The most important in the process of studying the political and legal teachings of T. Hobbes are his socio-political views, which are contained in the works “On the Citizen”, “Leviathan”. T. Hobbes bases his philosophical system on a certain idea of ​​the nature of the individual. The starting point of his reasoning about the social order and the state is the “natural state of people.” This natural state is characterized by him “by the natural tendency of people to harm themselves mutually, which they derive from their passions, but most importantly, from the vanity of self-love, the right of everyone to everything.”

The philosopher believes that although initially all people are created equal in terms of physical and mental abilities, and each of them has the same “right to everything” as others, man is also a deeply selfish creature, overwhelmed by greed, fear and ambition. He is surrounded only by envious people, rivals, and enemies. “Man is a wolf to man.”

Therefore, the philosopher believes that in the very nature of people there are reasons for rivalry, mistrust and fear, which lead to hostile clashes and violent actions aimed at destroying or conquering others. Added to this is the desire for fame and differences of opinion, which also force people to resort to violence. Hence the fatal inevitability in society of “... a war of all against all, when everyone is controlled by his own mind and there is nothing that he cannot use as a means of salvation from his enemies”

To have the “right to everything” in the conditions of such a war means “... to have the right to everything, even to the life of every other person.” In this war, according to Hobbes, there can be no winners; it expresses a situation in which everyone is threatened by everyone - “... while the right of everyone to everything remains, not a single person (no matter how strong or wise he may be) can be sure that that he can live all the time that nature usually provides for human life.” During such a war, people use sophisticated violence to subjugate others or in self-defense.

One way or another, but “... people are naturally susceptible to greed, fear, anger and other animal passions,” they seek “honor and benefits,” act “for the sake of benefit or glory, i.e. for the sake of love for oneself, and not for others,” therefore everyone is the enemy of everyone, relying in life only on their own strength and dexterity, resourcefulness and ingenuity. Thus, egoism is declared to be the main stimulus of human activity.

But Hobbes does not condemn people for their selfish tendencies, nor does he believe that they are evil by nature. After all, it is not the desires of people themselves that are evil, the philosopher points out, but only the results of actions arising from these desires. And even then only when these actions cause harm to other people. In addition, it must be taken into account that people “by nature are deprived of education and are not trained to obey reason.”

It is about the state of general war and confrontation that Hobbes writes as “the natural state of the human race” and interprets it as the absence of civil society, i.e. state organization, state legal regulation of people's lives. In a word, in a society where there is no state organization and management, arbitrariness and lawlessness reign, “and a person’s life is lonely, poor, hopeless, stupid and short-lived.”

However, in the nature of people, according to Hobbes, not only are the forces plunging individuals into the abyss of a “war of all against all,” people are eager to get out of this miserable state, they strive to create guarantees of peace and security. After all, man inherently has properties of a completely different plane; they are such as to induce individuals to find a way out of such a disastrous state of nature. First of all, it is the fear of death and the instinct of self-preservation, which dominates other passions “... the desire for things necessary for a good life, and the hope of acquiring them through hard work.” Together with them comes natural reason, or natural law, i.e. the ability of everyone to reason rationally about the positive and negative consequences of their actions.

Natural law is a prescription of human reason. According to Hobbes, natural laws come from human nature itself and are divine only in the sense that reason is “given to every man by God as the standard of his actions,” and the moral institutions of the Holy Scriptures, although declared to people by God himself, can be deduced independently of him “through inferences from the concept of natural law,” i.e. with the help of the mind. The main general precept of reason according to Hobbes is that every man must strive for peace if he has any hope of achieving it; if he cannot achieve it, then he can use any means that give an advantage in war.

Therefore, the first part of the basic natural law deduced by the philosopher says: one should seek peace and follow it. The second part is the content of natural law, which boils down to the right to defend oneself by all possible means. From the fundamental law, Hobbes deduces the remaining natural laws. The most important among them is the renunciation of everyone’s rights to the extent required by the interests of peace and self-defense (the second natural law), and the renunciation of the right to resist violence and attempts to deprive them of freedom. The renunciation of a right is accomplished according to Hobbes, either by simple renunciation of it, or by transferring it to another person. But not all human rights can be alienated - a person cannot give up the right to defend his life and resist those who attack him. You cannot demand to be sent to prison, etc. The mutual transfer of rights is carried out by people in the form of an agreement - “A contract is the action of two or many persons transferring their rights to each other.” When a contract is made regarding something that relates to the future, it is called an agreement. Agreements can be concluded by people, both under the influence of fear and voluntarily.

The third law follows from the second natural law: people are obliged to fulfill the agreements they make, otherwise the latter will have no meaning. The third natural law contains the source and beginning of justice.

In Leviathan, Hobbes, in addition to the three indicated, indicated 16 more natural (unchangeable and eternal) laws. Most of them are in the nature of requirements or prohibitions: to be fair, merciful, compliant, unforgiving, impartial and at the same time not to be cruel, vindictive, arrogant, treacherous, etc.

Thus, we can draw the following conclusion. T. Hobbes based his teaching on the study of nature and human passions. Hobbes's opinion about these passions and nature is extremely pessimistic: people are characterized by rivalry, mistrust (the desire for security), and a love of glory. These passions make people enemies. Therefore, in the state of nature, people are in a state of war of all against all. But this natural state can be overcome thanks to the presence of natural reason, a natural law that makes you think about the consequences of your actions and regulate your behavior. Hobbes reduces all natural laws to one general rule, later voiced in the categorical imperative of I. Kant, which consists in refusing to do to other people what you do not want them to do to you.

II. Natural Laws of Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes made enormous contributions to science and philosophy. In his work “On the Body,” the English thinker managed to most fully reveal his understanding of the subject of philosophy. Answering the question “what is philosophy,” Hobbes, like other leading thinkers of his era, opposed scholasticism, which existed as the official philosophy of the Christian church in most Western European countries.

Philosophy is divided by Hobbes into two main parts: the philosophy of nature and the philosophy of state. The first is interested in natural bodies, which are products of nature. The second explores the phenomena of social life, and first of all the state, which forms an artificial, political body created on a contractual basis by the people themselves. In order to know the state, it is necessary to first study the person, the inclinations and morals of the people united in civil society. This is what moral philosophy does. Thus, Hobbes's philosophical system consists of three interrelated parts: the doctrine of natural bodies, the doctrine of man and the doctrine of the political body, or state.

The most important are the socio-political views of T. Hobbes, which are contained in his works “On the Citizen”, “Leviathan”. T. Hobbes bases his philosophical system on a certain idea of ​​the nature of the individual. The starting point of his reasoning about the social order and the state is the “natural state of people.” This natural state is characterized by him “by the natural tendency of people to harm themselves mutually, which they derive from their passions, but most importantly, from the vanity of self-love, the right of everyone to everything.”

The philosopher believes that although initially all people are created equal in terms of physical and mental abilities, and each of them has the same “right to everything” as others, man is also a deeply selfish creature, overwhelmed by greed, fear and ambition. He is surrounded only by envious people, rivals, and enemies. “Man is a wolf to man.” Therefore, the philosopher believes that in the very nature of people there are reasons for rivalry, mistrust and fear, which lead to hostile clashes and violent actions aimed at destroying or conquering others. Added to this is the desire for fame and differences of opinion, which also force people to resort to violence. Hence the fatal inevitability in society of “... a war of all against all, when everyone is controlled by his own mind and there is nothing that he cannot use as a means of salvation from his enemies” T. Hobbes. Essays in 2 Volumes. Volume 2. /compiled by editor V.V. Sokolov, translated from Latin and English. - M.: Thought. 1991 p.99. To have the “right to everything” in the conditions of such a war means “... to have the right to everything, even to the life of every other person.” T. Hobbes decree cit.s. 99 In this war, according to Hobbes, there can be no winners; it expresses a situation in which everyone is threatened by everyone - “... while the right of everyone to everything remains, not a single person (no matter how strong or wise he may be) can be sure of that he can live all the time that nature usually provides for human life” T. Hobbes decree op. With. 99. During such a war, people use sophisticated violence to subjugate others or in self-defense.

One way or another, but “... people are naturally susceptible to greed, fear, anger and other animal passions,” they seek “honor and benefits,” act “for the sake of benefit or glory, i.e. for the sake of love for oneself, and not for others,” therefore everyone is the enemy of everyone, relying in life only on their own strength and dexterity, resourcefulness and ingenuity. Thus, egoism is declared to be the main stimulus of human activity. But Hobbes does not condemn people for their selfish tendencies, nor does he believe that they are evil by nature. After all, it is not the desires of people themselves that are evil, the philosopher points out, but only the results of actions arising from these desires. And even then only when these actions cause harm to other people. In addition, it must be taken into account that people “by nature are deprived of education and are not trained to obey reason.”

