1. Hobbes’ Conception of Man

1.1 Hobbes’ Life and Historical Background

Thomas Hobbes lived between the years 1588 to 1679. He was born in Melmesbury, Wiltshire, England. When he was fourteen years of age, Thomas joined the University of Oxford where he studied classical literature. He also studied logic but he was not interested with the Aristotelian logic in the university though he performed it very well at the end of his studies. He left Oxford in 1608 and became a tutor to the young son of William Cavendish, the governor of Devonshire.

Hobbes traveled to many places and met different thinkers of the time. In Italy he met Galileo, and in France he met Descartes’ admirer Marsenne and Descartes’ antagonist Gassendi and he formed a long lasting friendship with them. When he returned to England he met Francis Bacon and started relationship with him.

Hobbes’ translation of Thucydides was one among his many attempts to make his people conscious of the “tragedy that they courted: that of civil war, from which proceed slaughter, solitude, and the want of all things.”1 Thomas Hobbes shifted his interest from history to mathematics after discovering the exactness of mathematics from Euclide’s Elements.

Mathematics had a great influence on Hobbes’ philosophy. “Hobbes caught the spirit of the time.”2 The intellectual atmosphere of the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries was covered with radical change. Copernicus (1473-1543) argued that the earth is the centre of the universe. And he came to this conclusion after long observation of the motion of other planets and after the calculation of the earth around the sun. What was discovered by Copernicus was latter on influenced Kepler and Galileo, which lead to more development in astronomy and science as a whole. What these scientists had in common was “their belief that human knowledge about the nature of things is available to anyone who uses appropriate method in its pursuit.”3 Hobbes joined this group of scientists and applied geometry in the study of nature. Thomas Hobbes exaggerated in using this approach in various forms of knowledge such as his study of physical nature, the nature of man and the nature of human society.

In his lifetime Hobbes wrote many works. In 1640 he wrote “The Elements of Laws, Natural and Politic;” in 1642 he published De Cive (The Citizen); in 1655 he wrote De Corpore (Concerning the Body); in 1658 he published De Homine (Concerning Man); and later on in France he wrote the famous work called Leviathan. His two books De Cive and Leviathan were read as the books for the grammar of obedience.

Hobbes’ political philosophy made him very famous. It was here that he used mostly logic and the scientific method. In his political philosophy Hobbes tried to explain the relationship between the new nation state and the individual citizens. His explanation of the relationship between sovereign and the individual citizen was so severe that it led many people to criticize his political theory.

What led Hobbes to write such a severe relationship between the sovereign and the citizens was the severe political situation in England at that time. England was faced by the problem of political instability and moral corruption. These two main problems prompted Hobbes to frame his unique theory of political obligation. The political instability was caused by some leaders who prepared their people to fight with others in order to be more powerful. This experience of violence led to the disagreement between men on political matters. By considering these two problems, Hobbes assumed a materialistic view of human nature, in which human behaviour could be explained simply in terms of bodies in motion.4

Hobbes died in 1679. In his lifetime he contributed greatly to philosophy. He was the first one to apply the scientific method to the study of human nature. Hobbes also departed from the medieval understanding of natural law to the authoritarian concept of sovereignty. At the age of 84 Hobbes wrote his autobiography in Latin verse and at 86 he published a translation of the Illiad and Odyssey. After his death Hobbes became almost a kind of English institution.

1.2 Nature of Man

Hobbes considered man as an individual person who is by nature living independently from another. Since man by nature, is an individual, every man tends to be afraid of other men in “the state of nature”5. This fear leads man to be in the state of fighting with other men. The driving force of man in the state of nature is to survive, and the fear people had in the state of nature is the fear of death especially the fear of violent death.

