Was Hobbes a Liberal or a Conservative Thinker - Essay Example

Was Hobbes a Liberal or a Conservative Thinker? Introduction In truth, there is nothing liberal about Hobbes and his philosophy; he was a conservative thinker. Hobbes’ arguments and suggestions all point to a huge preference – love even – for conservatism (Bunce, 2013:32). It is not by chance that he is considered the father of conservatism; he stood for everything that conservatism represents. The notion of a conservative theory was first published around the mid 15th century in Britain when none other than Hobbes published his seminal book, the Leviathan (Gert, 2013:29). He was one of the first to affirm his faith in the idea of someone owning private property. He was also among the first philosophers to believe that kings did not have any rights over commoners. Hobbes had a strong conviction that no man has a natural right to dominate another man (Hobbes, 2013:21). He was also among the first people to express – in writing – that he trusted that all men were created equal. Discussion This seems to have been the genesis of the two ideologies of liberalism and conservatism. Hobbes represented the latter (Lieberman, 2013:54). At face value, Hobbes’ views appear to lean towards liberalism, but a closer look reveals a deeply entrenched conservative mindset that does not waver in the face of the strongest winds of liberalism. The fact that Hobbes often features – constantly – on the conservative side in liberalism versus conservatism debates shows that he was a conservative thinker (Mannheim, 2013:14). He is the epitome, the embodiment, the perfect example of what a conservative should be. Hobbes, while employed as an instructor to a young King Charles II, exerted so much influence on England’s throne that the king had to agree to be the first monarch to divide his ordained power over Britons with the British Parliament. In spite of this, there was a malicious angle to Hobbes’ views (Gert, 2013:34). For example, his theory of human nature was that the inherent state of man was to be in conflict. In fact, Hobbes held this view so strongly that he termed the theory of peaceful times as nothing more than the absence conflict. In other words, his opinion was that the perpetual clashes between men, households and governments was as inherent and natural as sunset (Gert, 2013:14). Hobbes’ opinion was that mankind, by his true nature, is evil, conceited and ready kill another man because that is what mankind does. This notion resulted in what ultimately became the foundation of today’s contemporary conservative philosophy (Bunce, 2013:16). With this in mind, how can anyone say that Hobbes was a liberal thinker? There is little – or nothing – liberal about Hobbes or his concepts. He was a conservative thinker. The philosophy that resulted from Hobbes’ perspective on humans was that states must be moderated and limited because it comprises fractured humans who are, at their roots – evil. On the other hand, corporations are basically autonomous and are completely amoral (Bunce, 2013:17). Since they are so amoral, they are, therefore, less evil than having a state controlled by humans who are naturally evil. Well, corporations are also controlled by humans, so this appears to be a flaw in Hobbes’ theory (Hobbes, 2013:24). The notion was, consequently, that the conservative approach was to adopt a restrictive authoritarian or fatherly mindset to ruling society, or humans’ evil nature would crop up and the society would, ultimately, descend into chaos and instability (Thomas, 2013:48). Although the English initially welcomed this new theory and the regime of King Charles II, more than past ruling monarchies, James II ultimately replaced Charles II (Hobbes, 2013:26). James II, who was a psychotic, power-crazy ruler, drew the ire of the English with his behaviour and personality and would nor last in power for long (Hobbes, 2013:27). He was overthrown in 1688, and Parliament later enacted the initial British Bill of Rights for the whole of England. When discussing Hobbes’ thinking, it is important to compare him to John Locke, another pioneering, and highly influential philosopher (Hobbes, 2013:31). Comparing the two brings out their true thinking and helps explain their philosophies. Ideologically, Locke was the complete opposite of Hobbes: he was liberal. In addition, Locke believed in the right of individuals to own property (Matravers and Pike, 2014:46). However, he held that all of nature was an element of the commons for all humans. His theory was that mankind is the antithesis of Hobbes’ concepts. Locke held that humans were not violent by nature (Matravers and Pike, 2014:47). As a pioneering liberal, Locke held that people are inherently good and that the state ought to help in the protection of people and ought to be used in helping everyone realise their highest potential (Matravers and Pike, 2014:47). As to the “Commons," these are the areas or items that should be shared in common by everyone. For example, there are forests for everyone to use for farming and construction and all the water bodies are there to provide water for the whole world (Bunce, 2013:58). However, if someone takes time to plant and grow trees or fell it for constructing a house or for firewood, that common commodity will then morph into the private property of the individual(s) who invested in it. According to Ryan (2012:32), more often than not, American Indian communities became the best analogies for showing that Locke’s outlook on the inherent state of