It is about the state of general war and confrontation that Hobbes writes as “the natural state of the human race” and interprets it as the absence of civil society, i.e. state organization, state legal regulation of people's lives. In a word, in a society where there is no state organization and management, arbitrariness and lawlessness reign, “and a person’s life is lonely, poor, hopeless, stupid and short-lived.” However, according to Hobbes, the nature of people contains not only forces that plunge individuals into the abyss of a “war of all against all,” people long to get out of this pitiful state and strive to create guarantees of peace and security. After all, man inherently has properties of a completely different plane; they are such as to induce individuals to find a way out of such a disastrous state of nature. First of all, it is fear, death and the instinct of self-preservation, which dominates other passions “... the desire for things necessary for a good life, and the hope of acquiring them through hard work.” T. Hobbes op. op. With. 98 Along with them comes natural reason, i.e. the ability of everyone to reason rationally about the positive and negative consequences of their actions. Feelings and reason dictate to people the need to abandon the state of nature and move to civil society, to a state structure. As a result of such aspirations, natural law - “i.e. the freedom of every person to use his own strength at his own discretion for the preservation of his own life” ibid p. 98 gives way to the natural law, according to which “a person is prohibited from doing something that is detrimental to his life or that deprives him of the means to preserve it” ibid p.98. The instinct of self-preservation provides the first impulse to the process of overcoming the natural state, and natural reason tells people under what conditions they can carry out this process. These conditions (they are expressed by the prescriptions of natural reason) are what are otherwise called natural laws.

Hobbes notes that it is necessary to distinguish between jus and lex - right and law, "for right consists in freedom to do or not to do something, while law determines and obliges one or the other." Thus, natural law is not the result of the agreement of people, but is a prescription of human reason. According to Hobbes, natural laws come from human nature itself and are divine only in the sense that reason is “given to every man by God as the standard of his actions,” and the moral institutions of the Holy Scriptures, although declared to people by God himself, can be deduced independently of him “through inferences from the concept of natural law,” i.e. with the help of the mind. The main general precept of reason according to Hobbes is that every man must strive for peace if he has any hope of achieving it; if he cannot achieve it, then he can use any means that give an advantage in war.

Therefore, the first part of the basic natural law deduced by the philosopher says: one should seek peace and follow it. The second part is the content of natural law, which boils down to the right to defend oneself by all possible means. From the fundamental law, Hobbes deduces, based on his synthetic method, the remaining natural laws. The most important among them is the renunciation of each of his rights to the extent required by the interests of peace and self-defense (the second natural law). The renunciation of a right is accomplished according to Hobbes, either by simple renunciation of it, or by transferring it to another person. But not all human rights can be alienated - a person cannot give up the right to defend his life and resist those who attack him. One cannot demand that one renounce the right to resist violence, attempts at deprivation of liberty, imprisonment, etc. The mutual transfer of rights is carried out by people in the form of an agreement - “A contract is the action of two or many persons transferring their rights to each other.” When a contract is made regarding something that relates to the future, it is called an agreement. Agreements can be concluded by people, both under the influence of fear and voluntarily.

The third law follows from the second natural law: people are obliged to fulfill the agreements they make, otherwise the latter will have no meaning. The third natural law contains the source and beginning of justice.

In Leviathan, Hobbes, in addition to the three indicated, indicated 16 more natural (unchangeable and eternal) laws. Most of them are in the nature of requirements or prohibitions: to be fair, merciful, compliant, unforgiving, impartial and at the same time not to be cruel, vindictive, arrogant, treacherous, etc. Thus, for example, the sixth natural law states: if there is a guarantee regarding the future, a person must forgive past offenses to those who, showing repentance, wish to do so. Hobbes decree op. 177 The ninth law establishes that every person must recognize others as equal to himself by nature. Violation of this rule is pride Hobbes decree op. p.118. The Eleventh Law (Impartiality) requires...if a person is authorized to be a judge in a dispute between two people, then natural law dictates that he judge them impartially. For otherwise, disputes between people can only be resolved by war. T. Hobbes decree op. 119 The sixteenth law states that in the event of a dispute, the parties must submit to the decision of the arbitrator. in the same place with. 121

Thus, Hobbes reduces all natural laws to one general rule: “do not do to others what you would not want done to you.”

As noted by Doctor of Law L.S. Mamut, the actual socio-historical prototypes of those natural laws that T. Hobbes talks about are the relationships between commodity owners, private owners, mediated by acts of exchange and formalized by contracts. Thus, in the end, it is exchange and agreement that, according to the concept of T. Hobbes, are the prerequisites for the establishment of peace in human society History of political and legal doctrines: A textbook for universities. 4th edition, ed. Professor V.S. Nersesyants. - M: Publishing group NORMA-INFRA * M, 2004 p.263.

No matter how impressive the role of natural laws is, they themselves are not obligatory. Only force can turn them into an unconditional imperative of behavior. For Hobbes, natural law, as we have already noted, is freedom to do or not do something, and positive law is an order to do or, conversely, not to do something. Natural laws oblige the individual to desire their implementation, but cannot force him to practically act in accordance with them. We definitely need a force capable of strictly limiting everyone’s right to everything and deciding what belongs to whom, what is a right and what is not.

The absolute power of the state is, according to T. Hobbes, the guarantor of peace and the implementation of natural laws. She forces the individual to fulfill them by issuing civil laws. If natural laws are associated with reason, then civil laws are based on force. However, their content is the same. Any arbitrary inventions of legislators cannot be civil laws, for the latter are those natural laws, but only supported by the authority and power of the state. They cannot be canceled or changed by a simple expression of the will of the state. By placing civil laws in such strict dependence on natural ones, T. Hobbes probably wanted to direct the activities of the state to ensure the development of new, bourgeois social relations. But it is unlikely that he had the intention of subordinating state power to law.

III. Origin, essence, purpose, forms of the state.

Doctrine of State Sovereignty

Hobbes developed the idea of ​​legitimizing and justifying the state through reason and consciousness using the concept of the contractual origin of political power.

The state, he believed, arises on the basis of a contract. The basis of the state lies in the reasonable desire of people for self-preservation and security. T. Hobbes believes that to comply with natural laws you need confidence in your safety, and to achieve security there is no other way than connecting a sufficient number of people for mutual protection. Thus, the state is established by people in order to, with its help, put an end to the “war of all against all,” to get rid of the fear of insecurity and the constant threat of violent death - the companions of the “unbridled state of anarchy.” By mutual agreement among themselves (everyone agrees with everyone), individuals entrust to a single person (an individual or a collection of people) the supreme social power over themselves.

But in both cases, the power of the state is single and indivisible, it brings the will of all citizens “into a single will” - “Such a common power that would be able to protect people from the invasion of foreigners and from injustices inflicted on each other, and thus give them that security in which they could feed themselves from their labors and from the fruits of the earth and live in contentment, can only be achieved in one way, namely, by concentrating all power and strength in one person or in an assembly of people, which by a majority vote could bring together all the wills of the citizens into one will” T. Hobbes decree op. With. 132. .

Such power must be based on the voluntary renunciation of the right to own oneself, - “I renounce my right to own oneself and give this right to such and such a husband or such and such a meeting of husbands, if you also give them your right and just like me, You authorize them to do everything and recognize their actions as your own. When this happens, the multitude of people thus united in one person is called a state, in Latin sivitas. Such is the birth of that great Leviathan, or rather of that mortal God, to whom we, under the dominion of the immortal God, owe our peace and our protection.” T. Hobbes decree op. from 133. Thus comes into existence a state possessing supreme power, using the strength and means of all men as it deems necessary for their peace and common defense.

In Leviathan, Hobbes gave a detailed definition of the state: “A state is a single person, for whose actions a great multitude of people have made themselves responsible by mutual agreement among themselves, so that this person may use the power and means of all their peace and common defense.” People who created the state through a mutual agreement not only sanction all its actions, but also recognize themselves as responsible for these actions.

It is worth noting that the contractual doctrine of the state was directed against feudal-theological interpretations (patriarchal, monarchy by the grace of God, etc.) and generally corresponded to capitalist relations, the universal legal form of which, as is known, is agreement, contract. The aura of mysticism was removed from the state; it began to be seen as one of the many results of a legal agreement - a contract, as a product of human actions.

Thus, the contract as the basis for the emergence of the state in Hobbes’s theory is a kind of consent of the subordinates who recognize political power. Another system-forming feature of the state, highlighted by Hobbes, is political power, organized as a single subject. “The one who acts as the bearer of political power is called a sovereign; he is said to have supreme power, and everyone else is his subject.” Thus, relations of dominance and subordination arise, i.e. political condition. This is how, according to Hobbes, a “political body” is formed.

From the point of view of T. Hobbes, states can arise not only through the voluntary consent of individuals to form a single entity and obey it in the hope that it will be able to protect them against everyone. Another way is to acquire supreme power by force. For example, the head of a family forces children to obey him under the threat of destroying them in case of disobedience, or someone subjugates enemies to his will by military means and, having achieved their obedience, grants them life on this condition (states with “paternalistic”, paternalistic and despotic power). T. Hobbes calls states that arise as a result of voluntary agreement based on establishment or political states. The thinker considers states that are born with the help of physical force to be based on acquisition, see Hobbes, decree op. p. 133; He shows no special affection towards them. It is worth noting that in this classification of states one can see T. Hobbes’s hostility to the English pre-revolutionary feudal-monarchical order.

Hobbes considered a normal, healthy state to be one in which the human right to life, security, justice and prosperity are ensured. From this angle, the qualities of political power, its rights and abilities were determined.

The criteria for determining the powers of the supreme power for Hobbes were, first of all, its ability to overcome the “war of all against all,” extreme conditions of society. Therefore, the sovereign power must be “as extensive as it can be imagined.” The one to whom the supreme power (sovereign) is entrusted (transferred) is not bound either by civil law or by any of the citizens. The sovereign himself makes and repeals laws, declares war and makes peace, examines and resolves disputes, appoints all officials, etc. The sovereign may use the forces and resources of his subjects as he deems necessary for their peace and protection. At the same time, the supreme power does not bear any responsibility for its actions to its subjects and is not obliged to account for these actions to them.

