STUDY GUIDE FOR HOBBES

Part I. Basic Interpretation of Hobbes
If you are interested in the thought of Thomas Hobbes after reading  Kraynak’s essay, please go to the Primary Source Documents to read some of the critical passages that informed the paper. As you return to the primary sources, keep these questions in mind:

1. What is distinctive about Hobbes’s views on human nature?
2. Why does Hobbes believe that the sovereign must have total control over the state?
3. What is Hobbes’s reasoning behind his belief in an individual’s fundamental right of self-preservation? Why does he call this a natural right?
4. How do the other natural rights follow from the right of self-preservation?
5. What does Hobbes think is the biggest problem with traditional natural law thinking?
6. Why does Hobbes think the state should protect natural rights rather than obey natural laws? What is the difference?

Part II. Connections to Other Thinkers
In order to properly understand Hobbes, it is important to place him in his proper context. He is often, and appropriately, compared with other early modern thinkers like Locke and Rousseau. However, one must also remember that he was classically educated and thus intimately familiar with the thought of Greek and Roman philosophers like Aristotle or Cicero. And, of course, we can see his influence on contemporary thinkers. Let us see how we can enhance our understanding by comparing him to some other political philosophers.

1. Hobbes writes, “For though they that speak of this subject used to confound jus and lex (right and law), yet they ought to be distinguished…” Whom do you think Hobbes is referring to here? What distinction is he making that other thinkers failed to make?
2. Compare Hobbes’s concept of self-preservation as a fundamental right with the New Natural Lawyers' idea of life as a basic good.
3. For classical thinkers like Aristotle, virtue was essential for living peacefully in a community. What role does Hobbes assign to virtue, and how does it differ from that of earlier thinkers’ theories?
4. Compare Hobbes’s and Locke’s views on rights, both as to their content and the justification for them.
5. One of Kraynak’s central arguments in his article is that Hobbes provides some of the intellectual underpinning for modern liberalism. Is there a particular liberal thinker who owes a lot to Hobbes? Try comparing Hobbes’s ideas with those of someone like John Rawls.  

Part III. Critical Interpretation of Hobbes
Now that you have a basic understanding of Hobbes’s thought, let us turn a more critical eye towards his work. Are his arguments persuasive? Can we speculate from them what Hobbes would have thought about issues that he did not directly address? Use the questions below as your guide:

1. Is there a fundamental conflict in Hobbes between the absolute power of the sovereign and the absolute individual right of self-preservation?
2. Is Hobbes successful in refuting classical teleology? Kraynak argues that Hobbes’s materialism, taken in itself, is not enough—do you agree? To what extent does Hobbes’s second argument from “moral experience” strengthen his case?
3. How far does the right of self-preservation go? One can imagine situations where, in order to avoid violent death, it might be necessary to commit a host of other crimes (for instance, if a criminal threatens you with death unless you assist him). Or, you might only be able to preserve your own life by infringing on someone else’s right of self-preservation. What would Hobbes say to this?
4. To what extent do you think Hobbes’s beliefs were colored by his experience of the English Civil War, where rebellion from the king in the name of a higher law eventually led to significant disorder and bloodshed? Can you think of a time or place where appeals to natural law instead promoted peace and stability?
5. What modern form of government would Hobbes find most attractive, given both his belief in the necessary extent of state power and his belief in natural rights? Is there a particular country whose government best embodies his ideals?
6. Hobbes rejects the idea of man as having a natural end, while he keeps the idea (albeit redefined) of natural law. Is it really possible for there to be a natural law without an end for man that the law is supposed to achieve?  Does Hobbes set up as a new ultimate end for society the state itself and the order that it alone can create?

Part IV. Contemporary Connections
Hobbes has had a tremendous influence on modern political and philosophical thought. Therefore, let us now turn our eye to some contemporary debates and see how Hobbes’s thought may be relevant in understanding them.  

1. Often, natural law is thought of as a “conservative” idea, perhaps because it is often cited in support of traditional values or because people associate it with the Middle Ages and religious figures like St. Thomas Aquinas. However, consider recent landmark Supreme Court cases (Brown v. Board of Education, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.). Here, it is the liberals who believe that some fundamental natural rights must always be protected, whether the Constitution explicitly mentions them or not, and it is the conservatives who advocate a strict reliance on the written positive law alone. 
    
   
   1. Would you classify Hobbes as a liberal or a conservative? Belief in natural rights is a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism, but Hobbes’s emphasis on the absolute authority of the state goes against the classical liberal ideal of limited government.
   2. Is belief in natural law liberal or conservative? Does it make a difference whether you’re talking about natural law or natural rights? Is liberal v. conservative even an appropriate distinction to make here?

2. As we have discussed earlier, Hobbes had a very negative view of what happens when people make appeals to a higher law, due partly to the times in which he lived. In recent times, episodes of disobedience to the state in the name of obedience to a higher law abound: the 1960s civil rights movement, pacifists dodging the draft, religious sects practicing polygamy. As is clear from these examples, our opinions of these efforts vary greatly, from overwhelming support of the civil rights movement to overwhelming disapproval of polygamy. Do people, therefore, only favor appeals to natural law insofar as those same people agree with the natural law evoked? If so, does this lend credence to Hobbes’s view that belief in natural law only leads to disagreement and social chaos?
3. In Hobbes we see a switch in the word “right” from an adjective describing states of affairs (as in, “laws should promote a right ordering of society”) to a noun, a thing possessed by individuals (as in, “I have a right to a fair trial”). The former concept is relatively easy to understand, as it treats “right” as an abstract concept analogous to “good.” The latter, however, is more difficult to pin down, despite its ubiquity in modern discourse. What is a right, for instance the right of self-preservation? Does it mean that it is irrational not to protect one’s life? That it is never morally wrong to do so? That it is always wrong for someone else to try to take your life?
4. Hobbes believed that, from the fundamental right of self-preservation, he could derive all the other basic rights by a fairly simple process of reasoning. Modern disagreements about the content of human rights, however, show that it is not nearly so simple. On one hand, everything from health care to clean water to a “living wage” is thought of as a basic right by some, but is derided by others as a ridiculous cheapening of the very concept of a human right. On the other hand, even the right to life, seemingly the most obvious and basic, runs into controversies about abortion, war, capital punishment, and euthanasia. Does belief in natural rights create the same chaos that Hobbes feared from belief in natural law?
5. In Leviathan, Hobbes argues that the state, instead of pursuing the highest good, should instead concern itself with preserving the minimal goods of peace and order. He can thus be seen providing the underpinning for the modern liberal state, in which the state, by protecting rights and maintaining the peace, provides a sort of neutral ground in which individuals can pursue their own conceptions of the good. Would Hobbes welcome this development? Or would he think that, because there is no highest good in his view, it is as foolish for individuals to seek it as it is for the state as a whole to do so? Would he argue that a society in which people are all pursuing different goods is inherently unstable and will ultimately lead to the downfall of the state?