“Men are by nature equal.”6 Nature has made man equal in both his mind and body. The differences in strength can be eradicated and the weak can have enough strength to overcome the strong. To the faculties of mind the equality discussed here is that of prudence and not the equality in the knowledge of science and arts. In the state of nature all human beings are equal for all of them have rights to what is necessary for their lives. Equality here means, “anyone is capable of hurting his neighbour and taking what he needs for his own protection.”7 In the state of nature there is the right of all people. The term right in this context means that every man is free to do anything he likes and to enjoy all that he could get.

In the nature of man, we find three main causes of quarrels. First is competition. Men are competing for the purpose of gaining something or making themselves superiors over others. Now when men are competing, everyone tries to defeat the other and none is accepting to be defeated. As a result, men end up quarrelling with one another. Second is mistrust. In the state of nature no individual trusts the other. “If any two men desire the same thing which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies.”8 In this case people become enemies because no one here believes the other. Every man was an enemy to his fellow man. Mistrust was just like a weapon for man’s safety. People depended on it for defending their properties and families from other men who were their enemies. Third is glory. Glory is always for recognition. When man has done something so successfully, he needs to be glorified or to be recognized by other people. When he gives out any point of views, men need to be supported by their friends. When people pose different view which will undervalue him, this will lead them into conflict.

“Out of the civil state there is always war of everyone against everyone.”9 The consequences of this war of everyone against everyone was that everyman became the enemy to everyman. Nature always pushes man to invade and destroy the other man. No man under the sun would trust the interference of another person. Consider it in the modern societies, why is it that men made strong doors? Why is it that men keep dangerous dogs? Why is it that the well-off men employ others to guard them? Why is it that human beings electrify their gates? All these manifest that men are enemies to each other.

In this case every man is moving against everyman. When one man does one thing, the other man considers it negatively because no man believes the other. And all men’s actions are for their own preservations and security, which is mostly depending on their own strength and capabilities. Whatever man does is for his defense. “The driving force in man is the will to survive, and the psychological mood pervading all men is fear, the fear of death, and particularly the fear of violent death.”10 In the state of war nothing was done for the purpose of development because each and everyone works only to acquire only what is necessary for his survival. Nothing is done for the purpose of development because production is uncertain. So the life of man in the natural state is absolutely poor, nasty, and the life span is very short.

According to Hobbes, in the state of nature men have many desires and passions, e.g., the desire to suppress all his enemies in order to be free, etc. In the state of nature no desire or passion is intrinsically bad because there is no law that forbids people to do what is bad and commands them to do what is good. Even the actions that proceed from those desires or passion are not bad in themselves. Even when I decide to kill my fellow human beings for the purpose of preserving my life it is by itself good because there is no law that forbids me to do such a thing. Besides, in the state of nature there is no distinction between good and bad, the notion of right and wrong has no room here. How can one consider these things while there is no law to enforce them? “In such war nothing is unjust.”11

In the state of nature men knew the natural laws, which are important for their own safety and peace. Men are inclined towards peace by the passion. The passion that leads men towards peace is the fear of death and desire to survive. But this natural law is the command of the reason that is contrary to the natural passions which is contrary to the natural passions for the purpose of the security and self-preservation.

1.3 Man and the State

According to Hobbes man lived in the state of war of everyone against everyone in the jungle. This war created fear among men in the jungle. Men feared death, particularly violent death. Because of this fear, men in the jungle decided to hand over their right of governing themselves, to one person who is called the sovereign. Those individuals who gave up their rights to him are called subjects. The sovereign can either represent his own will or he can represent the will of people. The society emerged from the natural state of war after individuals submitted their will to the sovereign.