The prerogatives of the sovereign are indivisible and not transferable to anyone. “To divide the power of the state means to destroy it, since divided powers mutually destroy each other.” Thus, Hobbes strongly rejected the concept of separation of powers. This separation of powers is for him the only reason for the civil war that was then raging in England.

State power, according to Hobbes, in order to fulfill its main purpose - ensuring peace and security for citizens - must be indivisible and sovereign. She should stand above everyone else and should not be subject to anyone's judgment or control. She must be above all laws, for all laws are established by her and only from her receive their force. Whatever its form, it is essentially limitless. In a republic, the popular assembly has the same power over its subjects as the king in a monarchical government, for otherwise anarchy will continue. The denial of absolute power comes, according to Hobbes, from ignorance of human nature and natural laws. It follows from the nature of supreme power that it cannot be destroyed by the will of the citizens. For, although it comes from their free agreement, the contracting parties have bound their will not only in relation to each other, but also in relation to the supreme power itself; therefore, without the consent of the supreme power itself, they cannot renounce their obligation.

While defending the unity of supreme power and the indivisibility of sovereignty, Hobbes at the same time recognized another aspect of the theory of separation of powers, namely: the need to distribute competence in the exercise of power and control, a kind of division of labor in the state mechanism as a guarantee of orderliness and control. Hobbes put forward the concept of political (state) absolutism, based on “rational-bureaucratic” principles of power and management. Hobbes considered the indicated properties of political power (sovereignty, unity, absolutism) to be common and essential for all forms of state, both monarchical and republican

The state has the highest possible power and it "can do whatever it pleases with impunity." The state, according to Hobbes, is a great and powerful force, a kind of “mortal God” that reigns supreme over people and rises above them. This means that the power of the sovereign is actually his monopoly on the life and death of his subjects; Moreover, “whatever the supreme representative does in relation to a subject under any pretext cannot be considered injustice or lawlessness in the proper sense.” Subjects have no rights in relation to the supreme power, and therefore it cannot rightfully be destroyed by people who agreed to establish it.

At the same time, the author of Leviathan, while subordinating the individual to the absolute power of the state, nevertheless leaves him the opportunity to resist the will of the sovereign. This opportunity is the right to revolt. It opens only when the sovereign, contrary to natural laws, obliges an individual to kill or maim himself or forbids him to defend himself from the attack of enemies. Protecting your own life is based on the highest law of all nature - the law of self-preservation. This law has no right to be violated and is sovereign. Otherwise, he risks losing power.

The purpose of the state is to abolish the natural state of man and establish an order in which people would be ensured security and a peaceful existence. But to maintain a state of security, state power must be armed with appropriate rights.

These rights are as follows: The first right Hobbes calls the “sword of justice” - that is, the right to reward and punish by the measure that the sovereign himself deems reasonable. The sovereign is given the right to reward wealth and honors, and also to impose corporal and monetary punishments, as well as punishments of dishonor, on every subject in accordance with the law previously issued by the sovereign. And if there was no such law, then the sovereign is given the right to reward and punish according to what he thinks reasonable, to encourage people to serve the state or to restrain them from doing harm to it.

The second right of the sovereign is the “sword of war,” that is, the right to declare war and make peace, depending on what he finds useful. This may also include the right to establish the number of armed forces and funds necessary to wage war, for the safety of citizens depends on the existence of troops, the strength of the troops depends on the unity of the state, and the unity of the state on the unity of the supreme power.

The third right is the right of jurisdiction. The sovereign has judicial power and the right to resolve disputes. An integral part of the supreme power is the right of jurisdiction, i.e. the right to consider and resolve all disputes that may arise regarding the law, both civil and natural, or regarding this or that fact. For without resolving disputes there can be no protection of a subject from insults from another.

The fourth right is the right to establish property laws, because before the establishment of state power, everyone had the right to everything, which was the reason for the war against everyone, but with the establishment of the state, everything must be determined what belongs to whom.

The fifth right is the right to establish subordination to power, with the help of which it would be possible to carry out balanced regulation of all functions of state power. The sixth right is the right to prohibit harmful teachings that lead to disruption of peace and tranquility within the state, as well as those aimed at undermining state unity. The seventh right is the right to bestow honorary titles and determine the position in society that each person should occupy, and the marks of respect that subjects should show to each other in public and private meetings. All other rights, according to Hobbes, are contained in the above or can be logically deduced from them.

It is worth noting that Hobbes understood that the approach he proposed to determining the extent of the powers of the sovereign, the scope of the content of absolute power, could turn people away from it. However, he assures: “There is nothing painful about absolute power, except that human institutions cannot exist without some inconveniences. And these inconveniences depend on the citizens, and not on the authorities.” T. Hobbes also uniquely rejects the opinion that unlimited power should lead to many bad consequences. His main argument is that the absence of such power (which turns into a continuous “war of all against all”) is fraught with much worse consequences. As a theorist of political absolutism, T. Hobbes is much less concerned about the possibility of the tyrannical use of unlimited and uncontrolled state power than the unbridled conflicts of private interests and the turmoil of social anarchy they generate.

If state power is armed with all the rights that belong to citizens in the state of nature, then it also has those responsibilities that arise from natural laws. All of them, according to the thinker, are contained in one proposition: the good of the people is the highest law.

The duty of the sovereign, according to T. Hobbes, is to govern the people well, for the state was established not for its own sake, but for the sake of the citizens. Since this good of the people is, first of all, peace, anyone who breaks the peace thereby opposes the dictates of state power. However, it must be added that peace is a good thing because it helps to protect people’s lives; but people strive not just for life, but for a happy life. Consequently, the task of the authorities is to ensure not just life, but a happy life for citizens. But what is a happy life?

Happiness, says the philosopher, consists in enjoying the various benefits of life, and to be able to enjoy all these benefits of life, the following is necessary: ​​protection from external enemies, maintaining peace within the state, increasing well-being and wealth, and granting the right to every citizen to enjoy freedom without harm to other citizens. The state power, therefore, must provide these four conditions necessary for the happiness of the citizens living in the state. And in order for state power to fulfill its duties, it must have certain rights, which were mentioned above.

But a state endowed with absolute power must perform, according to Hobbes, not only police and security functions. Its task: “to encourage all kinds of industries, such as shipping, agriculture, fishing, and all industries that have a demand for labor”; force physically healthy people who are shirking from work to work.

He should engage in educational and educational activities (especially instilling in his subjects how limitless the power of the sovereign is and how unconditional their duties to him are).

The state guarantees its subjects freedom, which is (for T. Hobbes) the right to do everything that is not prohibited by civil law, in particular “to buy and sell and otherwise enter into contracts with each other, to choose their place of residence, food, way of life, to instruct children at their own discretion, etc.”

The active role of the state is manifested in the vigorous struggle against those teachings that weaken or lead states to collapse. However, Hobbes called for using the power of the state “not against those who are mistaken, but against the errors themselves.”

As a theorist of political absolutism, who advocated the unlimited power of the state as such, T. Hobbes does not pay much attention to the problem of state forms. In his opinion, “power, if it is sufficiently perfect to be able to afford protection to its subjects, is the same in all forms.”

According to T. Hobbes, there can be only three forms of state: monarchy, democracy and aristocracy. The first type includes states in which supreme power belongs to one person. The second includes states in which the supreme power belongs to the assembly, where any of the citizens has voting rights. Hobbes calls this type of state democracy. The third type includes states in which the supreme power belongs to the assembly, where not all citizens, but only a certain part of them, have the right to vote.

According to the thinker, these forms of state differ from each other not in the nature and content of the supreme power embodied in them, but in differences in suitability for the implementation of the purpose for which they were established.

As for other traditional forms of government (tyranny and oligarchy), Hobbes does not consider them independent types of state. Tyranny is the same as a monarchy, and an oligarchy is no different from an aristocracy. At the same time, Hobbes's sympathies belonged to the monarchy; he is convinced that it better than other forms expresses and realizes the absolute nature of the power of the state; in it, general interests coincide very closely with the private (i.e., with the sovereign’s own, special) interests. It is more convenient for the supreme power to be monarchical, since “the state is personified in the personality of the king.”

Interstate relations, according to Hobbes, can only be relations of rivalry and hostility. States are military camps defending themselves from each other with soldiers and weapons. This state of states, Hobbes emphasizes, should be considered natural, “for they are not subject to any common power, and the unstable peace between them is soon broken.” It is obvious that Hobbes's views were greatly influenced by the era in which he lived. At that time, European states waged continuous and bloody wars. Despite this, there were thinkers who, under the same historical conditions, considered war not a natural, but an unnatural state of humanity.

Conclusion

Thus, Hobbes's political and legal teachings are in line with the theories of natural law and the contractual origin of political power. As we have seen, Hobbes associated the implementation of natural laws on peace, equivalence, equality, contract, justice, and property with the transition of man to a political state. They are all summarized in one general rule: do not do to others what you would not want done to you. According to his theory, state power is needed in order to force people to fulfill agreements. In legal terms, the transition to a political state is expressed in the fact that natural laws are concretized in the form of positive (“civil”) legislation issued by state authorities. Natural laws, according to Hobbes, are not only externally binding prescriptions for actions and deeds. They indicate what in human actions corresponds to reason and what contradicts it. Consequently, natural laws contain estimates of good and bad, just and unjust. In other words, these laws are the interconnection of the legal and moral spheres.

