The Catholic Thing
On Hobbes’ Leviathan Print E-mail
By George J. Marlin   
Tuesday, 10 August 2010

In the July 14 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Professor Jeffrey Collins of Queen’s University, Ontario, claimed Thomas Hobbes’ seventeenth-century political treatise Leviathan, which laid the ideological foundation for the omnipotent state, is popular reading these days.

“Today,” the professor wrote “Leviathan is considered one of the greatest works of political theory ever written. . . . The very title of Hobbes’ masterpiece [which is standard reading in most colleges] has become a byword for the modern state.” And he agreed with introductory comments in the new Yale edition of Leviathan that Hobbes comes across as “our philosophical contemporary” and has made “very deep inroads” into our thinking.

If Collins is right, America is in deep trouble. That’s because Hobbes, the father of modern statism and the first advocate of totalitarianism, rejected the insights of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas that man by his nature is a social animal who forms society by the demands and impulses of his rational nature working through free will. Hobbes also dismissed the notion that human reason possesses the power to discover the natural law.

Instead, Hobbes postulated that the state is founded on man’s right of self-preservation. He assumed that man is naturally in a state of complete liberty and is driven only by his passions and desires. “Every man for his part, calleth that which pleaseth and is delightful to himself, good; and that evil which displeaseth him. . . . And as we call good and evil the things that please and displease; so we call goodness and badness the qualities or powers whereby they do it.” Since each person is completely free to do as he wishes, each person is free to violate the freedom of other people. Hobbesian man is vain, contentious, revengeful, and self-seeking; his primitive anti-social “state of nature” leads to a condition of constant warfare and hostility. Man becomes “a wolf to man.” There is a “war of all against all” with “no justice because there is no law.” The natural origin of the state discovered by the great ancients and medievals is replaced with the contractual theory of the state invented by Hobbes.

Due to their impulse for self-preservation and the realization of the incompatibility of competing interests, Hobbes holds men come together by compact (the general will) and cede their natural freedom to a sovereign who makes and enforces law. According to Hobbes:

The only way to erect such a common power . . . is to confer all their power and strength on one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills by plurality of voices, unto one will. . . . This is more than consent, or concord: it is a real unity of them all, in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man. I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up the right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person, is called a commonwealth. . . . For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him, that by terror thereof, he is enabled to perform the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. [Italics added.] 

The populace irrevocably conveys its liberties to the state; its private judgments to an absolute sovereign. To control the passions and judgments of the populace the sovereign has terrifying power, since, in Hobbes’ words, “covenants without the sword are but words and of no strength to secure a man.” The head of state is absolutely, indivisible, and inalienable, and he defines the “natural law” as he sees fit, which means natural law is ignored.

In Hobbes’ doctrines there is no room for the concept of subsidiarity or the family as a necessary institution in society. In effect, Hobbes knew only the harsh antagonism of individual against state, a conflict he believed the state must win. The noted Catholic philosopher Heinrich Rommen argued that Hobbes also “lacked an understanding of the particular nature of the Church as a ‘perfect’ society: it became either a department of the state or a spiritual free fellowship, not an institution.”

Hobbes’ Leviathan may be currently popular in Barack Obama’s Washington where, in broad daylight, people whom historian Richard Hofstadter called “totalitarian liberals” employ illiberal means to achieve so-called liberal reforms. These authoritarians of the left, according to Hofstadter, often embrace “hatred as a form of creed” in the pursuit of their goals.

Professor Collins hit on this in his Journal article: “When pundits such as Thomas Friedman decry ‘broken government’ and fawn over China’s ‘enlightened’ response to global warming or are puzzled by Americans’ widespread resistance to Obamacare, one wonders if the Hobbesian within the liberal breast is stirring.”

Proponents of a Hobbesian state should be feared because they are determined to transform American culture according to their current view of its best interests, and the means for the changes they would effect is raw power. To them liberty means obedience to the uncertain will of the elite, even in matters of life and death. To them, the modern liberal state, not God, is absolute.

