Essay On The History Of Political Ideas

Essay on the History of Political Ideas

Introduction: 

The seventeenth century is probably the most agitated century in British history, even qualified as the century of violence. It was the temporal moment in which Hobbes writes the Leviathan in his exile of eleven years in France. At this time, England was immersed in a religious and civil confrontation, due to the attempt to establish an absolute monarchy by Jacobo I and Carlos I, the same monarchs who took the country to the Thirty Year War.

The confrontation between the cameras and the king is revived, which they force to sign the Bill of Rights in 1628. Religious clashes occur between Catholics, Protestants and Puritans, who resulted in a civil war with the king’s troops fighting with those of Parliament (led by Cromwell). Finally, Cromwell’s victory makes it erected as "Lord Protector" until 1661. After his death, the restoration of the estuard (Carlos II) characterized by a fragile balance occurred.

Hobbes maintained an intermediate position, since he defended the figure of the king, but maintained that his power was not divine. Following this situation, Hobbes elaborated the Leviathan, where he collects his theory of "social contract", based on his mechanistic and materialistic vision of reality, for which he denies the existence of the "soul".

Hobbes defends that, without the State, men would kill each other, due to the avidity for the material goods that ethical considerations leave.

The shortage of wealth is what causes the fight between them.

Hobbes states that there are no absolute values, but that we act according to our subjective mechanical impulses that guarantee us survival in the state of nature where the law of the strongest governs. Therefore, we need rules that benefit us all focused on the conservation of life and property. Thus, it seeks laws parallel to those of natural sciences, which neutralize the eagerness of power and wealth as elements of human nature.

From this reasoning the idea of state that guarantees peace is born, through a balance system between passions (monopol) and reason (organize the State). The existence of the State is a requirement of the human being survival instinct. According to the rational impulse, we conclude a contract to grant power to the sovereign, civil power that must be totally disconnected from any divine or ecclesiastical instance.

Citizens renounce part of their rights in exchange for peace and security. Hobbes, to this almighty organizing entity he calls him Leviathan, against which there is no rebellion or dissent.

Another function of the State is to create in its entirety the legal system, it is a political organization oriented to positivism.

Hobbes is the main precursor of English liberalism and political individualism. He affirms that society is a set of rational individuals, generators of desires and preferences and the only judges and defenders of their interests.

The main ideas of political individualism are the following: 1) The legitimacy and authority of the Government derive the individual consent of citizens;2) political representation is not a representation of sectors or classes, but of individual interests;3) The purpose of the government is to provide the satisfaction of particular needs and the protection of individual rights.

MAIN CHAPTERS OF WORK: ANALYSIS OF IDEAS YOU. Start by stating what the author poses. Connect it with other works or topics, critical comment

Hobbes theory for peace arises from his vision of human nature as the total sum of appetites and mechanical aversions, mediated by power struggles. Because human appetite is mechanical and resources are limited, when two people have appetite for the same resource, the natural result is war. All men are naturally the same, because even the weakest are able to kill the strongest in some way;Thus the battle is inevitable.

Hobbes describes the natural condition of humanity as of war and continuous violence, since there is no common power, there is no law and there is no injustice. This condition is known as the "state of nature", in which there is no place for anything else;Being the life of man: lonely, poor, unpleasant, brutal and short. It is a fiction with the objective of establishing what the existing situation prior to civilizations was.

In the state of nature, a war of every natural man against others, there is no possible security and life is full of horror;being able to find three main causes of dissension: competition, distrust and glory. But there are natural passions that allow people to escape: fear, which causes the desire to go out by materializing in fear of death;And the reason, which shows how to escape, by providing the natural laws that constitute the basis for peace through consensus.

However, deviating from the Hobbesian position, Locke, contemporary of the author, bets on a natural human inclination towards good, every human being knows if what he is doing is good or bad and there is a certain sanction in the internal jurisdiction that tells usWhat are we doing wrong. It is also intrinsic to the nature of the human being not deceiving others.

For Hobbes, freedom, understood as the refusal according to Isaiah Berlin, is the absence of external impediments that reduce part of the power that a man has to do what he wants, deriving that volunteer acts only seek the benefit of the person who performs them.

Natural law is the freedom that each one has to use their own power as they please, for the preservation of their own nature, that is, of their own life;and, consequently, to do everything that his own judgment and reason considers as the most apt means to achieve that end.