Hobbes's concept of absolute state power is an open and clear expression of a very typical idea of ​​the basic dignity of the state for a certain kind of ideology. Its exponents believe that the state has such dignity if it reliably protects (by any means necessary) order - the order of relations in society that suits them. But such cardinal questions as: does the state become a self-sufficient force, alien to society and opposed to it, is it controlled by society and is responsible to it, is the state built and functions on democratic and legal principles - are either ignored or ignored by supporters of political absolutism are recognized as insignificant and relegated somewhere to the background.

Hobbes's writings talk a lot about the "duties of the sovereign." All of them are contained in one position: the welfare of the people is the highest law. The duty of the sovereign, according to T. Hobbes, is to govern the people well, for the state was established not for its own sake, but for the sake of the citizens. These formulas are full of political wisdom and humanism. But within the framework of T. Hobbes’s teaching about the state, they look more like decorative inserts. The fact is that, according to T. Hobbes, people who already exercise supreme power are not in any real dependence on the people and therefore do not bear any responsibility to them. Rulers experience only something subjective "in relation to reason, which is natural, moral and divine law, and which they must obey in all things, so far as possible." Since Hobbes does not allow the creation of appropriate social and legal institutions that would externally guarantee such obedience to the sovereign, it generally appears chimerical. It is worth noting that this is completely in the spirit of the ideologists of absolutism - to assign the concern for order in society to the apparatus, civil laws, to all the real physical power of the state, and to leave the concern for the well-being of the people to the “good will” of the rulers.

It should be noted that the merit of T. Hobbes lies in the fact that he began to consider the state not through the prism of theology, but to derive its laws from reason and experience. The desire to put the study of state and law on the rails of objective scientific analysis leads T. Hobbes to use the analogy of the state with the human body. The main role is played by the approach to the state as an “artificial person”, i.e. as expediently, skillfully constructed by people from various springs, levers, wheels, threads, etc. automatic mechanism. At the same time, he likened the structure of the state to the structure of a living organism: the sovereign - the soul of statehood, secret agents - the eyes of the state, etc. He compared civil peace to health, and rebellions and civil wars to a disease of the state, entailing its collapse and death. It was from T. Hobbes that Western European political theory established the understanding of the state as a machine, which then had a long and complex fate.

In general, Hobbes's theory had a great influence on the development of political and legal thought both in his time and in later periods. We can say that the concepts of state and law of the 17th-18th centuries. developed largely under the sign of the problems raised by Hobbes. Hobbes's powerful mind and insight allowed Hobbes to build a system from which all bourgeois thinkers, not only of the seventeenth, but also of the eighteenth and twentieth centuries, right up to the present day, drew, as from a rich source.

List of used literature

1. Hobbes T. Works in 2 T. T2. /compiler and editor V.V. Sokolov, translated from Latin and English. - M.: Thought. 1991

2. Zorkin V.D. “The political and legal teachings of Thomas Hobbes” // “Soviet State and Law”, 1989, No. 6.

3. History of political and legal doctrines: Pre-Marxist period: Textbook edited by O.E. Leistva - M: Legal literature, 1991

4. History of political and legal doctrines: Textbook for universities. 4th edition under general. ed. Professor V.S. Nersesyants. - M: Publishing group NORMA-INFRA * M, 2004.

5. History of philosophy in brief / translated from Czech I.I. Baguta - M: Mysl, 1994

6. History of philosophy: textbook for universities / V. P. Yakovlev - Rostov-on-Don Phoenix 2004

7. History of philosophy: textbook for universities / V.V. Ilyin - St. Petersburg: Peter 2005

8. Meerovsky B.V. Hobbes. - M., Thought 1975

9. Radugin A.A. Philosophy: Course of lectures - M. Center. 1997

Human nature is egoistic, and this egoism knows no boundaries. It is necessary to distinguish between two states of man - the natural and civil states. In the state of nature, human nature is fully manifested; he has all the rights (including the right to kill another) to pursue selfish interests. The principle of “war of all against all.” This is a natural state. THAT idea of ​​man, corresponding to the realities with which Hobbes dealt, is abstracted from these realities and presented as something that is rooted in the natural nature of man. This is the eternal situation in which man has been and remains. It is justified by reference to the nature of those properties that were characteristic of the initial accumulation of capital. The secularized sanctification of the orientation of the bourgeoisie - it is justified not by reference to God, but by the fact that such is the nature of man. The consequences are as follows: a person in his natural state is so tied up in a situation of war of all against all that it is dangerous for his life. Therefore, as soon as people begin to understand this, according to Hobbes, they begin to realize the need to come to an agreement, conclude a social contract, and move into a civil state. The agreement itself is a means, an instrument of transition. Bertrand Russell. History of Western philosophy and its connection with

political and social conditions from antiquity to the present day: In three books. 3rd edition stereotypical. - M. Academic Project, 2000.

“The natural state of man is a war of all against all, a life full of dangers, savagery, lack of enlightenment. “In the absence of a civil state, there is always a war of all against all. From this it is clear that as long as people live without a common power that keeps them all in fear, they are in that state called war, and namely in a state of war of all against all.” Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan

Civil status - security, education, human development, despite suppression.

The concept of a state of nature is an artificial abstraction from the social conditions under which bourgeois society arose.

The state is, according to Hobbes, a work of art, a product of an agreement between people. For a treaty to be effective, durable, and enforceable, it must be based on deterrence. By concluding it, people thereby renounce their rights in favor of a certain body or person embodying state power.

“The purpose of the state is mainly to ensure security. The ultimate reason, purpose, or intention of men (who by nature love freedom and dominion over others) in imposing upon themselves the bonds (by which they are bound, as we see them living in a state), is the concern for self-preservation and, at the same time, for a more favorable life. In other words, in establishing a state, people are guided by the desire to get rid of the disastrous state of war, which is (as was shown in Chapter XIII) the necessary consequence of the natural passions of people where there is no visible authority to keep them in fear and, under threat of punishment, forcing them to fulfill agreements and observance of the natural laws set forth in Chapters XIV and XV." Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan

The state instills fear in its subjects, forcing them to obey itself; by pacifying them in this way, it acts for their own good. Emphasizing the beneficial significance of the omnipotence of the state for its subjects, Hobbes, who was an opponent of the separation of powers, did not take into account, however, the fact that the omnipotent state (and this has been shown by historical experience) often turns into a machine that works for its own needs, and not for the benefit of people, but against them. Actually, Hobbes calls the dictates of right reason natural laws. By right reason he understands the act of reasoning, that is, the actual correct judgment of each individual person about the actions he performs. The right mind is given to us by nature, it is a natural ability. Since, according to logic, a correct judgment follows from true and correctly selected premises, then any violation of natural laws consists of false reasoning or the stupidity of people who do not see their duties towards other people. But these duties are necessary for the sake of self-preservation. Hobbes says that it is impossible to remain in a state of nature for a long time, since it leads to the mutual destruction of people. Therefore, they come to the conclusion that it is necessary to create a state that could regulate their relations and stop the “war of all against all.” The state must be formed as a result of the conclusion of a social contract. But this agreement must contain natural laws that must not be violated.

The main provisions of the social contract theory include the following:

Every person is born free and is his own master; no one is able to subjugate a person without his consent. Hobbes emphasized that a man owes nothing to those to whom he has promised nothing;

The basis of law can only be contracts and agreements. In contrast to natural law, the idea of ​​political law, that is, based on contracts, was put forward;

The basis of any legitimate power among people can only be agreements: legitimate power arises as a result of the voluntary agreement of free and virtuous people. At the same time, the divine origin of power is rejected;

As a result of a social contract, an association of equal and free individuals is formed: freedom and equality of the parties to the contract ensure the unification of the people into an inextricable whole (collective personality), the interests of which cannot contradict the interests of private individuals;

According to the terms of the social contract, sovereignty belongs to the people. At the same time, popular sovereignty is understood as the general will of the people. He is inalienable and indivisible;

The essence of the social contract theory is the transfer of power by the people to the state. Such a social agreement gives the political body (the state) unlimited power over all its members;

In all forms of government, sovereignty and legislative power belong to the whole people, who are the source of power;

The people have the right not only to change the form of government, but also to generally terminate the social agreement itself and regain natural freedom;

Emphasizing the indivisibility of sovereignty, Hobbes opposed the separation of powers: he contrasted the system of separation of powers with the idea of ​​​​delineating the functions of state bodies Electronic textbook on philosophy. Authors: A.L. Andreev, G.S. Arefieva, V.E. Gan, A.V. Kozlov, V.S. Kostelov...

Social contract theory. Hobbes about the state of nature as a war of all against all. In the constellation of their names, the first place belongs to the name of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes 1588-1679. Hobbes is a philosopher who is difficult to classify as belonging to any movement.

Share your work on social networks

If this work does not suit you, at the bottom of the page there is a list of similar works. You can also use the search button

Course work

Subject:

Introduction

17th century

2 Hobbes on the state of nature as a "war of all against all"

Conclusion

Introduction

Historians of philosophy and natural sciences call the 17th century the century of geniuses. At the same time, they mean the many brilliant thinkers who then worked in the field of science, laid the foundation of modern natural science and, in comparison with previous centuries, far advanced the natural sciences, especially philosophy. In the constellation of their names, the first place belongs to the name of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).

