Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Upon reading about Hobbes and his political philosophy, I found it interesting that his ideal choice of government was a monarchy. While he acknowledges that every man has his own judgement and not everyone has the same things in mind, except for their own selfish survival, he doesn't seem to acknowledge the idea that the single person in power would also be ruling on the judgement of their own selfish motives. Would this not, in a way, prevent peace from being a viable option for anyone who has a differing judgement from the monarch's idea of peace? Or at least for those who do disagree with his rulings, would they not resort to a state of nature as individuals within the society? Would the state under monarchy have no military force because everyone fights for themselves instead of their country and each other? And my biggest concern of all.. what characteristics put the monarch above everyone else? Must there be an agreement of who is to rule? How could everybody agree on something so crucial without at least a few feeling like their peace is being violated? And what is there to hold people to the laws that are created, other than their promise? Does violation of the promise have consequences? I feel as though a monarchy, of all systems, would be the one to drive a state into the natural state of man most quickly. Has anyone been able to interpret Hobbes' philosophy in a way that can answer these questions? If so, please share.