Thus, the Lex Naturalis is a precept or general rule, discovered by reason, by which man is forbidden to do what is destructive to his life, affirming human self-preservation and condemning destructive acts for human life. However, for authors such as Aristotle or Groccio, natural law is a belief that above the positive law there is a framework of values and rights that are typical of the human being, and that the first has to specify.

Unlike a civil law, which must be written and published so that it is known, the natural law is intrinsically known by all, because it can be deduced by innate mental faculties. We must differentiate between Jus and Lex;The law consists in the freedom to do or not, while the law determines and forces one of the two things, differ in such a way that they cannot coexist with respect to the same thing. Likewise, between Jus Civile and Lex Civile, which is an obligation and takes away the freedom that the law of nature gives us.

Having described the horrors of the State of War continues, he concludes arguing that the natural man, to preserve life, must seek peace. As a consequence of the above, he concludes: “Every man must seek peace wherever he has the hope of achieving it;And when he cannot get it, then he can search and use all the advantages and aids of war ”.  

The first part contains the first and fundamental law of nature: seek peace and maintain it. In the second part, natural law is summarized: defend ourselves with all means within our reach.

From that fundamental law of nature, the second is derived: that a man must be eager, when others are also, and in order to achieve peace and personal defense as far as he seems necessary, of not making use of his right to everything, and to be content with such freedom in their relationship with other men, as he would allow others in his dealings with him. There is truly there is no obligation to give up their right to everything, by not being able to ask anyone to become the dam of others, but it is encouraged to act as men as they would like them to treat them.

For a man, not making use of his right to something is depriving himself of the freedom to prevent another from benefiting from what he has his own right. Therefore, we must strip us of certain rights to escape the state of natural war and guarantee our personal security. The mutual transfer of a right is what men call "contract", only being carried out when others are willing to do the same;Being the right of self-preservation the founder of the contract.

The only way to erect such common power, capable of defending them against the invasion of foreigners and against the injuries of others is to confer all their power and strength to a man or an assembly of men, all of whom, by plurality of votes, they will reduce thesocial will in one, personifying the people;with the objective that sovereign power holds the media and particular strength of each subject to achieve common peace and security.

Done this, the crowd thus united in a person is called a state, in Latin, civitas;Generation of that great Leviathan, mortal God to which we owe our peace and our defense.

The end of the State is security, which is why men, who love freedom and dominance over others, voluntarily self-impose that restriction on themselves. This desire lies in the will to abandon the miserable condition of war, a consequence of human nature that will be controlled and restricted by fear of the punishment of an entity superior to man.

The laws of nature, those that pretend that you do the same thing you want others to do, are, by themselves contrary to our natural passions, which induce us to partiality, pride, revenge and selfishness, by thethat if a power has not been instituted or is not large enough for our safety, each one will be protected with their own strength.

Following chapter XVIII, we will address the authoritarian conception of the power we observe in Hobbes political theory when it is stated that once the pact between the subjects is made, every subsequent pact that may want to do to change the form of sovereignty, orTo deliver sovereignty to another.

First, the subjects agree with each other and not with the sovereign, so who voluntarily underwent the decision of the majority, commits injustice if he does not accept that decision, since he tacitly gave his consent. In addition, the complaint is not contemplated before the actions of the sovereign because it would mean complaining about something that he himself is an author.

Second, the sovereign cannot be punished, because the subjects would be punishing another for what they did. It may seem that this enormous power exposes the people to the arbitrariness and whims of the sovereign, but this is unlikely because the greatness of the sovereign comes from the greatness of the people, and, in addition, any inconvenience that derives from the action of the State is insignificant comparedWith the problems that would have one as is the case of the state of nature.

Since who is entitled to the end is entitled to the media, to guarantee peace and security, the sovereign has the right to do what is necessary to judge.

Thus, the sovereign is in charge of dictating civil laws, which determine the property (concept truly introduced by Rousseau) of each subject and impose the distinction of the good and the bad, the legal and illegal actions. No one else can legislate or repeal the laws already made, from which it is derived that the legislator is not subject to the laws and is the only absolute interpreter. Likewise, he is responsible for making war and declare peace with other states, being the ultimate authority of the Army.

It is also their duty to instruct the people about the nature of sovereignty, to avoid discontent. It must, therefore: teach that prosperity does not depend on the form of the government, but on obedience, and that the solution is never to change the form of government to which the prosperous neighbors have;not to speak badly of the sovereign or discuss his power;Learning, in addition, civil duties;To children who must honor parents, if there would be no reason to take the work of engender, raise and educate children;teach justice, that is, not to deprive anyone of what is yours.

