#Really need your help# Hi, could you please help me check the argument and logic in this research paper, and give me some advice on further research and revision.?
hobbes and the nature of sovereignty
Hobbes makes two arguments for the absolute nature of sovereignty. On one hand, the social covenant is between the subjects, not the subjects and the sovereign, and therefore the sovereignty is not limited by the contract. On the other hand, the sovereignty must be absolute, which means non-transferable, unlimited and inseparable, to enforce the natural law and maintain order. Otherwise, people will go back to the poor conditions of nature, which is a state of war. This paper firstly describes Hobbes' argument for the absolute nature of sovereignty, then argues that it is not convincing in regards to three aspects.Firstly, Hobbes makes incorrect assumptions about human nature and state of nature. Secondly, Hobbes' argument in regards to conflict between defensive forces and the purpose of self-preservation which cast doubt on the legitimacy of absolute sovereignty is not convincing. Lastly, this essay will examine Hobbes' assertion that the sovereign can be free from the limitation of the contract.
Hobbes makes two main arguments for the absolute nature of sovereignty. First, the absolute nature of sovereignty is based on the fact that the contract, which removes people from state of nature according to Hobbes' assumption of human nature, is between individuals and not the ruler. This contract creates the sovereign power. For this reason, citizens do not have the right to call the legitimacy of the sovereign power into question. According to Hobbes, people in state of nature are equal in body and mind, and the weakest are able to kill the strongest. When any two men want to get the same thing, they become enemies (Hobbes 1651, p. 76) Driven by competition, glory, and diffidence, people in state of nature go into conflict with each other, and the state of nature is a state of war of everyone against everyone (Hobbes 1651, p. 77). Despite the existence of natural laws, without a common power to enforce them, people still rely on their individual strength and scheme to protect themselves (De Cive v. 1-3 & Elements xix. 2) Based on the first fundamental law to seek peace and defend ourselves, men are willing to lay down their rights to all things to protect themselves and sign the contract of mutual transferring of rights (Hobbes 1651, pp. 80-82). By conferring all men's power and strength on one man or one assembly of men, the common power is established, and the sovereign who carries the united commonwealth has unlimited power and rights to everything for mutual defense (Hobbes 1651, p. 106) As the covenant is signed among one man and another, not between the sovereign and his subjects, the sovereign is not limited by the covenant, while every subject is in his subjection (Hobbes 1651, p. 108) Furthermore, the bilateral covenant signed among men implies the free gift of rights and power to the third party, the sovereign (Dalgarno 1975, pp. 209-226)
Second, the absolute nature of sovereignty is the result of the established contract, and is unlimited, inseparable and inransferable. In order to enforce the law and maintain order, the sovereign power must be absolute-only in this way with the absolute power to punish crime is the law effective. Without this absolute nature, returning to the state of nature or civil war will always be on the horizon. Hobbes argued the inseparability of sovereignty from two aspects, that the sovereignty can neither be separated from visible power, nor be separated from invisible power (Wang 2008, ch. 3) From the perspective of visible power, as it is discussed in last paragraph that the rights of sovereign is authorised by contract among people but not sovereign, there would never be violation of covenant from the sovereign (Hobbes 1651, p. 108). This means that the sovereign power cannot disobey the law because it is the law. Furthermore, the unlimited power and rights can only be mastered by one single sovereign, and any trial to separate it would drag people back to the poor state of nature, where people rely on their own strength and power to defend their rights (Li 2013, p. 26). Hobbes also oppses the idea of the separation of power to taxation, commanding rights and legislative power, as this would create three representatives, and make it difficult to rach an agreement about law, which endangers the commonwealth (Hobbes 1997, p. 257).
The real transference of sovereignty can not be achieved due to its inseparability and uniqueness (Wang 2008, p. 59) Hobbes argued for the non-transeferability of sovereign by saying that any grant to renounce the rights of the sovereign is void unless the sovereign announces it in direct words, as we could grant back the sovereignty when the sovereign power granted everything he had, and the sovereignty remained inseparable(1651, p. 112). The inlimitability of sovereignty is also discussed in Hobbes' text. As he argued, if the sovereignty is limited, it's either limited by itself or something outside of it. The sovereignty can not be limited by itself, as it could remove the limitation at anytime by using his power. If it is limited by something else, the limiting power would be the real sovereignty (DeHart 2013, p. 12 )
Hobbes' argument for the absolute nature of sovereignty is not convincing. Firstly, Hobbes' argument is based on a wrong assumption of human nature and state of nature. There are different interpretations about human nature and state of nature in contrast to Hobbes. Montesquieu argued that a man in state of nature with the faculty of knowing would feel nothing but his own weakness and inferiority, instead of a sense of equality (Montesquieu 1949, p. 4). He pointed out that the natural desire and impulses which is attributed by Hobbes as the cause for conflict among people is not convincing. He argued that the idea of domination is complex and dependent on many other notions, so it is not the first idea in human's understanding (Montesquieu 1949, p. 3). Montesquieu also criticized Hobbes for incorrectly identifying the defensive behavior of human such as "lock the door" "stay armed" as actions before the establishment of society, which in fact is the result of the estalishment (Montesquieu 1949, p. 4)
Rousseau also criticized Hobbes' assumption of human nature, and he argued that Hobbes neglected the fact that those prevent people from using their reason also prevent them from absuing their faculties (Rousseau 1755, p. 80). He also said that the intention for self-preservation is more likely to promote peace than produce harm to others (Rousseau 1755, p. 79). Locke distinguished between state of nature and state of war, as the state of nature is a condition where people live peacefully together without a common force, and the state of war came into being after the emergence of force upon one person of another without a superior for relief. So there is significant different between them (Locke 1924, p. 126). Therefore, Hobbes' assumption of human nature and state of nature is problematic and undergoes criticism and query, so his argument for the absolue nature of sovereignty which is based on it is also doubtful and needs further discussion.