Hobbes is a philosopher who is difficult to classify as belonging to any movement. He was an empiricist, like Locke, Berkeley and Hume, but unlike them he was a supporter of the mathematical method, not only in pure mathematics, but also in its applications to other branches of knowledge. Galileo had a greater influence on his general view than Bacon. Continental philosophy, from Descartes to Kant, took many of its concepts about the Nature of human knowledge from mathematics, but it believed that mathematics can be known independently of experience. This, therefore, led, as in Platonism, to a diminishment of the role played by thought. On the other hand, English empiricism had little influence from mathematics and was prone to a false conception of the scientific method. Hobbes had none of these shortcomings. Up to our time, it is impossible to find a single philosopher who, being an empiricist, would still give credit to mathematics. In this respect, Hobbes' merits are enormous. However, he also had serious shortcomings, which do not make it possible to rightfully classify him as one of the most outstanding thinkers. He is impatient with subtleties and too prone to cutting the Gordian knot. His solutions to problems are logical, but are accompanied by a deliberate omission of inconvenient facts. He is energetic but rude; he is better with a halberd than with a rapier. Despite this, his theory of the state deserves careful consideration, especially since it is more modern than any previous theory, even Machiavelli's.

The starting point for all of Thomas Hobbes's reasoning in his writings was the doctrine of society, the state, and civil human rights. This thinker could not imagine the existence of people without a single, strong state. Hobbes was convinced that before men emerged from the state of nature and united into a society with a single will, there was a “war of all against all.” The transition to civil society followed the conclusion of a social contract on which the relationship between citizens and government is based. At the same time, Hobbes emphasized the principle of individual freedom, the inalienability of his civil rights, the idea of ​​​​the intrinsic value of the individual, respect for him and his property. The formation of civil society occurred in parallel with the formation of a new type of state - a bourgeois state.

Since the formation of a civil society and the rule of law is now more relevant than ever for many countries of the world, and especially for Russia, the study of the teachings of the classics of philosophical thought on this topic is timely and conceptual.

1 Thomas Hobbes the greatest English philosopher 17th century

1.1 Socio-political and ethical views of the scientist

Thomas Hobbes the greatest English philosopher XVII c., although today he is better known for his political philosophy, presented in the treatise Leviathan.

As Hobbes' biographers say, he lived to the ripe old age of 91, maintaining clarity of mind until the end of his days.

Thomas Hobbes was born on April 5, 1588 in Westport, near Malmesbury in southern England. His mother was of peasant origin, his father was a village priest, and his relatives were engaged in the glove trade. Hobbes initially received his education at a church school, which he began attending at the age of four. Since the boy showed ability and a great inclination to study, he was sent to a city school, where he successfully continued his education. By the age of fourteen, Hobbes already mastered ancient languages ​​so much that he translated Euripides' "Medea" in verse into Latin.

At the age of fifteen, he entered Oxford University and upon graduation received a university diploma, which gave him the right to engage in teaching work and opened the way to an academic career. But like most of the leading philosophical and scientific minds of that century - Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Newton and others - Hobbes was not subsequently associated with universities. After graduating from university, he becomes a teacher for the children of one of the noble aristocratic families. At this time, he developed connections among the ruling circles, including among the court circles of England.

Trips to the European continent gave the English thinker the opportunity to deeply study philosophy, personally meet its most prominent representatives (primarily Galileo during his trip to Italy in 1646), and take an active part in the discussion of the most important philosophical problems of that time. Gradually, Hobbes developed the principles of his own teaching. The first outline of Hobbes's philosophical system was his 1640 essay Human Nature. The further comprehensive development of Hobbes' philosophical system was influenced by events related to the conflict associated with the English parliament and the king, and then by the events of the English Revolution.

Events in the public life of England stimulated Hobbes's interest in socio-political issues and forced him to accelerate the development and publication of his essay On the Citizen, which he conceived as the third part of his philosophical system. Continuing to deepen and reflect on his socio-political ideas, Hobbes worked on his largest political and sociological publication, Leviathan, which was published in London in 1651.

Returning to England in 1651, Hobbes was respectfully received by Cromwell, who entrusted him with participation in the reorganization of university education. After the Stuart restoration, emigrants who returned to England reproached Hobbes for his reconciliation with the power of Cromwell and accused him of atheism. After Hobbes' death, Leviathan was publicly burned by the University of Oxford. Long before this, the Catholic Church included the works of Hobbes in the “List of Prohibited Books.”

The range of problems of Hobbes's philosophical research is extremely wide and varied. It reflects those pressing problems of that time and even today, without which the further development of philosophical thought and various philosophical systems is impossible. Contemporaries and followers of Hobbes' theory valued him extremely highly; D. Diderot, in his research, more than once praised the high clarity and certainty in Hobbes's works; he compared him with the then luminary of sensationalism, Locke, and even put Hobbes above him.

The high assessment of Hobbes is evidenced by the characterization of Marx, in which, although he emphasizes the physical and mechanistic limitations of Hobbes, at the same time Marx sees in him one of the founders of modern materialism. Marx also declares Hobbes one of the founders of the philosophy of analysis or the so-called logical positivism. It is worth noting that the philosophical system of Thomas Hobbes has the same shortcomings as the entire mechanical methodology as a whole, but like all methodology it played a very important role in the history of the development of social thought.

Hobbes's powerful mind and insight allowed Hobbes to build a system from which all thinkers, not only of the seventeenth, but also of the eighteenth and twentieth centuries, right up to the present day, drew, as from a rich source.

It should be noted that it is “Leviathan” that occupies a unique place in the history of world philosophy. In this work, Thomas Hobbes was ahead of his time in many areas, and his original judgments immediately after the publication of the treatise in 1651. aroused the hatred of churchmen of all religious views and leaders of all political parties. Hobbes fought alone against numerous opponents, showing his talent as a polemicist and scientist. During Hobbes's lifetime, almost all responses were sharply negative, but in subsequent centuries the influence of the work "Leviathan" on the views of Spinoza, Bentham, Leibniz, Rousseau and Diderot, on philosophers and economists was recognized XIX - XX centuries. This is probably the global significance for philosophy, political science, and culture.

The socio-political and ethical views of the scientist were as follows: man is a part of nature and cannot but obey its laws. Hobbes also considers this truth, which became an axiom for the philosophy of his century, fundamental and quite clear. Therefore, we must begin, the philosopher argues, with the affirmation of such properties of a person that belong to his body as a body of nature. And then smoothly make the transition from viewing man as a body of nature to human nature, i.e. its essential property. The human body, like any body of nature, has the ability to move, have a form, and occupy a place in space and time. Hobbes adds to this “natural abilities and powers” ​​inherent in man as a living body, the ability to eat, reproduce and perform many other actions determined precisely by natural needs. Towards the “natural” block of human nature, philosophers XVII V. also included part of the “desires” and “affects” caused by natural needs. But the focus was still placed on the properties of rationality and equality with other people as the deepest properties of the human essence, which did not seem to thinkers to be anything contrary to the “natural” approach to man. The same applied to social philosophy, which is closely associated with the philosophy of man.

Hobbes' ethical views are based on "natural law." "Natural Law ( lex naturalis "," writes Hobbes, "is a precept, or a general rule found by reason, according to which a man is forbidden to do that which is harmful to his life, or which deprives him of the means of preserving it, and to omit what he considers the best means of preserving life." 1

Hobbes argues that differences in physical abilities do not predetermine anything in human life (for example, the weaker can kill the stronger), and therefore cannot in any way serve as an argument in favor of the thesis about the inequality of people from birth. Philosophers have tried to explain how and why, instead of the “natural” equality of people, inequality arose at some not entirely certain moment in historical development, i.e. property arose. To explain this, Hobbes and Locke built a doctrine of the emergence of property as a result of labor. But since labor activity was considered an eternal way for a person to spend energy, then the possession of any property and some benefits, i.e. any property (which, as Hobbes and Locke assumed, owes its origin to labor alone) was also declared a sign of human nature.

However, within these limits there is also no room for objective “good” (and “evil”), and, consequently, for “moral values”. For Hobbes, good is what is sought after, and evil is what is avoided. But due to the fact that some people desire certain things and others do not, some avoid something and others do not, it turns out that good and evil are relative. Even about God himself it cannot be said that he is an unconditional good, for “God is good to all those who call on His name, but not to those who revile His name by blaspheming.” This means that good relates to a person, place, time, circumstances, as the sophists argued in ancient times.

But if good is relative and, therefore, absolute values ​​do not exist, how can we build social life and create morality? How can people live together in one society? Two of Hobbes' masterpieces are devoted to the answers to these questions: “Leviathan” and “On the Citizen.”

Thus, one of the main categories of Hobbes's socio-political system is the category of equality. “From this equality of ability arises equality of hope for achieving our goals. That is why, if two people desire the same thing, which, however, they cannot possess together, they become enemies." 2 writes Hobbes. Therefore, the natural state of man is war. A war of all against all. To prevent constant wars, a person needs protection, which he can only find in the person of the state.

So, from the affirmation of natural equality, Hobbes moves on to the idea of ​​​​the ineradicability of the war of all against all.

