FREE ESSAY ON HOBBES A SOCIAL COVENANT THEORIST

HOBBES A SOCIAL COVENANT THEORIST

Hobbes -- a Social Covenant Theorist
Throughout the assigned portions of the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes proves to be a "social
contract" theorist, however inconsistently. Through his explanation of humanity
extracting itself out of the state of Nature, by developing rules pertaining to property
and contract, by means of the creation of a Sovereign, or Common Wealth, he clearly
elucidates the basic concepts of social contract theory. 
In order to fully grasp Hobbes' theory of Social Contract, one must first become familiar
with his basic premises of "The State of Nature." In this state each individual is
inherently in a perpetual state of war, due to several given reasons. Hobbes assumes that
"Nature hath made men…equall." (Hobbes 183) Also, that in this state of war all men
exemplify purely egoistic behavior, striving to do whatever possible to maximize their
own utility, even if it requires murdering another. In addition to these conditions, in
the state of nature, there exists a state of natural scarcity, in which, a finite amount
of goods, possessions, property, "cattell," "wives," whatever, exist to satisfy man's
infinite wants. "And therefore if any two men desire the same thing…they become
enemies and…endeavour to destroy or subdue one an other." (Hobbes 184) Hence,
creating a constant state of war.
At no time, in this natural state, is injustice even possible. As Hobbes so concisely
states, "Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice."
(Hobbes 188) Essentially, since every man is entitled to everything, he is also at
liberty to exert any means possible -- including violence -- in order to satisfy all of
his wants and needs. In this State of War, each individual is at the mercy of any of the
whims of any invader, neighbor, child, or any other entity - lest they fail to protect
themselves. Expressed by Hobbes, "And therefore, as long as this naturall Right of
everyman to every thing endureth there can be no security to any man, of living out the
time, which Nature ordinarily alloweth men to live." (Hobbes 190) 
In addition to this most inconvenient physical state of nature, Hobbes elaborates upon
the "mutuall transferring of right." (Hobbes 192) It is necessary for men to enter into
contracts, a mutual agreement made by individuals in order to exchange the "right to the
thing." (Hobbes 193) "Things" can range from deciding on peace between two quarreling
parties, with demands and peaceful sacrifices from both ends, to an agreement between two
merchants for goods and services. At times it is necessary for "one of the Contractors"
to, "deliver the Thing contracted for on his part, and leave the other to perform his
part at some determinate time after." (Hobbes 193) Thusly, forming this covenant, which
promises that a good or service of some sort will be awarded to one of the contractors at
a future time. However, in the state of nature, there exists absolutely no assurance that
ones contracts or covenants will be upheld. Hobbes argues that it is in everyman's best
interest to not fulfill his end of the bargain, as it were. Therefore, due to his "feare
of not performance on either part," men are driven, by their own suspicions to create a
coercive power, or sovereign, to regulate their contractual agreements and covenants. 
Just as outlined in Social Contract theory, those in the state of nature, found it in
their best interests to enter into a social contract, thereby abandoning some of their
freedoms, in order to have the reigning entity of a Sovereign, or Commonwealth. This
contract must be entered into by all men, with all men, who should perhaps say to each
other, as Hobbes suggests, "I authorise and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to
this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to
him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner." (Hobbes, 227) This governing unit was
a single individual or group of individuals, established to preside over all contracts,
or covenants made. In this capacity, Hobbes, is said to be a Social Contract theorist, in
that men must enter into this agreement, to absolve some of freedoms in order to ensure
security in all contracts and covenants. Hobbes contends that if one individual refuses
to become a member of society, denying his consent to the establishment of a sovereign,
then everyone else, who has agreed to the edification of a sovereign, has the right to
either force him to join their social contract or they have the right to do harm to him.
For if one individual still resides in the state of nature, then he has the right to
everything and this by its self threatens each and every individual adhering to the
contract. 
While Hobbes' premises appear to directly coincide with social contract theory, upon
further examination, one can become aware of several glaring flaws in his argument.
Within Hobbes' theory there exists no system of checks and balances, as known today. The
Social Contract agreed upon by the 'citizens' is not a contract at all, rather a
covenant, i.e., the sovereign at anytime is able to govern as he sees fit, therefore
there are no guarantees that this chosen sovereign will rule with justice and reason, as
he is required to do. Since the Sovereign exists in a state of nature, he too is
egoistic, and therefore is capable of ruling in his best interest, rather than in the
interest of his subjects. 
Hobbes allows for no revolution He contends that under a Sovereign all citizens must
accept his ruling, for all of his laws, rules, etc., are indirectly derived from the
original contract, which the individuals entered into. Therefore, they must accept the
Sovereign under all circumstances (except if the sovereign mandates that an individual
kill himself, for that violates the contract, by causing an individual to injure himself)
for they, themselves created the Sovereign by way of their contract. 
Also, the creation of an absolute sovereign, according to Hobbes, is necessary to secure
peace and harmony in civil society or the commonwealth. The sovereign is defined as one
who is the absolute master of all his subjects, and that he is the final arbiter of all
questions in the commonwealth. The sovereign decides whether or not he, or his successor,
will continue in power - a power that will be permanent. However, the subjects in the
commonwealth empower a ruler by accepting and obeying his punishment commands. Their
obedience, which they decide, must therefore, and of necessity, be in their best
interests and their welfare.
Yet, it can be seen that the sovereign, who is created by the people, as subjects, does
not decide for them the fundamental questions of acceptance of, and obedience to, his
commands, including his punishment commands. It therefore follows that the ruler only
holds power as long as his subjects obey his punishment commands. The sovereign does not
determine the question of obedience to his commands, because that is ultimately a
question the subjects determine for themselves, based on their assessment of their best
interests and welfare. It therefore follows that the people as subjects, in due course,
establish the very existence of the sovereign, which is dependent on obedience to his
commands. 
Therefore the subjects cannot create a sovereign who upholds their covenant- that is a
ruler who decides all questions in the commonwealth and whose reign is absolute and
permanent. And it does not follow that peace and harmony in civil society can be secured
and guaranteed by the adoption of Hobbes's schema, that outlines the ascension from war
to peace in the first place - making Hobbes a Social Covenant Theorist.