Secondly, there is conflict arising from human nature within the sovereignty theory, that the existence of soldiers in Hobbes' commonwealth is contrary to the primary purpose of self-preservation to enter the commonwealth. McClure pointed out that there is a paradox arising from human nature, that how the man who signed the contract for fear of death and self-preservation can be required to in the service of national defense ( 2014, p. 114). According to Hobbes, people choose to live in a commonwealth and exert restraint on themselves in order to get out of the state of nature for their own preservation (1651, p. 103) However, in this way, he couldn't account for the rationality of existence of military forces which consist of soldiers in the commonwealth, which is important to maintain the absolute sovereignty.
Hobbes destroys the ideals of men with courage and bravery by making self-preservation the foundation of social system, as a man with independent wisdom and strength is a threat to the absolute sovereign. Therefore it is impossible to require them to risk their lives for a higher good (Bagby 2009, p. 89) Taking the action of punishing criminals as an example, when some crimes occur, the sovereign has to rely on some forces in the state like police to punish the offenders. During the process of arresting the criminal, a state of nature exists between the state and the criminal (Wu 2007, p. 17). However, the criminal would have a direct influence on the life of the policemen.Therefore the police wouldn't be able to perform his duty if he had signed the contract for pure self-preservation. The only situation when the policeman would choose to perform his duty is when otherwise he would face something the same as or more severe penalty than hurting his self-preservation from the sovereign. In this case however, the man who executes penalty under the order of the sovereign would put himself into a state of nature with the undutiful policeman, which puts risks on his security and creates a new contradiction with the primary purpose of self-preservation. The only way to solve the circulation of contradiction arising from subjects' behavior and the purpose of self-preservation is to acknowledge the existence of another pursuit of human being that is as important as self-preservation, which can be used by the sovereign to force the police into performing his duties. So Hobbes's argument for the absolute nature of sovereignty is not convincing when self-preservation became the only pursuit of human beings, as they would sign the social contract to protect their own lives instead of risking their lives fighting for a common good in the commonwealth. By denying the rational existence of soldiers and military force in Hobbes' Leviathan, it can be concluded that his commonwealth is not well founded, and the legitimacy of the absolute sovereignty is being questioned (Wu 2007, p. 19).
Thirdly, Hobbes' argument is not convincing as he does not make it clear the relationship between the sovereign and the covenant, and therefore whether the sovereign is inside or outside the contract is hotly debated by scholars of Hobbes. In one sense, the Sovereign is inside the contract, as it is produced by it. Hobbes also notes that security is the basic and sole condition on the contract, and people assembly their strength and power to Leviathan who will defend them against the enemies (Hobbes 1651, p. 106). However, on the other hand, law plays a key role in the contract and Hobbes clearly excludes the sovereign from the obligation of law (Hobbes 1651, p. 108). Wang (2015, p. 118) has pointed out that the sovereign would not be able to enjoy the rights deriving from the contract without being a participant of it. To enjoy the rights and benefits means making contract with individuals, which implies a limitation to the sovereignty which makes it no longer absolute. While according to Green (2015, pp. 25-47), the authorization gives the sovereign immunity from the criticism and demands from the subjects, and enables the sovereign to escape from various forms of constrains. Therefore, there are controversial opinions about whether the sovereign is inside the contract and limited by it or not.
In conclusion, Hobbes makes two main arguments of the absolute nature of sovereignty. The first is that the sovereign is not limited by the contract which is required by the need to get out of state of nature and is signed between the subjects, which excludes the sovereign from the obligation. Secondly, the absolute nature of sovereignty is required and necessary to enforce the laws, and without the absolute nature, people will get back to state of nature. This paper argues that Hobbes' argument is not convincing by questioning his assumption of human nature, and the deficiency of self-preservation as the only purpose of the contract, which harms the legitimacy of absolute sovereignty due to the conflict between self-preservation and the existence of soldiers. Furthermore, it is not convincing to free the sovereignty from the obligation to social contract by excluding it from the process of signing the original covenant.