Dai Li

In Leviathan, Hobbes leads us through his thought experiment that attempts to

address the problem of how to avert the state of nature by the establishment of a
political society. Hobbes starts his analysis by establishing certain description of
individual power. Hobbes states that the right of nature consists in the liberty each
man has to do anything based on his own judgment and reason for his own
preservation, a self-governance absent of external impediment. (73) Also, each man is
roughly equal in ability, individual power, and each has equal hope in satisfying own
desires. (69-70) However the incompatibility of different men pursuing the same
objectives confines their pursuit. That is, if two men of equal right and ability equally
desire the same thing, which they cannot both enjoy, they grow violent to each other.
(70) Hobbes states that when human beings enter into relations with each other, there
is a possibility of all men against allthe state of naturein which continuall feare,
and danger of violent death: And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and
short.(71) In this condition, every man has a right to every thing; even to one
anothers body. And this is the right of nature. (74) This account justifies the xx to
create an ordered society governed by a coercive sovereign, which will prevent the
conflicts. The laws of nature place a hold on mens right of nature on the grounds of
averting the awful disaster of a state of nature. This discussion of state of nature lays
foundation for his account of natural laws, percepts forbidding men to do whatever is
destructive of his life. (73) To be clear, the laws here do not refer to state legislation.
The first and the most fundamental law of nature states that every man is obliged to
endeavor Peace. From this derived the second law of nature, which states that for the

Dai Li
sake of peace every man should lay down, more precisely transfer, his rights to all
things when other men are willing to do the same. To Hobbes, these are rational
percepts necessary for the maintenance of society. The notion of right and law is
clearly distinguished here by Hobbes.
The logical conclusion of the laws of nature is the exercise of a common power
that keeps men in awe, a viable alternative to a state of nature. Because when
everyone has a right to everything, no one would have an effective right to anything,
Hobbes points out its rational to lay down some rights in order to preserve the
effectiveness of the remaining rights. This renunciation of natural rights is crucial to
Hobbess account of contract and covenant. Contract is contingent on the mutual
transferring of right, while a covenant is one of the contractors deliver the Thing
contracted for on his part, and leave the other to perform his part at some determinate
time after, and in the means time be trusted. (76). To make clear, a covenant is a
performance of Keeping of Promise or Faith(76) which is an act of the Will(79)
and rests on empty words of the future. Without a common power compelling
performance, i.e. the sword, covenants are of no strength to secure a man at all(97),
because the bonds of words are too weak to bridle mens ambition, avarice, anger,
and other Passions. (78) Without effective enforcement, covenants are in vain, all
men still have the right to all things and there is still a potentiality of perpetual war.
(Third Law of Nature, 82) Before the covenants are performed, every man still has
right to everything and thus no action can be Unjust. For Hobbes, injustice is
defined as the not Performance of covenant. The socially constructed notion of

Dai Li
just/unjust is thus generated.
Hobbes statements so far have coincided with those of Freud and Weber in some
aspects. Freud states in Civilization and its Discontents that the decisive step of
civilization is the replacement of individual power by communal power, in Hobbes
term, a commonwealth. This step is realized through individuals within the
community restricting their arbitrary wills and needs for satisfaction, mens natural
right. To achieve order and provide security, civilization creates laws, which require
all community members to contribute through sacrificing their instincts, and which
demand no one shall break the rules (Civilization and its Discontents, 49), like a
sword enforcing the performance of covenant. Webers notion of subordination to
authority also reflects Hobbes insight about common power. Weber points out people
subordinate themselves to authority with the belief in its legitimacy and desirability.
This subordination does not necessarily imply any sense of right or natural justice.
However, Hobbes tends to be more of a rationalist thinker than Freud and Weber.
While Hobbes set a great store on rationality and reason, Freud still questions this
rationality because the renunciation of instincts is exactly the source of unhappiness
for men, and Weber rejects the analysis that the subordination to authority has
something to do with rationality.
Hobbes account of man, the state of nature and the laws of nature is the basis on
which he constructs a detailed discussion about specific political matters including the
nature of sovereignty by institution. To Hobbes, a sovereign is formed when each man
relinquishes his right of self-governance and authorizes a person or a group to

Dai Li
exercise the right of governing, and that person or group is therefore made sovereign,
with all right and power to govern. (99) In Hobbes sense, such sovereignty is
permanent, unlimited and indivisible. What makes the sovereign is the covenant of his
subjects with each other, rather than with himself. There is no judge to decide the
dispute between sovereign and his subjects, and to highlight the dispute would be to
bring back the state of nature. Because the power of sovereign is permanent, only he
can decide to renounce his power and appoint the successor. He is the legislator and
free to make and unmake laws he thinks fit, and under the law no one can punish him
for an act, which is authorized for him. (Unlimited power) The sovereign also has in
his hands all reins of power and authoritylegislative, judicial and executive power.
(Indivisible power) If one ever wants to pursue interests higher than the basic needs,
one has to sacrifice individual freedoms in exchange of security ensuring this higher
pursuit.
This is probably where Hobbes receives criticisms of being too absolutism. Some
question it as paradoxical. Since all liberties are sacrificed in the name of survival,
how could men be free to pursue other interests? Nevertheless, Hobbes is not being
too extreme here. He does support the claim that men cannot transfer or relinquish the
right to defend their life, even against this sovereign. Also, he insist on the
qualification that obligation of subjects should last no longer than the sovereign exists.
That means, men has no obligation to the sovereign if the sovereign either threatens
his life to an extent greater than he protects or benefits him, or is incompetent to
provide him with security anymore. (123-130)

Dai Li