The harshness and, one might say, ruthlessness with which Hobbes formulated this thought repelled his contemporaries. But in fact, their agreement with Hobbes was profound: after all, all the major philosophers also believed that people “by nature” are more concerned about themselves than about the common good, they are more likely to enter into struggle than to refrain from conflict, and that the focus on the good of other people it is necessary to specially educate the individual, resorting to the arguments of reason, to various government measures, etc.

Hobbes based his teaching on the study of human nature and passions. Hobbes's opinion about these passions and nature is extremely pessimistic: people are characterized by competition (the desire for profit), mistrust (the desire for security), and a love of glory (ambition). These passions make people enemies: “Man is a wolf to man” ( homo homini lupus est ). Therefore, in the state of nature, where there is no authority to keep people in fear, they are in a “state of war of all against all.”

Man, despite the fact that he is in a natural state, tends to strive for peace, which requires serious sacrifices and restrictions from him, which at times may seem difficult and overwhelming. But the essence of the matter for Hobbes is the proclamation of the principle according to which the individual must renounce unlimited claims, because this makes the coordinated life of people impossible. From here he derives a law, a prescription of reason: Hobbes considers it necessary and reasonable, in the name of peace, to renounce even the original rights of human nature - from unconditional and absolute equality, from unlimited freedom. The main pathos of Hobbes's concept lies in the proclamation of the necessity of peace (i.e., the coordinated life of people together), rooted in the nature of man, both in his passions and in the prescriptions of his reason. The hypothetical and at the same time realistic image of the war of all against all also partly serves this purpose. Hobbes was often reproached for being a supporter of too harsh and decisive government power. But we must not forget that he defended only the strong power of the state, based on law and reason.

Thus, in analyzing human nature, Hobbes moved from the assertion of the equality of human abilities and claims to the idea of ​​​​the existence of a war of all against all. Thus, the philosopher wanted to show the harmfulness and unbearability of a situation in which people are forced to constantly fight. As a result, he came to the conclusion that passions that incline towards peace can and should be stronger than passions that push towards war, if they are supported by laws, rules, and regulations of reason.

Sharp class clashes in the Civil War also had a certain influence on Hobbes's teaching. “Competition for wealth, honor, command or other power,” wrote Hobbes, “leads to strife, hostility and war, for one competitor achieves his desire by killing, subjugating, displacing or repelling the other.” 3

The harmfulness of the “state of war of all against all” compels people to seek a way to end the state of nature; This path is indicated by natural laws, the prescriptions of reason (according to Hobbes, natural law is the freedom to do everything for self-preservation; natural law is the prohibition to do what is harmful to life).

The first fundamental law of nature is: Every one must seek peace by every means at his disposal, and if he cannot obtain peace, he may seek and use all the means and advantages of war. From this law follows directly the second law: Everyone must be willing to renounce his right to everything when others also desire it, since he considers this renunciation necessary for peace and self-defense. 4 . In addition to the renunciation of one's rights, there may also be (as Hobbes believes) a transfer of these rights. When two or more people transfer these rights to each other, it is called a contract. The third natural law states that people must keep their own contracts. This law contains the function of justice. Only with the transfer of rights does community life and the functioning of property begin, and only then is injustice possible in the violation of contracts. It is extremely interesting that Hobbes derives from these fundamental laws the law of Christian morality: “Do not do to others what you would not have done to you.” According to Hobbes, natural laws, being the rules of our reason, are eternal. The name "law" is not quite suitable for them, but since they are considered as the command of God, they are "laws" 5 .

Thus, natural laws say that peace should be sought; for these purposes, the right to everything must be mutually renounced; “people must honor the agreements they make.”

1.2 Social contract theory

The concept of “Social Contract” (literal translation of the term “social contract”) first appeared in the works of philosophers Thomas Hobbes (17th century) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau ( XVIII V). It was after Rousseau’s book “On the Social Contract” (1762) that this concept became popular in European politics and social science. These ancient authors, speaking about the social contract, had the following in mind. People by nature have inalienable natural rights: to freedom, to property, to achieve their personal goals, etc. But the unlimited use of these rights leads either to a “war of all against all,” that is, to social chaos; or to the establishment of a social order in which some cruelly and unjustly oppress others, which, in turn, gives rise to a social explosion and, again, chaos. Therefore, it is necessary that all citizens voluntarily renounce some of their natural rights and transfer them to the state, which under the control of the people will guarantee law, order and justice.

A person loses his natural freedom (“I do whatever I want”), but gains civil freedom (freedom of speech, the right to vote in elections, the ability to unite in unions). A person loses the natural right to obtain property for himself (to grab everything that is bad, to take it from the weak), but acquires the right of ownership. This is the “Social Contract” in the old sense. Currently, only its core remains of this concept, namely: to achieve a social order that suits everyone, or at least the majority, we need effective mechanisms for coordinating the interests of individuals and public institutions. The social contract is a negotiation process.

Social contract is not a document to be signed, it is a negotiation R ny process. To understand the content of Social Contract theories and their place in the development of views on the origins of society and the state, it is necessary to briefly list some of the well-known concepts that address these issues. Among the many theories and concepts, the following should be mentioned first:

According to Plato, society and the state did not differ significantly from each other. The state was a form of joint settlement of people that ensured the protection of common interests, territory, maintenance of order, development of production, and satisfaction of everyday needs.

In medieval Europe, the opinion was firmly established that the state is the result of the creation of God, a kind of agreement between God and man. This view of the origin of the state is called theological.

Hobbes was, perhaps, the first to present the theory of the social contract in a definite, clear and rationalistic (that is, based on the arguments of reason) form. According to Hobbes, the emergence of the state is preceded by the so-called state of nature, a state of absolute, unlimited freedom of people equal in their rights and abilities. People are equal in their desire to dominate and have the same rights. Therefore, the state of nature for Hobbes is in the full sense “a state of war of all against all.” Absolute freedom of man– the desire for anarchy, chaos, continuous struggle, in which the killing of man by man is justified.

In this situation, the natural and necessary way out is to limit, curb the absolute freedom of everyone in the name of the good and order of all. People must mutually limit their freedom in order to exist in a state of social peace. They agree among themselves about this limitation. This mutual self-restraint is called a social contract.

By limiting their natural freedom, people at the same time transfer the authority to maintain order and oversee compliance with the contract to one or another group or individual. This is how a state arises, whose power is sovereign, that is, independent of any external or internal forces. The power of the state, according to Hobbes, must be absolute; the state has the right, in the interests of society as a whole, to take any coercive measures against its citizens. Therefore, the ideal of the state for Hobbes was an absolute monarchy, unlimited power in relation to society.

2 Hobbes on the state of nature as a "war of all against all"

2.1 "War of all against all." Background

“War of all against all” (“ Bellum omnium contra omnes ”) a concept used in moral philosophy since the time of the ancient sophists, the idea of ​​a state of society in which there is general permanent hostility and incessant mutual violence. In a softened form, the idea of ​​a war of all against all includes an uncontrolled increase in aggressiveness in society, leading to constant interhuman conflicts. At its core, the war of all against all is an ideal model of destructiveness and selfishness taken to the extreme, which, when projected onto reality, serves as the basis for historical interpretations, forecasts, moralistic reasoning and warnings. Its significance for ethical thought is determined by the purposes for which the impressive and very visual picture of the universal conflict is used.

The first paradigm of its use can be characterized as an attempt to deduce from the insoluble internal contradictions of the state of general war the origin, content and binding nature of moral (or moral-legal) norms. A similar attempt is made both in some theories of the social contract (including the concepts of an unspoken but instantaneous convention) and in evolutionary-genetic theories of the origin of morality.

The concept of T. Hobbes, who for the first time in the history of philosophical thought used the very formulation “War of all against all” (analogue of “war of everyone against their neighbors”), proceeds from the fact that this state is original (i.e. natural) for a person.

A similar model of using the image “War of all against all” exists in the Freudian concept of “moral progress” during the transition from the patriarchal horde to the fraternal clan, although the participants in the war are only male, sexually mature individuals, and the subject of contention is limited to the area of ​​sexuality.

The contractual model of the emergence of morality, which arises as a way of returning the fundamental features of the life system that preceded the “War of all against all,” is present in J.J. Rousseau. The state of general war, which threatens the destruction of the human race, is an important moment in the contradictory process of replacing “instinct with justice.” Rousseau’s “war of all against all” is not a consequence of an absolutely disunited state of individuals; on the contrary, it occurs with the emergence of a universal need for a common social life. Its cause is not natural equality, but the development of a system of social (property) stratification. The leading force of the “most terrible war” and the obstacle to the creation of defensive associations is envy of other people’s wealth, drowning out “natural (instinctive) compassion and the still weak voice of justice.”

Some modern evolutionary genetic concepts structurally reproduce Rousseau's model. This applies to those theories that interpret morality as a mechanism for compensating for the weakening of biological (instinctive) levers for regulating mutual relations in groups (or within species) during the transition from animals to humans.

