Introduction to Hobbes and the Social Contract

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), a prominent philosopher of his time, is best known for his work The Leviathan. In this monumental text, Hobbes presents a philosophy that seeks to address the chaotic nature of human existence through the concept of the social contract. Central to his argument is the idea that a legitimate state can prevent the regression to a state of nature, characterized by constant conflict and disorder. This article delves into why Hobbes believed that a state cannot be unjust, analyzing the key aspects of his theory and the nuances that arise from the tension between individual and collective rights.

The Concept of Injustice in Hobbes's Philosophy

According to Hobbes, injustice is fundamentally linked to the violation of a covenant or promise. A covenant is a binding agreement between individuals, and the sovereign's authority is derived from the collective covenants made by the individuals who submit to its rule. In Leviathan, Hobbes writes about the social contract as the means by which individuals agree to submit themselves to a sovereign in exchange for protection and order. The sovereign, in this sense, becomes an artificial entity—referred to as the Leviathan—that holds all individuals in awe and prevents the descent into a state of war within and between nations.

The legitimacy of the state, in Hobbes's view, is rooted in the voluntary agreement of the subjects to surrender their natural rights for the sake of peace and security. This agreement forms the foundation of a society where the sovereign's decisions are recognized as legitimate because they are derived from the will of the people expressed through these covenants. The sovereign is, therefore, seen as an embodiment of the will of the people, protecting them from the inherent chaos and conflict that characterize the state of nature.

Opposition to the State and Sovereign Authority

Despite the clear emphasis on the legitimacy of the state and the sovereign, Hobbes's philosophy does not entirely preclude the possibility of resistance by individuals against the state. In certain circumstances, particularly when the state or sovereign poses a direct threat to the lives and well-being of its subjects, individual rights can assert themselves against the state.

Hobbes does acknowledge that a subject may resist the state or sovereign if their lives are in immediate danger. This is particularly evident in his discussion of the condition known as "forceful men who have power to kill the other" (Chapter 18, Leviathan). Here, Hobbes suggests that in extreme cases, individuals can claim a right to self-preservation and can resist the state. However, this resistance is not a general license to rebel. It is a last resort, applicable only when the state or sovereign is incapable of fulfilling its primary function of protecting the lives and property of the people.

Underlying Tensions in Hobbes's Theory

The concept of individual resistance against the state, while present in Hobbes's works, creates a tension with his assertion of absolute sovereign authority. This tension arises from the inherent paradox of a state that is both the ultimate authority and the protector of individual rights. Hobbes's theory is deeply rooted in the idea of the social contract, where the surrender of individual rights for the sake of order and stability is a necessary trade-off.

The key question is how to reconcile the absolute authority of the sovereign with the potential for individual resistance. Hobbes argues that the sovereign's authority is absolute because it is derived from the collective covenants of the people. The sovereign, therefore, acts with the moral and legal authority to make decisions that benefit the community as a whole. Any resistance to the sovereign, while not inherently unjust, can be seen as a failure to adhere to the terms of the social contract.

Conclusion: The Unjust State in Hobbes's Perspective

In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes's view on the state and its legitimacy is firmly grounded in the concept of the social contract and the idea of covenants. The state, as an embodiment of the collective will of the people, cannot be justly labeled as unjust because its authority is derived from the voluntary submission of individuals. This submission, however, does not preclude the possibility of individual resistance under extreme circumstances. The tension between absolute sovereign authority and the potential for individual resistance forms a central theme in Hobbes's philosophy, highlighting the complexities and challenges inherent in maintaining a just and orderly society.