The origin of human society is a jungle. In the jungle, every man is in the war against everyman. Everyman has an equal right to everything in the jungle. In this state of nature man has no obligation to respect others. There is no moral distinction of what is good or bad. From his survival in the jungle, man discovered the natural law, which he followed for his own safety. A natural law “is a precept or general rule, found out by reason, by which man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved.”12 If I want to survive, for instance, I can deduce from the natural law the rules that will help me to survive. The first and fundamental law of nature in the jungle is “to seek peace and follow it.”13 By this law it is obvious that to look for peace is something natural because it is the fundamental condition for my survival. So I have the best opportunity to survive if I create the condition for peace. My desire to survive enforces me to seek peace. The second law of nature according to Hobbes is,

That a man be willing when others are so too, as for peace, and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contended with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself.14

Men have rights to all things in the state of jungle not because there is no any obligation but because “if a man were modest, tractable, and kept his promises in such time and place where no man else should do so should but make [himself] a prey to others…”15 Hobbes was aware that anarchy would be the outcome of men living in the state of war, because as we have already seen, everyone is at war against everyone. To avoid such a condition, every individual should renounce some of his own rights by following the dictates of natural law so as to seek peace. Therefore, men enter the social contract, which in turn produces the artificial person.

The social contract is the agreement by which man avoids the state of nature and enters civil society. In the state of nature men were very busy seeking self-preservation and security but they were not able to attain this purpose in the natural condition of war. The laws of nature cannot achieve this goal by itself unless it is accompanied by the coercive power to enforce its observance by sanctions. Seeing this condition, men decided to confer all their powers and strength upon one man or upon the assembly of men. This person to whom all people renounced all their rights is the person “whose words or actions are his own, or as representing the words or actions of another man or of any other thing to whom they are attributed, whether truly or by fiction.”16 If the words and actions are his own, then he is a “natural person.”17 But if his words and actions are representing other people’s will he is an “artificial person.”18

How does the social contract take place? The social contract takes place by agreement between the individuals in the state of war in such a way as if every man should say to everyman “I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner.”19 When this is successfully done, man enters the commonwealth.

The third natural law is “that men perform their covenant made.”20 This was the foundation of justice. So everybody should involve himself in keeping the contract he entered. To obey the sovereign is the essence of Hobbesian justice. The law can be bad but there is no unjust law according to Hobbes. When the sovereign commands a bad law the subjects have no right to judge it that way, nor they should show any kind of disobedience towards it. When people disagree on what has been commanded by the sovereign then they will return to the state of war of everyone against everyone.

In the commonwealth people do not constitute the sovereign. The essence of commonwealth is one person who represents multiple acts of the individuals in the commonwealth through the mutual covenants of one with another. This makes everyone in the state of war to be the author of the commonwealth. The person who represents others is called the sovereign and the represented are called the subjects. The proximate cause of the creation of the commonwealth is the covenants made between individuals. These individuals become part of the covenant. The sovereign himself is not a part of this covenant although his sovereignty is from this covenant. Commonwealth is instituted for a specific purpose namely, the security of those who are part of the covenant. So whatever the commonwealth performs is for the preservation of the subjects’ security from the natural state of war of everyone against everyone.

The sovereign power is entire and indivisible. The subject of the sovereign power cannot change the sovereignty or repudiate the authority of the sovereign for the sovereign power is absolute. That sovereignty is indivisible, doesn’t mean that monarchy, for example, cannot confer executive power or consultative power to individuals or to an assembly of men. Sovereign in the commonwealth cannot divide part of its sovereignty to the subject. The parliament exercises its power under the sovereign. Since people are authors of the sovereign power, whatever is done by the sovereign should be accepted by the people because they are the ones who gave him sovereignty. And it is logically believed that since it is them who put the sovereign into the power he can never do anything that will be dangerous to them. Among the duties of the sovereign is to judge which doctrines are good to be taught for the purpose of preserving peace and security in the commonwealth. Anything that endangers peace and security in the commonwealth cannot be accepted by the sovereign.