Similarly, in the concept of Yu.M. Beard understands the “anthropogenetic dead end”, generated by the aggravation of “tension of intra-herd relations” (up to the danger of mutual extermination of males) and resolved in the refusal of the direct implementation of egocentric instincts through the identification of oneself with another. A different reproduction of the same structure is present in concepts where morality in its universal and absolute form is the result of compensation for the isolation that arises during the collapse of clan unity and leads to “the trampling of the norms of communication developed in an archaic society” (R.G. Apresyan) a direct, albeit extremely softened, parallel to the “War of all against all.” 6

In the second paradigm, ideas about the “War of all against all” are part of a morally oriented argument against revolutionary political movements that require a holistic rational restructuring of the system of social institutions, based on considerations of justice. The state of general war here becomes an inevitable moral correlate of radical socio-political transformations. Hobbes already notes that any major uprising against the authorities automatically turns the people into a mass ( multitudo ), which leads to “chaos and war of all against all.” Therefore, the greatest excesses of oppression are “scarcely sensitive in comparison with the unbridled state of anarchy.” European conservatives con. XVIII V. sharpen Hobbes's thought, believing that any violation of the organic, traditional social order leads to manifestations of the war of all against all: “asocial and anti-civil chaos”, the transition “to an antagonistic world of madness, vice, discord and senseless grief” (E. Burke) and even “bloody mess” (J. de Maistre). In later philosophical criticism of revolutions the same approach is retained.

The third paradigm for using the painting “Wars of all against all” is built into the general logic of criticism of the social order, focused on the embodiment of moral values. In this case, war, based on hedonistic or perfectionistic considerations, is understood as a more acceptable state for the individual than a moral restriction. Thus, in “Philosophy in the Boudoir” A.D.F. de Sade, the state of war of all against all appears as one of the most desirable consequences of the desire for political freedom from a hedonistic point of view. The future of the French Republic, as described by de Sade, is similar to Hobbes's society, which finally realized the destructiveness of Leviathan and, enriched by the knowledge of the illusory nature of its promises associated with the fulfillment of the moral law, returned to the state of nature with its dangers and pleasures.F. Nietzsche, unlike de Sade, has a perfectionist perspective in mind when he characterizes the desire for universal peace, that is, a time “when there will be nothing more to fear,” as an imperative of “herd cowardice” and a sign of the extreme degree of “fall and decay.” Therefore, the call to war from “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” (section “On War and Warriors”) pursues a two-sided goal: it is both the overthrow of “present-day man” and the creation of that crucible in which a renewed man will be born (“across a thousand bridges and paths they strive towards the future and let there be more war and inequality between them: this is what my great love makes me say”). General war, the search for the enemy and hatred of him acquire the status of self-sufficient values ​​for Nietzsche (“the good of war sanctifies every goal”). 7

2.2 Society and state in the war of all against all

By abandoning natural rights (i.e., the freedom to do everything for self-preservation), people transfer them to the state, the essence of which Hobbes defined as “a single person for whose actions a huge number of people have made themselves responsible through a mutual agreement among themselves, so that this a person may use the power and means of all of them as he shall think necessary for their peace and common defense.” 8

The changes in Hobbes's argumentation are indicative of the methodology of theoretical thinking of that time. At first, he considered the source of power to be an agreement between subjects and the ruler, which (the agreement) could not be terminated without the consent of both parties. However, the ideologists of the revolution cited many facts of violation by the king of his own obligations; therefore, obviously, Hobbes formulates a slightly different concept of a social contract (each with each), in which the ruler does not take part at all, and therefore cannot violate it.

State is the great Leviathan (biblical monster), artificial man or earthly god; supreme power soul of the state, judges and officials joints, advisers memory; laws - reason and will, artificial chains attached at one end to the lips of the sovereign, the other to the ears of the subjects; rewards and punishments nerves; welfare of citizens strength, security of the people occupation, civil peace health, unrest illness, civil war death.

The power of the sovereign is absolute: he has the right to issue laws, control their observance, establish taxes, appoint officials and judges; even the thoughts of the subjects are subject to the sovereign the ruler of the state determines which religion or sect is true and which is not.

Hobbes, like Bodin, recognizes only three forms of state. He gives preference to an unlimited monarchy (the good of the monarch is identical to the good of the state, the right of inheritance gives the state an artificial eternity of life, etc.).

The absence of any rights of subjects in relation to the sovereign is interpreted by Hobbes as the legal equality of persons in their mutual relations. Hobbes is by no means a supporter of the feudal-class division of society into the privileged and the unprivileged. In relations between subjects, the sovereign must ensure equal justice for everyone (“the principle of which states that one cannot take from anyone what belongs to him”), the inviolability of contracts, impartial protection for everyone in court, and determine equal taxes. One of the tasks of state power is to ensure that property “which people acquired through mutual agreements in exchange for the renunciation of universal rights.” Private property, according to Hobbes, is a condition for community life, “a necessary means to peace.” Hobbes's views on the origins of private property also changed. In his early writings he argued that in the state of nature property was common. Since the idea of ​​community of property was actively discussed during the ideological struggle of political groups (especially in connection with the speech of the Levellers and Diggers), Hobbes abandoned this idea: “in a state of war of all against all” there is “neither property, nor community of property, and there is only uncertainty "

Property, Hobbes remembers to add, is not guaranteed against encroachment on it by the sovereign, but this applies most of all to the establishment of taxes that should be levied on subjects without any exceptions or privileges.

In Hobbes's concept, the unlimited power and rights of the ruler of the state do not mean an apology for continental-style absolutism with its class inequality, universal guardianship and total regulation. Hobbes called on the sovereign to encourage all kinds of crafts and all industries, but the methods he proposed were far from the policy of protectionism.

The purpose of laws is not to prevent people from doing anything, but to give them the right direction. Laws are like fences along the edges of the road, so extra laws are harmful and unnecessary. Everything that is not prohibited or prescribed by law is left to the discretion of the subjects: such are “the freedom to buy and sell and otherwise enter into contracts with each other, to choose their abode, their food, their way of life, to instruct their children as they please, etc. ." 9 Discussing the relations of subjects among themselves, Hobbes substantiated a number of specific requirements in the field of law: equal trial by jury for all, guarantees of the right to defense, proportionality of punishment.

The peculiarity of Hobbes’s teaching is that he considered the unlimited power of the king to be a guarantee of law and order and he condemned the civil war, seeing in it a revival of the disastrous state of “war of all against all.” Since such a war, according to his theory, resulted from the general hostility of individuals, Hobbes advocated royal absolutism.

It is important to note that, according to Hobbes, the goal of the state (the security of individuals) is achievable not only under an absolute monarchy. “Where a certain form of government has already been established,” he wrote, “there is no need to argue about which of the three forms of government is the best, but one should always prefer, support and consider the existing one to be the best.” 10 It is no coincidence that the evolution of Hobbes's views ended with the recognition of a new government (Cromwell's protectorate), established in England as a result of the overthrow of the monarchy. If the state collapses, Hobbes declared, the rights of the deposed monarch remain, but the duties of the subjects are destroyed; they have the right to look for any defender. Hobbes formulated this provision in the form of one of the natural laws and addressed it to the soldiers of the army of the deposed king: “A soldier can seek his protection where he most hopes to receive it, and can legally give himself into subjection to a new master.”

For Hobbes, a state of peace and mutual assistance is unthinkable without a strong state. Hobbes did not consider himself entitled to simply document the gap between the ideals of equality and freedom, supposedly corresponding to the “true” nature of man, and the real life of people. He understood the deviation of the ideal from reality as a fundamental and constant possibility arising from human nature itself. And in relation to the known to his societies, he did not sin against historical truth when he showed that people’s concern only for themselves was confirmed by their struggle with each other, the war of all against all.

Hobbes wanted to connect the image of the war of all against all not so much with the past, but with the actual manifestations of social life and the behavior of individuals in his era. “Perhaps someone will think that such a time and such warriors as those depicted by me have never existed; and I do not think that they ever existed as a general rule throughout the world, but there are many places where people live like this even now,” writes Hobbes and refers, for example, to the life of some tribes in America. But the rapprochement of the natural state and, consequently, the properties of human nature with the behavior of people during the civil war and with the “continuous envy” in which “kings and persons vested with supreme power” are in relation to each other is carried out especially persistently.

Conclusion

Hobbes's judgment that, due to human nature, a “war of all against all” arises in society has been sufficiently studied in critical works. However, some clarification needs to be added. This thesis is presented and proven in the second part of the treatise, entitled “On the State,” and it was this part that led to the fact that “Leviathan,” this biblical monster, is perceived as a symbol of strong state power. Numerous opponents of Hobbes accused him of distorting human nature.

Meanwhile, this thesis does not have absolute meaning for Hobbes. He repeatedly says that the state of “war of all against all” arises in those periods when there is no state power, where order is disrupted, for example, in eras of revolutions and civil wars: then everyone is forced to defend their interests on their own, since they are deprived of protection from the authorities. The conclusion about the struggle of interests does not appear as a recognition of the initial depravity of nature, but is a natural result of the state of society at moments of social catastrophe. And Hobbes does not see this as a crime; cruelty in defending one’s interests may be a sin, but only breaking the law makes it a crime. Meanwhile, there are periods when there are no laws or they are not implemented with weak government power; the concepts of “justice” and “right” disappear.

Hobbes explains several times that in such periods, when a “war of all against all” begins, people follow the natural inalienable instinct of self-preservation: uncertainty in the future, fear for property and life, decline in the economy, agriculture, trade, navigation, science, art life person lonely, rude. Salvation is possible only in strong state power. Many critics perceived the treatise Leviathan as a defense of the monarchy. Meanwhile, Hobbes argued that under any form of government monarchy, oligarchy or democracy there can be a strong state power if the “agreement” between the government and the people is respected and the government promptly suppresses both religious and political activity if it weakens the state. Only a single, strong state power preserves the state, ensures the peace and security of its subjects in this regard, Hobbes was a consistent opponent of the separation of powers and had many supporters in subsequent centuries.