mankind was that if being benevolent, not malevolent, as did Hobbes. As an example, it is well known that for centuries, most of the American Indian communities lived in relative harmony and tranquillity, among and between each other (Matravers and Pike, 2014:52). Communal conflict was rare, before white Europeans discovered and then started migrating to the American continent. On the subject of the relationship between the two philosophers on the topic of church and the power of the government, this is one of the main differences between both old and contemporary conservatives and liberals (Thomas, 2013:23). Conservatives, like Hobbes, are of the opinion that freedom occurred in the moderation of the human nature of conflict by employing the church or the state’s iron fist (Thomas, 2013:25). On the other hand, liberals are of the opinion that Locke discovered freedom in the moderation of the church, or the government, leaving people or communities to establish self-governing to guarantee a state of equilibrium and harmony (Ryan, 2012:39). Most of Thomas Jefferson’s publications borrowed heavily from Locke’s concepts. If we were to transport ourselves to today from Hobbes and Locke’s times, we would find that the main disparities between the conservatives and the liberals have not really transformed. According to Hobbes (2013:51), conservatives still stick to the theory that amoral corporations or moral organisations such as churches are morally higher-ranking than immoral people. Consequently, conservatives often want the restrictions on the state to emanate from religious institutions or the allegedly amoral free industries (Hobbes, 2013:43). On the other hand, liberals hold that amoral organisations such as corporations, as well as corruptible bodies like religious institutions, rank below moral humans. Consequently, they would like state restrictions to originate from well-informed public voters (Gert, 2013:49). As stated in the introduction to the US Constitution, there are 6 reasons for establishing a state, and only one is intended for a common defence. According to Bunce (2013:45), the remaining reasons are for justice, the blessings of liberty, peace, a perfect union, and general welfare. Similarly to Locke’s concepts, the remaining justifications are for the state to support the public for helping it realise its optimum potential (Matravers and Pike, 2014:62). Hobbes was the contemporary father of the political theories of absolute power. The Leviathan is an idea borrowed from the beast discussed in Revelations. He believed that the government ought to be a powerful beast that dominates and overpowers others (Ryan, 2012:16). This belief is in direct contrast to the principles of liberalism, which require power to be given to the people because they are the ones who establish the state (Ryan, 2012:19). Hobbes believed that man was nothing beyond his role in the government. According to Bunce (2013:44), Bertrand Russell called Locke the “The Apostle of the Revolution of 1688” because it was a liberal rebellion against the hierarchical power of kings. The theory of absolute government power is extremely detrimental to the theory of individual freedom and civil liberties (Thomas, 2013:31). Hobbes should have borrowed an idea from St. Paul that religious rules exist largely, or those who are yet to be saved and who do not have God’s commandments etched in their hearts and minds (Thomas, 2013:35). In a similar fashion, civil liberties exist for people with a government ruling over them or on their behalf for democracy, because civil liberties are the rebuttal of civil limits (Thomas, 2013:35). In Hobbes’ view, civil liberties are mostly illusory because the government has and deserves to have absolute power (Matravers and Pike, 2014:17). Russell argued that Hobbes’ theories were in part a reaction to the historical trend of absolute religious domination that existed since possibly the era of Gregory the Great until European nationalism collapsed the domination and absolutism of the Catholic power and concept of absolute religious power (Matravers and Pike, 2014:23). Frederick the Great’s hostility toward Rome intensified support for an ultimate statist and protestant division from the Catholic domination. Conclusion As evidenced by this discussion, and based on all possible definitions of liberalism and conservatism, Hobbes was a conservative thinker. The beliefs, opinions, theories and concepts he held point to an ardent faithful of conservatism and its ideals. Hobbes’ thoughts continue to be influential today, generating a lot of debate and pitting different factions against others (Matravers and Pike, 2014:27). Amidst all this, it is important not to forget the message in his theories. It is also important to use his theories in a way that can help the society become more civil and peaceful. His methods may have been wrong, but his intentions were good. References Bunce, R. (2013) Thomas Hobbes, London, Bloomsbury Academic. Gert, B. (2013) Hobbes, Oxford, Wiley. Hobbes, T. (2013) Elements of law, natural and political, Hoboken, Taylor and Francis. Lieberman, J. (2013) Liberalism undressed, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Mannheim, K. (2013) Conservatism, Hoboken, Taylor and Francis. Matravers, D. & Pike, J. (2014) Reading political philosophy Machiavelli to Mill, Hoboken, Taylor and Francis. Ryan, A. (2012) The making of modern liberalism, Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. Thomas, H. (2013) Ethics of Hobbes, S.l., Book on Demand. Read More