Hobbes vs. Thoreau
Thomas Hobbes’ book, Leviathan and Henry David Thoreau’s essay, Resistance to Civil Government could not be more opposed when it comes to looking at the social contract from a political philosophy viewpoint. On the one hand, Hobbes maintains that humanity’s utmost obligation is to submit oneself to the authority of the sovereign state. Thoreau, on the other hand, argues that under specific circumstances, it is humanity’s duty is to resist the state. This paper will argue that Hobbes does not succeed in establishing our obligation to submit to the sovereign’s authority. Instead it is Thoreau whom is correct that in certain circumstances we are obliged to resist the State. The two main issues with Hobbes’ reasoning in Leviathan regarding the sovereign authority stem from his explanations of the Laws of Nature and the power of the government. In Thoreau’s Resistance to Civil Government, these two issues are more adequately addressed.
Before establishing the reasons why Thoreau’s views on the obligations of the citizen to the state are more correct than Hobbes’, it should be noted that Thoreau’s essay, Resistance to Civil Government was published 198 years after Leviathan. While Hobbes wrote Leviathan during the English Civil War, Thoreau wrote Resistance to Civil Government as an abolitionist during the time of the slavery crisis in New England and the Mexican-American war. Therefore the differences in social context of the two works are drastic.
Not only was Leviathan regarded as one of the earliest works containing social contract theory, Hobbes himself is regarded as one of the key figures in the English Enlightenment, otherwise known as the Age of Reason. This context within which Hobbes thrived, and within which Leviathan was published is significant, because the philosophical method upon which Hobbes based Leviathan is modelled after a geometric proof, founded upon first principles and established definitions. In this model, each argument makes conclusions
Before establishing the reasons why Thoreau’s views on the obligations of the citizen to the state are more correct than Hobbes’, it should be noted that Thoreau’s essay, Resistance to Civil Government was published 198 years after Leviathan. While Hobbes wrote Leviathan during the English Civil War, Thoreau wrote Resistance to Civil Government as an abolitionist during the time of the slavery crisis in New England and the Mexican-American war. Therefore the differences in social context of the two works are drastic.
Not only was Leviathan regarded as one of the earliest works containing social contract theory, Hobbes himself is regarded as one of the key figures in the English Enlightenment, otherwise known as the Age of Reason. This context within which Hobbes thrived, and within which Leviathan was published is significant, because the philosophical method upon which Hobbes based Leviathan is modelled after a geometric proof, founded upon first principles and established definitions. In this model, each argument makes conclusions
Bibliography: Bird, Alexander. "Squaring the Circle: Hobbes on Philosophy and Geometry." Journal of the History of Ideas. 10.1 (1996): 217-231. Germino, Dante. “Italian Fascism in the History of Political Thought.” Midwest Journal of Political Science. 8.2 (1964): 109-126. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. London: Penguin Books, 1968/1651. May, Larry. Ethics in the History of Western Philosophy. New York: MacMillan/St. Martin’s Press, 1990. Owen, Judd J. “The Tolerant Leviathan: Hobbes and the Paradox of Liberalism.” Polity. 37.1 (2005): 130-148. Schmitter, Philippe C. “Still the Century of Corporatism?” The Review of Politics. 36.1 (1974): 85-131.