Hobbes distinguished two types of commonwealths: a commonwealth by institution and a commonwealth by acquisition. The commonwealth by institution is established through the covenant of everyone with everyone. While the commonwealth by acquisition is when power is acquired by force. The latter occurs when men afraid of death decide to subject themselves to the person or assembly of men that have liberty and rights in their hands. The former occurs when people subject themselves to the elected sovereign because of the fear of one another. Men entered commonwealth because of fear. Among the bad diseases of the commonwealth is the tendency of the individual to judge what is good or bad according to his own conscious. Good or bad is measured by one’s conscience. Whoever does anything against his conscience commits sin. This was working in the natural state of war, but in the commonwealth the measure of good and evil is the civil law, which is the public conscience.

The civil law begins when there is a sovereign. The civil law is understood as the command of the sovereign. Without the sovereign power there is no law. The civil law is legal only when there is a sovereign power to enforce its observance by sanctions. “Covenants without the sword are but the words.”21 In order for the law to be legal, it should be accompanied with commands and punishments from the sovereign. Otherwise that law won’t have any effect on the people and it is obvious that people will not observe it.

Hobbes denied the possibility of unjust law. Justice and morality begin only with the sovereign. Hobbes enumerated two arguments to show that the law is never unjust. Firstly, justice for him means to obey the law. The question of justice comes only when there is a law. Since it proceeds from the law, justice cannot be the standard of that law. Secondly, when the absolute sovereign make a law, everybody in the society participates in making it through the covenant they made in the state of nature. Consequently the individuals cannot make the agreement, which is unjust.

2. Justice

2.1 What is Justice?

Justice seems necessarily to entail “the conflict between the exponents of might and the exponents of right.”22 It is the conflict between those who think that justice occurs when might does what is right and those who think that justice cannot be measured through the exercise of power. Different philosophers have tried to talk about this problem and came up with different understandings of the same thing.

Plato considered justice as “the interest of the stronger.”23 It is obvious that different forms of government make the laws, which are for the interest of the stronger and not for the interest of the subjects. According to them it is justice for the subject to obey the laws made by the stronger. Whoever breaks these laws should be punished. Justice in this understanding has two implications: “for the stronger it means that they have the right, as far as they have the might, to exact from the weaker whatever serve their interests.”24 The stronger can’t do injustice. The weaker, “can only do injustice but not suffer it.”25 Injustice for the weaker resides in not obeying the law of their rulers. The subjects will only suffer injustice if they will follow their own interest rather than the interest of the stronger.

The above understanding of justice was somewhat repeated by Hobbes. He defined justice as “men perform their covenant made.”26 Here the nature of justice involves keeping ones valid covenant. It should be kept in mind that the validity of any covenant starts with the constitution of civil power. This power is necessary to force men to keep them. Any attempt to break a valid covenant is injustice. And observance of this covenant is justice.

There are philosophers who take the opposite wing on the understanding of justice. They consider justice as the agent for the organization and the operation of the state. Plato, who belongs to both wings, considered justice as the organizing principle of an ideal state. According to him, a just person is wiser and better than an unjust. When the unjust participate in any action they will injure one another. This is because “the unjust are incapable of common action.”27 So according to Plato, only justice that will enable men to live together and do things together without injuring one another.

Aristotle described justice as the unity of men in the state, which is the determination of what is just. It is the principle of order in a political society. Being a political animal, man without a state is “either a bad man or above humanity.”28 Aristotle described man as the worst of all animals if he is separated from law and justice. It is only justice that enables us to relate with our neighbours well. It is only justice that implies the notion of duty. It requires us to do what is good to our neighbour.

St. Thomas explained justice, as a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due.29 An action is considered to be just if it is done knowingly, deliberately as well as decisively. Any action done without these properties is considered neither just nor unjust. Justice involves the relation of one man with another. It deals with equality among men.

Turning to political institution, justice is confronted by the following alternatives: “either the principle of justice is antecedent to the state… or the determination of what is just and unjust is entirely relative to the constitution of a state.”30 When the second choice is taken, only the subjects will be judged just or unjust. The government cannot be judged that way because it determines what is just or unjust. If the first choice is taken, then a just action on the part of citizens will be on law-abiding conduct.