Also promoting equality before the law included as tax equality: taxes should not depend on the wealth of each, but on the protection that the State provides to each one;Public charity: help those who cannot keep themselves;establishing good laws: it does not mean fair laws, since no law can be unfair;Punishments: Not for revenge, but to set the example.

In the courts of justice, it is the sovereign who judges, and the subordinate judge will limit himself to issue a sentence taking into account the intention behind the law by which he will be guided;otherwise, it would be unfair.

The knowledge of civil law corresponds to every man. However, it only forces who knows and understands;It does not govern natural fools, or on children, crazy, irrational beasts or those who never had news of the laws. They cannot be said that they have made a pact, or that they are fair or unfair, or that they form a state.

Third, their rights are incommunicable and inseparable, and summarize the essence of sovereignty. Giving up some is calling war.

On the occasion of Chapter XXIV, Hobbes argues that the nutrition of a State consists of the abundance and distribution of materials, native or foreigners, being only possible the property possible. In the state of nature there is only uncertainty, each one owns what he takes and for as much time as he can keep it.

Property on a land consists in the right to exclude all other subjects from it, but not the sovereign. Because the sovereign distributes land to guarantee peace, also competing to determine the best way to make the necessary exchanges for life, and the necessary signs and words are understood that these contracts are valid.

At the rate of chapter XXVI, the author deepens civil laws, positioning himself together with Locke, which restrict natural freedom guaranteeing their respect through a system of punishment;So it is important that no one doubts who the sovereign of the State is by having danger for the effect of ignorance or false sense of security in the memory of humans so that they forget how the State was constituted.

For Hobbes, a free man "is one who, in those things he can do by virtue of his own strength and ingenuity, is not prevented in realization of what has a willingness to carry out".

So that an act performed for fear remains a free act (vs. Aristotle;When the ancients talked about freedom, they talked about the freedom of the polis, which is equal to that of sovereigns: freedom in the state of nature), having the freedom to omit actions even with fear of civil laws;artificial ties series, not lasting in themselves but by danger of what would happen if they did not exist.

Thus, the freedoms of the subject are certainly limited to all that allowed by law. Thus, that the right to do anything is not lacking, except to the extent that it is a subject of God, which forces him to observe the laws of nature.

The subjects have the right and freedom to always defend their body, because such right can never be transferred. The subjects are not obliged to damage themselves, or to declare against themselves. The other freedoms depend on the silence of the law: where there is no law, the subject can act at discretion.

We will also mention the relevance of the punishment system established in the work. First, introducing the concept of sin: transgression of the law, and, therefore a contempt for the legislator;that is, act against the law, or omit to do what the law orders, or have the intention of transgressing the law (intent). And of crime: it is a sin that consists of committing, of act or word, something that the law prohibits, or in omitting what the law commands to do;They are those sins that one man can accuse another (crime: sin that could be exhibited before a judge).

In addition, there are various sources of crime in the work, as well as levels of gravity in which the modifying circumstances of the penalty (exempt, mitigating and aggravating) are taken into account).

Then, it introduces the concept of punishment or penalty: poorly caused by public authority, in order to cause a reaction of obedience of society, to that person who has done or omitted something that this first considers a transgression of the law.

The subjects do not give the State the right to punish, but when these of this are stripped, the State is the only one that holds this power in everyone’s name. Even so, they do not give up being able to defend themselves.

There are different types of punishments: divine and human;The latter can be bodily, pecuniaries, ignominy, imprisonment, exile or a combination. There are also capital punishments, implies the intention of provoking death, and some that are less.

The reward is either a gift or something that is given by contract. It is also mentioned as some salaries are insured and come from the public treasure;while others are uncertain and depend on the fulfillment of the job charge.

Immediately after, it opens the debate of the diseases of the states, which for hobbes are, among others: the lack of absolute power, the sovereign should never be content with less power than is necessarily required to preserve the peace and security of the State;Sedicious doctrines that, for example, incite the subjects to believe that they can be judges of what is good or bad;And, the internal division of the civil government, is not a state, but three independent factions and three representatives.

As for the relationship between sovereigns, the law that governs is the law of nations, which is identical to the law of nature. Among sovereigns, there is no court of justice but in consciousness, which was implanted by God, and before God himself, king of kings. If in a war, exterior or intestine, the enemy defeats the State, then it is dissolved. From there, each subject is free to defend itself using the means they create convenient.

