This preview shows page 197 - 199 out of 339 pages.
Sadler, Gregory. "The States Of Nature In Hobbes’ Leviathan." Government and History Faculty Working Papers. 2010. Web. May 07, 2019. <om/&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=govt_hist_wp>. One prime example of Hobbes’s approach is his treatment of natural laws’ relations to civil laws, and their interpretation. Not only is the sovereign authority accorded the sole right and duty of making and enforcing the civil laws reflecting and institutionalizing the natural laws, the sovereign and its ministers alone is authorized to interpret the laws. Particularly of interest are the potential interpreters Hobbes rejects. He thinks that “considering there be very few, perhaps none, that in some cases are not blinded by self-love, or some other passion, [the natural law] is now become of all laws the most obscure; and has consequently the greatest need of able interpreters.”105 To leave interpretation of the laws, right and wrong, justice and injustice, up to individual subjects, and to allow them to contest the sovereign’s interpretation, paves the way for uncertainty, partiality, and discord.106 Further complicating things are the ready supply of doctrines and teachers giving their own interpretations of these matters. Hobbes insists that “[t]he interpretation of the laws of nature, in a commonwealth, dependeth not on the books of moral philosophy,” and even includes his own work, concluding that “[t]he authority of writers, without the authority of the commonwealth, maketh not their opinions law, be they never so true.”107
NEG: Hobbes NC June 2019 Champion Briefs198 Hobbes is descriptive, not prescriptive, rendering his value system relevant and strong. Wilkins, Katelyn. "Hobbesian Liberalism: A Study Of ProtoLiberal Ideas In Leviathan." CLA Journal. 2014. Web. May 07, 2019. <-Wilkins-Hobbesian-Liberalism.pdf>. This idea brings up another major point that Hobbes, along with subsequent theorists, seems to take a different approach to politics than the ancients. Instead of looking at what humans ought to be, Hobbes focused on what they are. Ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato spent entire works answering the question of what humans should be, and arguing for the repression of their desires in order to better serve society. Hobbes uses the entire first quarter of Leviathan to examine the true nature of man, even calling it “Of Man,” and urges management of human desires, not repression. Since Hobbes views humans in terms of what they are, he sees that they are naturally going to be competing with each other out of greed and selfishness, unless a powerful entity stops them. The sovereign is in place to act as that powerful entity as well as acting as the neutral party in conflict resolution. Hobbes articulates this idea in Chapter XVII of Leviathan when he writes, “The final cause, end, or design of men … in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves … is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby …” (Hobbes 1997, 93). The constant fear that humans in the state of