In any case, all these philosophers despite their differences, point to the same thing: justice involves the relation of one man with another. It only does what is good to our neighbour. It indicates how to live happily in the society. It is only justice, which gives us the notion of duty. From political point of view justice shows us how government and its people relate. This differs from one government to another. Justice manifests itself in two forms: natural justice and manmade justice.

2.2 Natural Justice

Natural justice has been a controversial problem for many philosophers. Some suggest that justice originates from nature. Others say that in nature there is no justice because justice starts only with human reason. Some say that natural justice is not changeable while others say it is changeable. So in this sub-chapter I will try to present what some philosophers say about natural justice.

Aristotle and St. Thomas both agree on natural justice but they disagree on whether it is changeable or unchangeable. Aristotle considered justice to be partly natural and partly legal. Natural justice is the one, which has the same force everywhere, and it is prior to human reflection and it is changeable.

St. Thomas considers natural justice to be an integral part of natural law. His first precept of natural law indicates it. It states that “good is to be done, and evil is to be avoided.”31 The desire of man towards the good is first of all towards preserving human life and then an inclination towards things. Man has natural desire to know the truth about God and then to live in society. It is in this way that St. Thomas considered natural justice to be an integral part of natural law.

Justice according to St. Thomas has its source in nature and it works according to the rule of reason. Other behaviors came into being by reason of their use. Justice, which emanated from nature and was approved by custom, was sanctioned by fear and reverence for the law.32 Natural justice according to St. Thomas is unchangeable in its first principles because it is an integral part of the natural law. But this justice can only be changed by the way of addition or by the way of abstraction. Changes in natural justice open the door for manmade justice.

Thomas Hobbes takes an opposite opinion. He said that natural law “is a precept or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life…”33 He said that in nature there is neither justice nor injustice. Justice starts when there is power and law. But in nature all people are equal and there is no law which forces people to obey it. So in the natural state of war of everyman against everyman with reference to justice all things are indifferent.

All in all, there was nothing compelling enough in the state of nature to make people live together. Natural justice allows equality only among people who are living in the state of nature. Under this condition, everybody is free to do whatever they like. This makes community life impossible. To make community life possible, people decided to change the natural justice. It is this change of natural justice opens the door for manmade justice.

2.3 Manmade Justice

Manmade Justice can be defined as “the outcome or decision arrived at by the proper functioning of machinery of law.”34 The purpose of existing laws, which are accepted through the process of a judicial system, is to achieve justice, which enables people to live together in the society. As the outcome of the law, manmade justice involves reference to some set of values, which is presumed to be higher than the values embodied in the law.

Plato considered manmade justice as a moral principle of political organization. It brings harmony and friendship among the people in the society. People who are in societies that exercise justice conduct good and happy life. Even the evil men can only work together if there is justice among them. Injustice on the other hand, causes disunity and conflict among the people in the society. It makes people incapable of common action.35

Aristotle talked of the state as the outcome of nature. Man for him is a political animal. He is a political animal because of his power of speech. It is this power of speech, which makes him able to differentiate between good and evil, just and unjust, and it is this power that enables men to live together in societies such as families, villages and the state. When the individual is separated from the state he is not self-sufficient because he is a political animal. When man is perfected, he is the best of all animals. But when man is without law and justice he is the worst and the most dangerous animal. He uses his powers and qualities for bad ends. Only justice can unify men in the society, for it is the sole principle of order in political society. Political society exists for the sake of the good life. According to Aristotle, only those who consider virtues and vices can lead a good state. 36

St. Thomas considered manmade justice as meant for common good. Manmade justice should be different from one society to another. The rule that governs democratic governments should be different from the one that rules the absolutist government.37 St. Thomas distinguished between human law and the divine law. Human law is ordained for civil community. It implies the reciprocal duties of man with one another. These reciprocal duties, which are manifested by outward action, enable men to live together in the community. It is this reciprocal duty, which manifests justice. Divine laws show the relationship between man and God. Man is united with God by his rational power, which is God’s image.38

Thomas Hobbes considered manmade justice in his third law of nature. This law obliged man to transfer to others the rights that hinder peace to them. According to Hobbes, justice is to fulfill the covenant they have made to each other. And injustice is to go against the covenant agreed by people in the society. 39

All in all, manmade justice is meant to make people live well in the society. This is made possible by the laws, which are made by men. This law is only the instrument that can bind all people. Without this law, there could be no order and as a result, the society would be impossible.