Finally, we will summarize his comparison with a later actor, Rousseau, whose fascination with the English political system is reflected in the influence he had on his work of the spirit of the laws (1748) where he proposes the theory of moderate government and the separation of powers, completely contrary to that adopted by Hobbes in the Leviathan. Rousseau believes in goodness by nature of the human being and is contractualist, as are Hobbes and Locke, as soon as he believes in the Delegation of Individual Assets in order to achieve the common good.

Conclusions

The Leviathan is the monstrous and terrifying entity that represents the State for Hobbes, having to subjugate all human beings that in the state of nature let themselves be dominated by their passions and proud, plunging into a situation of deep fear and continuous war. That fear does not disappear but is redirected to punishment by the sovereign;using, therefore, constantly as a control instrument. Even so, there is that preservation of peace and guarantee of security inside.

When observing his biography, we can conclude that his theory so influenced by anthropological pessimism and fear, are the product of their personal experiences. He lives the time of invasion of the invincible Navy, which causes him that conception that man is the wolf for man;that he derives from that desire for the same things and annihilation if necessary.

Despite having, supposedly, left behind the state of nature, we can currently observe how countries, dedicating themselves to widening their domains for their own safety and under the pretext of danger, or assistance, they strive how much they can submit or weakento its neighbors, through sustainable force and secret arts, in the absence of another guarantee.

The natural law, to which other authors give preponderance regarding positive law, tries to guarantee self-preservation by prohibiting destructive acts. Currently, this aspect is a dominant part of most debates, such as abortion and euthanasia, where fundamental rights with freedom enter into collision.

It also comments on the impossibility of punishing the sovereign, where currently in Spain the King’s inviolability enters. Knowing that the sovereign is an individual with concrete appetites, who can as easily as any other "subject" succumb to individualistic pleasures instigated by his own selfishness. Hobbes does not specifically regulate how the "choice" of the sovereign would be carried out.

Every man must know the civil law, it would be a point of importance when conducting the curricula, helping to keep the population informed and ensuring, at present, that people know it implies being a citizen of a country and,Also, that when they vote they are being aware, and not deceived by populism and demagogy, booming phenomena in the contemporary world.

On the other hand, despite the contemplation and regulation of state affairs by Hobbes, it leaves as a possibility the idea that in case of non -regulation of any assumption, arbitrariness would be that it would govern. In addition, as a law student, I consider that some of the brushstrokes on criminal law are archaic, while others perfectly describe the current format. Contradiction that the death penalty is allowed, but a sin is considered, and probably a crime, practices such as euthanasia or abortion.

Hobbes state theory is dominated by authoritarianism;It is based on the total sovereignty of the State Representative or Assembly, which holds the "three powers": Executive, Legislative and Judicial. This practice is materially discarded. Precisely because of the need for the division of powers to avoid authoritarianism, and as unchecking, made by the Enlightenment, of the old regime that was characterized by absolutism and lack of rights and freedoms.

As well as, many of the freedoms for which, sometimes, we have to fight are not even contemplated in the text, such as press freedom, expression, etc ..

Hobbes’ argument in book II extends along the line between the philosophical description of a contractual community and the political prescription for the institution of the ideal society. It deals with the details of the sovereign administration and the structure of the Leviatan legal system. When combined with the previous section, it provides a plan to design a new political structure.

Everyone escapes: right negative function. Criminal: "He goes against the law of nature to punish the innocent […] the one who is judicially exempted and is recognized as innocent by the judge", not being able to punish the one who escapes before trial of having been found innocent of a crime of a crimecapital.

Bibliography

• Historic context. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2018, from https: // blogs.UA.es/thomashobbes/2010/03/11/test/
• Historical Context for Leviathan. (n.d.). Retrieved November 28, 2018, from https: // www.College.Columbia.Edu/Core/Content/Leviathan/Context
• Lloyd, s. A., & SREEDHAR, S. (2018, April 30). Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy. Retrieved November 29, 2018, from https: // plate.Stanford.Edu/Entries/Hobbes -moral/
• Bottle, j. (1994). Political thought in his texts: from Plato to Marx. Seed and groove .Politic science.
• Hobbes, t. (1651). Leviathan, OR, The Matter, Forme and Power of A Commonwealth, Ecclesasticall and Civil. London: Crooke.