Political Theory: Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

Lia Rehman
Marcus Haggrot
Political Theory, Group
28 September 2015
Dissolution
By today’s standards, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan presents an extreme absolutist vision. This seems to be exemplified in Hobbes’ counter-revolutionary stance, where he explicitly argues against justifications for revolt. Is there any situation in which revolution is permitted, and if so, under what circumstances is revolution justified? This analysis posits that first, Hobbes’ premises justify revolt in the face of insecurity but only when a majority of people are insecure, and second, that Hobbes definition of security is broader than mere physical safety, which in turn conflicts with Hobbes’ other statements. Therefore, physical and economic insecurity

Security, especially in connection to Hobbes, is often thought to mean the solely security of the body. [CITE SREEDHAR]. However, the security or safety of the people does not just mean their subsistence and lack of fear of physical harm, but also a state where industry is possible. Hobbes states that “safety here, is not meant a bare preservation, but also all other contentments of life, which every man by lawful industry, without danger, or hurt to the commonwealth, shall acquire himself” (CITATION PAGE 145). This quote substantially broadens the scope of when revolutions are acceptable. Instead of referring only to invasions or a majority of people literally starving, situations in which there is a loss of ability of subjects to work and receive compensation justify rebellion. For example, when the sovereign seizes so much property that subjects do not feel safe practicing

One criticism of rebellion Hobbes makes is that revolution is unjust because it breaks contract, explicitly stating that there “can happen no breach of covenant on the part of the sovereign; and consequently none of his subjects… can be freed from his subjection” (CITATION PAGE 114). However, if the right of self-defense cannot be handed over to the sovereign, neither can its logical extension, the right to rebel in a state of insecurity. This makes these arguements consistent. Hobbes also says rebellion is not pragmatic, as it risks the subject’s own life and plunges the Commonwealth back into a state of war. If security only meant imminent physical harm, the potential consequences of revolution would be equal to the consequences of staying in the commonwealth, [Cite Sreedhar] meaning revolution because of insecurity obeys rational interest. However, as the consequences of economic insecurity are not always death while the consequences of revolution often are, and given the absolute terms Hobbes’ puts the dissolution of the Commonwealth, Hobbes arguement is rendered