Hobbes and Freedom
Thomas Hobbes has extensively addressed this idea of freedom. In his view, freedom can only be achieved when one is free from non-commitment and does not experience any obstruction[1]. This paper will expound on Hobbes’ definition of freedom and linking them to his idea of sovereignty.
From Hobbes’ definition of freedom, he provides that people should have the right to choose from the available alternatives as they deem fit. This means that people in society will always have numerous competing alternatives before them and should be free to choose whatever they think fits their appetite[2]. However, from his position, he feels that the moment one has to go through deliberation, they have already lost their freedom. He describes deliberation as the loss of liberty which may be backed by fear. He expounds this by stating that even when one chooses an alternative, they should still be free to change their minds. Provided that one is bound to their decision once they make the decision, then they are unfree.
Hobbes provides that obligations begin where liberty ends[3]. This means that when one makes a promise to another person, they must realize their promise since they owe the person. Therefore, they lose their freedom since they cannot make a contrary decision. Furthermore, when one has the right to hold or even force another to perform their obligation, then they are not free. In most instances, there will be some form of consequence attached to the promise. The fear of such consequences would then lead to the obligator being unable to change their mind.
The second definition of freedom is that it is a form of non-obstruction. This means that individuals should be free to act as they feel like. In instances that there exists something or somebody that would inhibit them from acting on their decision[4]. In most cases, these are external impediment. Hobbes perception of freedom is further explained with the stone and water analogy. This is in the sense that even though water is fluid and the molecules can flow in any side, it is limited by the container that it is enclosed in. This is defined as the external impediment. However, a rock may be in an open field, but it cannot move even if it wished. Therefore, the stone’s inability to move has been caused by its internal factors. This has been further looked at as the difference between power and freedom. When the inhibitors are external, it affects one’s freedom, whereas when it is from internal factors, one lacks power.
Therefore, Hobbes’ definition goes a step further and touches on the will and ability of individuals. This is in the sense that people are supposed to be free to make a decision in a particular situation. In instances that they make a decision because of a previous occurrence, individual or if they are aware of a set of steps that they are supposed to make in those situations, then they are not free. He explains this by stating that the external factors that may be inhibitors to the actions of these individuals are most likely going to make it impossible for them to make a choice or their choice cannot be implement. Even when such measures exist, then people should be free to decide whether or not they will adhere to them or not.
In his practical example, Hobbes goes ahead and draws the idea of an agent. An agent’s ability to make decisions or perform their duties may be a good explanation to Hobbes’ definition of freedom. Even though the agent is free to act, one can look at whether or not they are acting within or out of their will. A principal’s presence is a form of external hinderance that will render the agent’s freedom to be hard or impossible to achieve[5].
In Hobbes’ definition of freedom, he provides that freedom needs to be valid and properly enforced. When achieving these factors, then people should not be forced to act in ways that force them to end up performing actions that are out of human ability. Therefore, people need to be reasonable when deciding on what they are obligating themselves to perform. On enforceability, individuals always have this idea or attitude that the other party is most likely not going to perform their obligations. Further, there needs to be a body that has the power to ensure that it can ensure that people achieve their duties [6]. This is where the state or a sovereign body comes in. The strength and ability of this person or body can be used to effect the sanctions.
Thomas Hobbes, provides that a society without a powerful state or leader will always amount to turmoil. He describes man as not a social animal, and the only way that a society can exist is when there exists a more powerful being to maintain the order. In the Leviathan, he described man as naturally wicked and should not be trusted to govern (Tak 2015). This is because most of the society members lack a clear idea as to what is right and wrong. Allowing people to freely do as they please without any form of uniform laws will lead to disputes. This means that people will most likely not know boundaries and differentiate what is theirs or their neighbors. As they are implementing their free will, they may infringe on the rights of the other members of society. Consequently, the society will be in a bottomless pit of violent conflict and turmoil.
Therefore, Hobbes provides that in a well-functioning society, people have to be ready to give up their rights, or rather, they should be able to agree on which rights can be compromised for a society to be in peace. Further he states that the members of the society will be required to agree on which individual or entity they should give up their freedoms. To Hobbes, people under one common master are more likely to be peaceful when the society comprises individuals with many kings. In this state, people are aware of the consequences that await their greed in case they infringe on others’ rights. Hobbes reiterates the natural liberty definition of freedom. This is in the sense that people are free from any form of bondage and live in a state of nature. They are free to bind themselves as they deem fit without interference from other parties.