2.4 Justice in Hobbesian Anthropology

Hobbes considered man in a mechanistic way. Man for him is an individual person who is independent from others. Being individual and independent, men tend to fear each other. This fear creates enmity among them, which terminates in fighting one another. This life of fighting one another, endangers people’s survival. The need of survival leads people to form a state by making a social contract. In order for life to be possible in the state, people had to obey their social contract and this is the essence of Hobbes’ justice.

Hobbes considered his third law of nature as justice. In this law, people are obliged to transfer to another all rights that hinder peace in the state. This opens the door for his justice: “that men perform their covenants made.”40 If the covenants made are not fulfilled, then they are empty words, which again subject people to the ‘state of war’. 41

The origin of justice according to Hobbes is in the observance and performance of the covenant made by the people in the state. If there is no covenant made, then every man has a right to everything. Under this circumstance no action can be just or unjust. Hobbes defined injustice as “the not [non] performance of covenant.”42 Any attempt of going against the covenant made is an unjust action.

Justice according to Hobbes begins with constitution of commonwealth. Before justice, the coercive power should be there to compel people to fulfill the covenant made by them. “The covenants without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.”43

Obedience to the sovereign is the root of Hobbesian justice. All people reduce the plurality of their will to one person, namely the sovereign. To ensure peace and security in the state, every individual ought to obey the sovereign. Whatever the sovereign does represents the people’s will. Any attempt to disobey the sovereign implies that I disobey my own will. This is because I installed the sovereign of my own will.

Whatever the sovereign does, cannot be an injury to the subject. In no case, can the sovereign be accused of injustice or be punished by the subject. Punishing the sovereign is injustice because he cannot do anything that will hurt the subject. Even if the action done by him looks bad, the subject should not see it that way. For whatever he does, by definition cannot be injury to his subject.

Some people disobey their sovereign by making a new covenant with God. Hobbes said, “this pretence of covenant with God, is so evident a lie.”44 This is unjust according to Hobbes because there is no covenant with God. There is only a covenant made with the representative of God who is the lieutenant of God and has sovereignty under God.

The sovereign has the right to make laws. These laws help the subject to know what is his own and prevent other subjects from taking it from him without his consent.45 This is what Hobbes calls propriety. Before the sovereign came to power, each individual had the right to all things and this led to war of everyman against everyman. Disobedience to the sovereign will lead people to this situation again.

All in all, Hobbes’ justice gives more power to the king. He considers man in a mechanistic way, which leads him to say that it is only by obeying the sovereign that justice, will be obtained in the state. This is because it is the covenant made between the people in the state Hobbes considered the sovereign as a kind of God who cannot do evil because he represents the will of people who gave him the authority. In addition, the subjects have no right to go against the will of sovereign. Any attempt of subjects to oppose their king is equal to opposing oneself because the subject is the one who put the king in authority. And this act, according to Hobbes is injustice because it is against the covenant made by the people.