George J. Marlin is an editor of
The Quotable Fulton Sheen and the author of The American Catholic Voter.

(c) 2010 The Catholic Thing.
All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info at thecatholicthing dot org

The Catholic Thing
is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (7)Add Comment
written by James Danielson, August 11, 2010
In Hobbes' theory, law exists only in consequence of the contract that creates the sovereign. So long as contracts are enforced and we're prohibited from killing each other, justice is whatever the sovereign says it is.
written by John McCarthy, August 11, 2010
As an amateur philosopher, I agree with Mr. Marlin that in the end Hobbes' political philosophy is dangerous in the extreme, nonetheless, Hobbes, more than any of the other classical political thinkers, understood the demonic dimension of our human nature. The solution that he proposed, however, simply transferred the demonic from the individual to the state. As Marlin implies, the solution - to the extent that any solution exists - lies in institutionalized checks and balances and in the all-important principle of subsidiarity.
written by Richard Imgrund, August 11, 2010
"... one wonders if the Hobbesian within the liberal breast is stirring."!?

I am long past 'wondering' that.
written by Martin Dybicz, August 11, 2010
Mr. Marlin, thank you for this column, and please consider writing a column on "the insights of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas that man by his nature is a social animal who forms society by the demands and impulses of his rational nature working through free will." It would benefit those unfamiliar with Aristotle and Aquinas, as well as those of us familiar with them but interested in how you would articulate their insights.
written by Joe, August 11, 2010
Hobbes actually built on Lucretius, the Roman philosopher who 15 centuries before posited the universe consisted of "atoms and the void." Hobbes's atheistic materialism found fertile ground in the likes of Hume and Rousseau, the latter's "social contract" envisioning not merely a pledge to obey the ruler (as in Hobbes's Levianthan), but as as an agreement of individuals to subordinate their judgment, rights and powers to the needs and judgment of their community as a whole.

Interestingly, Rousseau wrote, "the vote of the majority always binds all the rest," and called for the general will of the community or 'public spirit' past, present and future to prevail in all things. But today, despite votes and polls(Prop 8 in California) and SB1270 in Arizona where a majority of citizens favor public policies among many examples, the government (ruling class) does what it wants irrespective of the general will.

Democracy, being direct rule by the people, is impossible, according to Rousseau, who wrote: "It we take the term in the strict sense, there never has been a real democracy, and there never will be. It is against the natural order for the many to govern and the few to be governed."

Plato's philosopher-king ('a good king with a sharp axe,' as a street philosopher friend of my puts it) seems preferable to our current system of oligarchic totalitarianism, but the die was cast back in 1776 and there's no turning back.
written by jason taylor, August 11, 2010
To be fair, Hobbes wrote at a time period when the chief peril was disorder not overwhelming state power. Much of that disorder was state-caused of course, nontheless he could be pardoned in the seventeenth century for thinking that almost any government was better than none.
written by Timothy J.A. O'Donnell, August 12, 2010
Currently I am enrolled in a graduate program at a Catholic School taking Modern Philosophy this summer. We read "Leviathan” for the class. I was stunned by the connections between Hobbesian political philosophy and liberalism. George Marlin performs a great service in explicating and illuminating those connections and several others I had missed. Self-preservation in Hobbesian-think is the basic human good both universal and worth protection, yet it is being replaced in our era of relativism that enjoys primacy of place in polite conversation, political theory, and policy makers. Perhaps it is the thin, wrongheaded anthropology that Hobbes offers that grounds the problem: “And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Leviathan, 62. With this vacuous understanding of the human person, control through total power does appear to be a reasonable response to force the populace to abandon their selfish pursuits and direct them toward the societal good regardless of the lethal methods necessary. A return to Natural Law and Thomism may be our last, best hope in this arena.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


Other Articles By This Author