's core motivations. Forgetting to obey or deliberating attempting to defy the Physical laws can potentially result in injury or death. On the other hand, understanding how various principles work together can allow Man to achieve feats previously unknown. For example, flight is not the defiance of the Physical law of gravity, but the correct application in the correct proportions of the applicable Physical principles, which in the case of flight includes velocity, air flow, air pressure, as well as gravity. The idea that there are benefits from knowledge about the Physical world (that is scientific knowledge) is generally well accepted, so I need not attempt to expound on that point further. What is most important for this discussion, however, is the acknowledgement that, at its core, our understanding of the Physical laws is an understanding of the different relationships they govern, nearly all of which can be generally summed up in the concept of cause and effect. And this is precisely what Science intends to pursue: improved understanding of the system of rules within which our Physical world functions, from the universal to the quantum levels.
On the contrary, Man's relationship with the natural Moral law is different. It is similar to Man's relationship with the natural Physical law in the sense that the natural Moral Law is also a system of cause and effect, and therefore the forces of the Moral law exert pushes and pulls on the conscience of a person, in similar principle as the Physical forces act on the Physical body. They are also similar in the sense that the principles governing both the natural Physical law and the natural Moral law are eternal, or timeless, or unchanging with time, as previously mentioned.
They are different however in the key sense that, while the Physical body always (except in instances of divine intervention) submits to the forces of the natural Physical law, such motions of Moral force on the conscience do not imminently result in the person performing the prompted Moral action(s). A person may feel that he/she should do something because it is morally correct to do so, but may nevertheless choose not to do it; and a person may feel that he/she should not do something because it is morally incorrect to do so, but may nevertheless choose to do it anyway. When it comes to the Moral law, there is a space between the cause (that is, the push of Nature's Morality on the conscience) and the effect (that is, the action toward which the person's conscience was being pushed by Nature's Morality) during which Man is endowed with the ability to choose whether to follow the dictates of the natural Morality law or not. In the LDS church, we refer to this ability to choose as "moral agency," and this inherent knowledge of good and evil, provided by the Moral subset of the Law of Nature (of which God is the Author), as "the light of Christ," which every human person possesses.
This moral agency in every individual is one of the key elements that instills intrinsic value in every individual. Each person is valuable by Nature, capable of choosing his/her own way. Each person is to be respected as such. No person ought to be the tool or means to the ends of another. From there, we talk about natural rights "endowed by [our] Creator," which include Life, Liberty, and Property, and which Morality tells us we should not violate in others. How interesting it is to me that one of the fundamental assumptions of politics rooted in the philosophy of natural law is consistent with the common Christian phrase, "I am a Child of God!" Natural law acknowledges the divine nature of each person, and seek to respect that divine nature as much as possible when it comes to government.
Because of the intrinsic value of the individual, the only just formation of government therefore has as one of it's characteristics the individuals' consent to submit themselves to that government at the time of its creation. I therefore am curious how a people would willingly consent/submit to a form of government as described in Hobbes' Introduction, where they, in my opinion, will be reduced to the battery supply of the State. But part of me also wonders about whether I would be able to find such a State less Morally contemptible if Hobbes were to in fact consider it a necessary point that the people opt into creating a Leviathan. My initially thought is no. Maybe this means that consent of the governed, while necessary, is not the exclusive criteria for just government.
Interjection: The Consent of the Governed
Before proceeding to the second half of The Introduction, may I share one last reflection from the first half of The Introduction, namely regarding Hobbes' brief comparison of "the Pacts and Covenants" which first "made, set together, and united" the "parts of this Body Politique" (that is, Leviathan). I hope that Hobbes describes in more detail his vision of the founding of Leviathan as we continue to read, because I currently have many questions at this point. Most importantly, who among the people got together and formed Leviathan? Was it the people as a whole? Was it a group of selected representatives? If so, how were these representatives selected? Is it a voting process at all? Is Leviathan envisioned to be the society's first government, as part of a reformation, as or as part of a revolution? In any case, how was it then determined who would be the Sovereign? How much power is delegated from the Body Politique to the central government? Overall, what is this process?
Such a discussion would be important, in my opinion, because Hobbes seems to be hinting (at least at this point) at the idea of government by consent, a concept which appears in the Declaration of Independence, and one which I did not expect to glean from Hobbes who less than two paragraphs ago (in his The Introduction) characterized the ordinary citizen as merely the energy source of Leviathan.
