Thomas Hobbes Leviathan Argument Analysis

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that in order for people to lead a life that is not completely miserable they should form a commonwealth (a united group) (Ch. 17 sect. 3). Also, those in the commonwealth should agree to a social contract and submit themselves to the power of a sovereign. A commonwealth, as he details, is like an artificial man in so far that it aims to protect itself from danger (Intro sect. 1). A social contract is made possible when people give part of their rights in exchange for peace. When a sovereign is in place, the people are giving their rights to that ruler in exchange for the possibility of peace. Hobbes bases his argument on the theory that there is a ‘state of nature’ in which all people value, desire, etc. the same

To achieve peace, people must give up their right to do anything they please (Ch. 17 sect. 3). People do not have as much to fear even if the commonwealth is not perfect. Anything is better than the state of nature. When people are part of a social contract, the ruler/rulers do not sign that contract and so are not obligated to follow the rules laid out (Ch. 18). The sovereign has ultimate power and still lives in the state of nature. Hobbes also argues that a commonwealth led by a single sovereign i.e. a monarchy is ideal. He argues that “in a monarchy the private interest is the same with the public”, civil war is less likely because there is no one with which to disagree, and the monarch will likely have consistent policies (Chap. 19 sect. 4, 6, 7). Since the sovereign can do anything they please, people are likely to fear the sovereign. At any moment a person in the commonwealth is liable to be executed, tortured, etc. by the sovereign, but this is infinitely better than worrying that anyone could do terrible things to you. In sum, Hobbes makes the argument that living in the state of nature leads to a miserable existence and agreeing to a social contract always increase one’s chance at leading a better