To Hobbes, the government is a creation that is necessary as a way of protecting people from their own vices. The king’s authority is meant to ensure that there is order and lead the country to the right direction. The sovereign is required to take a different view of the society from that of the larger majority. This is because rather than thinking of their personal interest, the king must make decisions that are for the best interest of the larger majority. He explained that human beings are always in a state of war by stating that human beings are always carrying arms and locking doors because of their natural instincts and hatred for the next individual.
Hobbes further felt that democracy goes against the whole idea of the formation of the government. The cessation of powers to a sovereign being of body is mainly meant to protect people from their selfishness and they will always choose people who will allow them to achieve this selfishness[7]. In addition, the race for power will always lead to constant wars and death. He provides that men are in a perpetual and restless desire for power that only stops in death. Therefore, it was necessary to have an absolute ruler.
He explains that this absolutism does not affect the performance of the king. This is because a good ruler will always understand that his relationship with his subjects will always determine how long they will rule. With the right and well-informed Kingsman, then the kingdom will be peaceful and able to grow. He states that a good king must know that his subject’s best interest is for the king’s best interest. In addition, since the people chose their king by mutual consent, then they would be ready to be bound and support him. The subjects would only lose their loyalty to the king when they feel that he can no longer protect them.
Hobbes stipulated the various ways that sovereignty may be established. Firstly, they can establish it by mutual consent. In this case, the governed would all agree to give up their rights to a common authority. This is referred to as sovereignty by institution. Secondly, the sovereign authority or body would coerce the people to obey them or else they would conquer them. This is referred to as sovereignty by acquisition. The difference is on the motivation that they would use to get obedience from the governed. They may use fear or mutual agreement. Hobbes provides that fear is the main way. This is because even though people may mutually consent to give up their sovereignty, they fear the other members of the society. Therefore, they hope that the government would be able to protect them from their neighbors’ selfishness.
Therefore, Hobbes’ idea of the society and freedom greatly influenced his political attitudes. Hobbes defined it from a negative point of view. This is because most people experience the impediments from external factors. In his view, man’s natural state will always make it impossible for everybody to exercise their power. Peoples will needs to be checked in order for them to live in peace within the society. Hobbes’ definition and the idea of freedom helped him rebut the individualistic argument brought by other philosophers. This is because he did not believe that a just legal system would enhance and preserve freedom. He holds that even in the ‘free society,’ people are not free to take steps however they want to. The only time that one can do as they want to is in the state of anarchy. Provided that people have some laws present, then they will still be required to adhere to the laws and it means that they are not free since they are still required to answer to the sovereign.
In the Leviathan, he duly describes the sovereign being. This is because he states that if the institution was an individual, then sovereignty would be the soul. The king or the leader would then be the head of this body. Therefore, the king can do what is best for the whole body. The governed are mandated to provide the artificial being with the necessary items that would then allow it to function smoothly. He referred to this body as the Leviathan.
In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes defined freedom in most of his works. From his point of view, a freeman is free to perform his will with little or no interference from his side. However, his understanding of the society is that people can’t do as they wish. Hobbes further provides that this need for order would motivate people to give up their freedom to a sovereign for them to be protected from either the other members of society or the sovereign’s conquer.
Bibliography
Pettit, Philip. “Liberty and Leviathan.” politics, philosophy & economics 4, no. 1 (2005): 131- 151.
Pink, Thomas. “Thomas Hobbes and the ethics of freedom.” Inquiry 54, no. 5 (2011): 541-563.
Tak, Berkategori. 2015. “Sovereignty (Hobbes-Kant) and Politics Concept (Socrates-Plato) – IPS.” Tak Berkategori. January 2015. Accessed August 31, 2020. https://thxcblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/sovereignty-hobbes-kant-and-politics-concept-socrates-plato/.
Von Leyden, Wolfgang. Hobbes and Locke: The politics of freedom and obligation. Springer, 1982.
[1] Pettit, Philip. “Liberty and Leviathan.” politics, philosophy & economics 4, no. 1 (2005): 131-151.
[2] Ibid., 133.
[3] Ibid., 134.
[4] Ibid., 137.
[5] Ibid., 136.
[6] Pink, Thomas. “Thomas Hobbes and the ethics of freedom.” Inquiry 54, no. 5 (2011): 541-563.
[7] Von Leyden, Wolfgang. Hobbes and Locke: The politics of freedom and obligation. Springer, 1982.