Thomas Hobbes: Does Power Or Authority Make Order?
Does power or authority make order? Thomas Hobbes, in writing the Leviathan, proposes an answer to the question. However, there must first be a definition of the terms power, authority, and order. Hobbes classifies power in two categories: natural powers, which are basic powers of the body and mind such as physical strength and prudence, and instrumental powers, which are powers that are means and instruments to acquire more powers such as riches, reputation, and friends. These powers, together, are means to “obtain some future apparent good” (Hobbes 170). The greatest of human powers are the combined powers of most men, united by consent. Authority, in Hobbes’ writing, refers to the position of some or one person over another supported by
…show more content…
There are two ways of responding to this question: in comparison with other forms of governments and in consideration without other forms of government. In comparison, an assembly, found in both democracies and aristocracies, can disagree with itself out of envy or interest and thus may cause a civil war. A monarch, on the other hand, cannot disagree with himself. Therefore, in the way of comparison, a monarchy is sufficient enough for peaceful order because it relies on one person that possess absolute power over everyone and, thus, cannot cause a rift between himself. When one person is the government, as a monarchy is, there is greater stability, which results in peaceful order. In consideration of absolutism by itself, it is also sufficient for peaceful order. This is due to the first law of nature in contradiction with the nature of man. The first law of nature demands peace because men desire to survive. The best method of achieving peace is by contracts. However, the nature of man inclines him towards more his unending desires and power, as Hobbes states, “a condition of every man has a right to every thing… therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man” and thus men tend to want to break the contract (Hobbes 180). Therefore, when a contract establishes a monarch with absolute power to punish anyone who breaks the contract, men, impelled by fear of punishment, keep peaceful order within the
There are two ways of responding to this question: in comparison with other forms of governments and in consideration without other forms of government. In comparison, an assembly, found in both democracies and aristocracies, can disagree with itself out of envy or interest and thus may cause a civil war. A monarch, on the other hand, cannot disagree with himself. Therefore, in the way of comparison, a monarchy is sufficient enough for peaceful order because it relies on one person that possess absolute power over everyone and, thus, cannot cause a rift between himself. When one person is the government, as a monarchy is, there is greater stability, which results in peaceful order. In consideration of absolutism by itself, it is also sufficient for peaceful order. This is due to the first law of nature in contradiction with the nature of man. The first law of nature demands peace because men desire to survive. The best method of achieving peace is by contracts. However, the nature of man inclines him towards more his unending desires and power, as Hobbes states, “a condition of every man has a right to every thing… therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man” and thus men tend to want to break the contract (Hobbes 180). Therefore, when a contract establishes a monarch with absolute power to punish anyone who breaks the contract, men, impelled by fear of punishment, keep peaceful order within the