3. Personal Evaluation

3.1 Impact of Hobbes’ Conception of justice on Human Justice

Here I would like to show the ramifications of Hobbes’ conception of justice on human justice. Justice according to Hobbes starts with the sovereign and the law. People voluntarily reduce the plurality of their wills and give their consent to be governed by one person called the sovereign. Whatever the sovereign says and decides is just because it cannot be an injury to the subject. The subject is not allowed to punish the sovereign. Any attempt of punishing the sovereign tantamount to punishing oneself. To obey and to perform what the sovereign orders is the essence of Hobbes’ justice. This is because obedience to the king is the covenant made between the people in the society.46

Before speaking of the positive and negative impact of Hobbes’ concept of justice on human justice, I would like to touch a bit on what is human justice. Human justice according to St. Thomas is about implementation of equality to all people.47 Human justice is against all forms of inequality. Its purpose is to make all people equal and to treat them fairly before the law. It follows from the human law that “one will be just by accomplishing the good prescribed by the law and avoiding the evil that the law prohibits.”48 Human justice is a universal value. Most people expect justice to be the same everywhere.

Hobbes’ conception of justice is clearly different. It does not force people to accomplish the good prescribed by the law nor does it force people to avoid the evil, which is prohibited by the universal law. Hobbes’ justice gives all powers to the sovereign. Justice for him occurs when subjects obey and accomplish what the sovereign orders, whether it be good or bad. His conception of justice emphasizes inequality between the sovereign and the subject. Hobbes’ aim was to make the sovereign superior and the subject inferior so as to acquire peace. He considered the sovereign to be a kind of god who is perfect and cannot be contradicted by his subjects. But frankly speaking, the sovereign is a human being who is not perfect in everything. That being the case, there are orders given by him, which are wrong. To obey and to perform them according to human justice is not just for it deviates from the implementation of equality to all people before the law. In addition it escapes from the rule “do good and avoid evil”49 although it keeps peace in the state. Hobbes’ justice has got its merits and demerits as shown, below.

Positive Impacts

Hobbes’ conception of justice works positively in areas where there is no peace. If his conception of justice is followed then peace and order may be acquired easily but at a price. But if the people in this state break the social contract then they will end up in killing one another. Thus the following are the positive impacts of Hobbes’ conception of justice.

First, Hobbes’ conception of justice makes administration of the society easy. The state will be run by the mind of one person namely the sovereign. Whatever the sovereign thinks, wills, decides and executes is taken to be good. No other mind can criticize his ideas or plans. Any attempt of criticizing the plans of the sovereign is unjust. So to avoid injustice, people perform what the sovereign commands without arguing. In this case the work of the sovereign in ruling his subjects becomes easy.

Second, Hobbes’ conception of justice reminds people to adhere to the covenant they have made. When people agreed to do one thing, Hobbes reminds them that they should fulfill it. Going against the covenant may lead people to the state of war. In order to keep peace and security in the society, everybody ought to keep aside his interests and fulfill the common interest. In this way the community life becomes possible. Thus it makes easy to implement peace and order in the state.

Third, Hobbes’ justice shows us the necessity of coercive power. Coercive power should be there to ensure the fulfillment of the covenant made between the people. Any agreement made between the people in the state cannot last long without the coercive power. Without this coercive power, people will go on fighting and they will not attain peace and order in their state.

Negative Impacts

First, Hobbes’ conception of justice reduces man to the level of a machine. He considers man to be a creature, which can be set, and work without thinking. Frankly speaking, this is not always the case because man is a rational being who can work himself without being forced. It is not necessary that if one does one thing then the outcome must be the same all the time. Man is above that. He/she can use intellectual power and follow different ways to come up with the same answer. Hobbes’ conception of justice reduces humanity to a machine, which by itself is a pure injustice.

Second, his conception of justice fails to achieve the equality among the people in the society. Being human, all people are equal. The equality of people cannot be measured by the property we possess, by the power we have, or by the sex we are. Human equality can only be measured according to our human nature. Justice should insist on this type of equality and not otherwise as Hobbes did.

Third, Hobbes’ conception of justice limits freedom of the subjects. The subjects are not free to do anything, which is different from the sovereign’s mind. Nor are they free to express their feelings that seem to be different from the sovereign’s. If that happens, they will be punished by the coercive power. This situation creates fear in the state and it makes people slaves in their own state.