The concept of government by consent stems from the principle of natural law which is all men are created equal before the law, that is, the Law of Nature and Nature's God, who was the Creator of It. It is important to understand that 'natural law' as understood by the Founders not only included Physical law which described Man's body, the world in which He lived, and the various rules governing their interaction; but also a natural Moral law, which defined Good and Evil, which informed Man's conscience such to discern between Good and Evil in their thoughts and actions, then which exerts a moral force on the conscience of Man to perform Good behavior and refrain from engaging in Bad behavior; and that that Moral subset of natural law was just as active and unchanging as the Physical subset. For example, Morality was as unchanging as gravity for the Founders. Natural law therefore embraces the existence of absolute truth and everlasting principles. That is to say, principles that do not change with time or circumstance. We note also that, in the cases of both the Physical and Moral components of Natural law, neither was created, decided, or put in place by Man, but by Nature's Creator, and were certainly already in place by the time Man started organizing himself into societies and governments.
It is important to note however that, as a general rule (ignoring, for a moment, examples of miracles found in Scripture), Man, encased in his physical body, has no choice in his adherence to the Physical laws of Nature. He cannot choose whether or not He falls if He jumps off a cliff. He cannot choose whether the fire burns His skin or whether His skin will permit the fire to burn it. And Physical laws are merciless, you could say that they are 'no respecter of persons.' For example, the acceleration of gravity does not change for man, woman, smart, dumb, famous, unknown, suicide, accident, adult, child, dog, cat, etc; and the same could be said for things like the length of the day, the change of seasons, the passage of time, or the aging of the body, just to name a few.
Without a doubt a working knowledge and understanding of the Physical laws is advantageous in Man's pursuit for preservation and prosperity. Evading harm or death to oneself is one of Man's core motivations. Forgetting to obey or deliberating attempting to defy the Physical laws can potentially result in injury or death. On the other hand, understanding how various principles work together can allow Man to achieve feats previously unknown. For example, flight is not the defiance of the Physical law of gravity, but the correct application in the correct proportions of the applicable Physical principles, which in the case of flight includes velocity, air flow, air pressure, as well as gravity. The idea that there are benefits from knowledge about the Physical world (that is scientific knowledge) is generally well accepted, so I need not attempt to expound on that point further. What is most important for this discussion, however, is the acknowledgement that, at its core, our understanding of the Physical laws is an understanding of the different relationships they govern, nearly all of which can be generally summed up in the concept of cause and effect. And this is precisely what Science intends to pursue: improved understanding of the system of rules within which our Physical world functions, from the universal to the quantum levels.
On the contrary, Man's relationship with the natural Moral law is different. It is similar to Man's relationship with the natural Physical law in the sense that the natural Moral Law is also a system of cause and effect, and therefore the forces of the Moral law exert pushes and pulls on the conscience of a person, in similar principle as the Physical forces act on the Physical body. They are also similar in the sense that the principles governing both the natural Physical law and the natural Moral law are eternal, or timeless, or unchanging with time, as previously mentioned.
They are different however in the key sense that, while the Physical body always (except in instances of divine intervention) submits to the forces of the natural Physical law, such motions of Moral force on the conscience do not imminently result in the person performing the prompted Moral action(s). A person may feel that he/she should do something because it is morally correct to do so, but may nevertheless choose not to do it; and a person may feel that he/she should not do something because it is morally incorrect to do so, but may nevertheless choose to do it anyway. When it comes to the Moral law, there is a space between the cause (that is, the push of Nature's Morality on the conscience) and the effect (that is, the action toward which the person's conscience was being pushed by Nature's Morality) during which Man is endowed with the ability to choose whether to follow the dictates of the natural Morality law or not. In the LDS church, we refer to this ability to choose as "moral agency," and this inherent knowledge of good and evil, provided by the Moral subset of the Law of Nature (of which God is the Author), as "the light of Christ," which every human person possesses.
This moral agency in every individual is one of the key elements that instills intrinsic value in every individual. Each person is valuable by Nature, capable of choosing his/her own way. Each person is to be respected as such. No person ought to be the tool or means to the ends of another. From there, we talk about natural rights "endowed by [our] Creator," which include Life, Liberty, and Property, and which Morality tells us we should not violate in others. How interesting it is to me that one of the fundamental assumptions of politics rooted in the philosophy of natural law is consistent with the common Christian phrase, "I am a Child of God!" Natural law acknowledges the divine nature of each person, and seek to respect that divine nature as much as possible when it comes to government.
Because of the intrinsic value of the individual, the only just formation of government therefore has as one of it's characteristics the individuals' consent to submit themselves to that government at the time of its creation. I therefore am curious how a people would willingly consent/submit to a form of government as described in Hobbes' Introduction, where they, in my opinion, will be reduced to the battery supply of the State. But part of me also wonders about whether I would be able to find such a State less Morally contemptible if Hobbes were to in fact consider it a necessary point that the people opt into creating a Leviathan. My initially thought is no. Maybe this means that consent of the governed, while necessary, is not the exclusive criteria for just government.