All in all, Hobbes conception of justice can help to implement peace and security in areas where there is war. In these areas people are not looking for ways to acquire development but rather they are working for peace and security in their society. So in his conception of justice, Hobbes suggests ways, which can bring peace and order in states, which are without them. But on the other hand, his conception of justice has negative impacts particularly in areas where there is peace. In these areas people are looking for ways to acquire development and to do away with all things that hinder all forms of freedom in their state. To follow Hobbes’ justice in such a state will bring neither development nor freedom but war of every man against every man, the very situation Hobbes is trying to overcome.

1 A. K. Stout, “Hobbes, Thomas” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy 4: 30-45 at 30. Hereafter, Stout, “Hobbes”.

2 Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966), 239. Hereafter, Stumpf, Philosophy.

3 Stumpf, Philosophy, 239.

4 Stumpf, Philosophy, 239.

5 “State of nature” is the state of war of everyman against everyman whereby each individual depends on his strength in order to survive.

6 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. by Michael Oakeshott (London: Collier-Macmillan Ltd., 1959), 100. Hereafter, Hobbes, Leviathan.

7 Stumpf, Philosophy, 243.

8 Hobbes, Leviathan, 99.

9 Hobbes, Leviathan, 100.

10Stumpf, Philosophy, 245.

11Hobbes, Leviathan, 101.

12 Hobbes, Leviathan, 103.

13 Hobbes, Leviathan, 104.

14 Hobbes, Leviathan, 104.

15 Stumpf, Philosophy, 245.

16 Hobbes, Leviathan, 147.

17 Fredrick Copleston, A History of Philosophy vol. V: Hobbes to Hume (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1961), 39. Hereafter, Copleston, Philosophy.

18 Copleston, Philosophy, 39.

19 Stumpf, Philosophy, 245.

20 Stumpf, Philosophy, 246.

21 Copleston, Philosophy, 40.

22 William Gorman (ed.), The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World, vol. 2 (Chicago: William Benton, 1952), 850. Hereafter, Gorman, Great Ideas.

23 Plato, “The Republic,” in The Dialogues of Plato, vol.1, trans. by B. Jowett (New York: Random House, 1937), 603. Hereafter, Plato, Dialogues.

24 Gorman, Great Ideas, 851.

25 Gorman, Great Ideas, 851.

26 Hobbes, Leviathan, 113.

27 Plato, Dialogues, 618.

28 Aristotle, “Politics,” in The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. by Richard McKeon (New York: Random House, 1941), 1129. Hereafter, Aristotle, Basic Works.

29 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I Iae, Q. 58, Art. 1 trans. by Fathers of English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, Inc., 1946), 1436. Hereafter, Aquinas Summa. I Iae.

30 Gorman, Great Ideas, 851.

31 Aquinas, Summa, I Iae, Q. 94, Art. 2, 1009.

32 Tully’s Rhetoric cited in Aquinas, Summa, I Iae, Q. 91 Art. 3, 997.

33 Hobbes, Leviathan, 103.

34 Francis R. Aumann, “Justice,” in Collier’s Encyclopedia, 13: 682-687 at 682.

35 Plato, Dialogues, 618.

36 Aristotle, Basic Works, 1129-1130.

37 Absolutist government is the government ruled by king, emperor, or the queen with his or her power.

38 Aquinas, Summa, I Iae, Q. 100 Art. 2, 1038.

39 Hobbes, Leviathan, 113.

40 Hobbes, Leviathan, 113.

41 ‘State of war’ is the state where in the individual is dependent on his strength and capabilities to acquire the security in the state of nature in which everyman is an enemy to everyman.

42 Hobbes, Leviathan, 113.

43 Copleston, Philosophy, 39.

44 Hobbes, Leviathan, 135.

45 Hobbes, Leviathan, 138.

46 See in 36 above.

47 See in 26 above.

48 Ch. Perelman, Justice (New York: Random House, 1967), 7.

49 See in 28 above.

INTRODUCTION