Like most other progressive thinkers of this era, Hobbes was objectively a spokesman for the interests of developing capitalism, which achieved significant success in England and some other European countries. Subjectively, he considered himself an unselfish seeker of truth, necessary for the entire human race. “The desire to know why and how,” Hobbes wrote, is called curiosity. This desire is not inherent in any living creature except man, so that man is distinguished, not only by reason, but also by this specific passion, from all other animals, in which the desire for food and other pleasures of sensation, due to its dominance, suppresses the concern for knowledge of causes, which is mental. pleasure. This latter, preserved in the continuous and tireless emergence of knowledge, surpasses the short-term power of any other carnal pleasure. 11

Only Hobbes' selfless devotion to science and philosophy allowed him to achieve those significant results in the field of philosophy that make his works and works interesting and instructive to this day.

List of used literature

1. Alekseev P.V. History of philosophy M.: Prospekt, 2009. 240 p.

2. Blinnikov L.V. Great philosophers: Educational dictionary-reference book. 2nd ed. M.: “Logos”, 1999. 432 p.

3. Burke E. Reflections on the revolution in France. Journal of Sociological Research for 1991, No. 6, 7, 9, for 1992, No. 2 and for 1993, No. 4.

4. Nailed V.A. History of Western philosophical thought M, 1993.

5. Nailed V.A. Fundamentals of philosophy: stages of development and modern problems. History of Western philosophical thought M.: Infra, 2008. 67 p.

6. T. Hobbes, Selected Works, vol. 12, M., 1964.
7. Hobbes T. Leviathan, or Matter, form and power of the church and civil state // Hobbes T. Works: In 2 volumes - Vol.2. - M.: Mysl, 1991. 731 p.

8. T. Hobbes, Works in two volumes, M, 1991.

Krasnoyarsk 1958.

Zenkovsky V.V. History of Russian philosophy: In 2 vols. L., 1991, 294 p.

10. Zorkin V.D. Political and legal teachings of Thomas Hobbes // Soviet State and Law 1989 No. 6.

11. History of political and legal doctrines. // Ed. Nersesyants V.S., 4th ed., revised. and additional M.: Norma, 2004. 944 p.

12. History of philosophy. / Ed. Vasilyeva V.V., Krotova A.A., Bugaya D.V. M.: Academic Project, 2005. 680 p.

13. Kozyrev G.I. Fundamentals of sociology and political science: textbook. M.: Publishing House "FORUM": INFRA M, 2008. 240 p.

14. Locke J. Selected Philosophical Works, vols. 1-2, M, 1960.

15. Manheim K. Conservative thought. See in the book: Diagnosis of our time. M, 1994.

16. Meerovsky B.V. Hobbes M, 1975.

17. Mushnikov A.A. Basic concepts of morality, law and community life. St. Petersburg, 1994.

18. Narsky I.S. Western European philosophy of the 17th century. M, 1974.

19.Prokofiev A.V. “War of all against all” // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary / Guseinov A.A., Korzo M.A., Prokofiev A.V. M.: Gardariki, 2001. 672 p.

20. Smelser N. Sociology. M, 1994.

21. Sokolov, V.V., European philosophy of the XV-XVII centuries, M., 1984, section. 2, ch. 4.

22. Russell B. History of Western Philosophy. In 3 books. Book 3. Part 1, Chapter 7. M.: “Academic Project”, 2006. 996 p.

23. Sociology. Short course. V.I. Dobrenkov, A.I. Kravchenko. M, 2003, 49-73 p.

24. Sociology. Textbook for universities. M, 2003, 20-57 p.

25. Rousseau J.-J. On the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Law. M, 1938.

26. Hutcheson F. A Study on the Origin of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue / General. ed. Meerovsky B.V. // Hutcheson F., Hume D., Smith A. Aesthetics. M, 1973. S. 41-269.

27. Cheskis, A.A., Thomas Hobbes, M, 1929.

1 Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2. - p. 99

2 Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2. - p. 112

3 Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2. - p. 114

4 Gvozdoleny V.A., Fundamentals of philosophy: stages of development and modern problems. History of Western philosophical thought. M., 1993.S. 124

5 Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2.. - p. 99

6 Prokofiev A.V. "War of all against all // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki, 2001. - p. 89

7 Prokofiev A.V. "War of all against all // Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki, 2001. - p. 90

8 Quote in: History of Philosophy: Textbook for Universities / Ed. V.V. Vasilyeva, A.A. Krotova and D.V. Bugaya. - M.: Academic Project: 2005. - P. 196

9 Hobbes T. Leviathan, or matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil // Hobbes T. Soch. in 2 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1991.T. 2. - S.S. 132

10 Ibid. - p. 164

11 Quote by Russell B. History of Western Philosophy. In 3 books. Book 3.H. 1, Ch. 7 - M.: "Academic Project", 2006 - p. 530

Other similar works that may interest you.vshm>
13654.		Analysis of vegetable production in farms of all categories in all districts of the Samara region	177.55 KB
	In the course work, a comprehensive statistical and economic analysis of the production of vegetables in farms of all categories in all districts of the Samara region was carried out: a grouping of districts was carried out according to vegetable yields; an analysis of the variation in vegetable yields was carried out; a correlation-regression analysis of the relationship between the volume of vegetable production and the cost of 1 centner was carried out; 20042010 NATIONAL ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CURRENT STATE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA AND THE SAMARA REGION. VARIATION ANALYSIS...
3000.		Hobbes on the pre-state state. Laws and the social contract	8.23 KB
	Thomas Hobbes 1588-1679 one of the most prominent English thinkers. Hobbes is contained primarily in his works: The philosophical beginning of the doctrine of the citizen 1642 Leviathan or Matter, the form and power of the church and civil state 1651. Hobbes puts a certain idea about the nature of the individual. Hobbes calls the natural state of the human race.
15817.		Man is the measure of all things	113.62 KB
	Creativity is analyzed as a quality of personality E. Here, not only the formation of personal creative qualities occurs, but also the formation of mental functions such as perception, representation, imagination, thinking. Artistic painting of batik fabric, like no other type of folk art, can convey to us the most ancient and deep artistic images, signs and symbols and motifs of Russian art. Therefore, like culture in general, different spheres of activity are inherent: artistic and production related to...
12589.		Bibliographic aids for all user groups	50.95 KB
	Today, key positions in reading motivation are occupied by utilitarian, pragmatic goals (turning to printed and other sources to obtain information for business, performing specific work) and evadeistic (escape from difficulties in everyday life into “beautiful,” fascinating fiction)
18879.			33.06 KB
	General provisions A coursework or diploma work is an independent educational and research educational and methodological or educational and practical project of a student. In accordance with this, it must meet the requirements for scientific research or methodological publication: contain a logically structured review-theoretical and correctly conducted empirical parts and be designed in accordance with established standards, see. A high-quality diploma or course work must indicate the student’s ability to:. ..
20197.		Development of logical thinking in students with mental retardation using Nikitin's cubes (“Cubes for everyone”)	60.33 KB
	Theoretical aspects of the study and development of logical thinking of primary schoolchildren with mental retardation. Features of the development of logical thinking in primary schoolchildren with mental retardation. Ways and means of developing logical thinking in primary school children with mental retardation.
16419.		A federal law has come into force according to which the Unified State Exam becomes a unified form of final certification for all of you.	15.92 KB
	The following data were used for the analysis: average score for the first year of study variable sredbll2 grades for entrance tests in a foreign language variable in mathematics variable mt social studies variable ob and Russian language variable rus presence of a medal variable medl recommendations prize-winning place at various Olympiads non-competitive admission, etc. the variable recommend and also the gender of the applicant, the variable sex. The values ​​of t-statistics are given in the table: Variable t-statistic C 7. For analysis...
2960.		Hobbes on the Obligations of the Sovereign and the Liberty of Subjects	8.8 KB
	From this follow all the rights and obligations of the one or those to whom the supreme power and subjects are transferred by agreement of the people: Subjects cannot change the form of government; b Supreme power cannot be lost; c No one can, without prejudice to justice, protest against the establishment of a sovereign; d Subjects cannot condemn the actions of the sovereign. Each subject is responsible for the actions of his sovereign; therefore, by punishing a sovereign, he punishes another for the actions committed by himself; f Sovereign judge in matters that...
4845.		Composition of a crime committed in a state of passion	40.32 KB
	Murder in a state of passion and its legal and psychological characteristics. The social and psychological essence of murder in a state of passion. Composition of a crime committed in a state of passion. The object of a murder committed in a state of passion.
12556.		Criminal legal characteristics of crimes committed in a state of passion	34.11 KB
	Consider the social danger of forms of criminal attacks in a state of passion that are under criminal law prohibition, and characterize the social orientation of these acts; to distinguish between murder in a state of passion and infliction of grievous or moderate harm to health in a state of passion from criminal acts with similar objective and subjective characteristics;

Vrazhnova Anastasia Sergeevna Tsarev Dmitry Alekseevich

Tula State Pedagogical University named after. L.N. Tolstoy Faculty of Foreign Languages ​​(2nd year)

Scientific supervisor: Yu.V. Nazarova, Doctor of Philosophy. Sciences, Associate Professor

Abstract: the article is devoted to the contractual theory of the origin of the state in the philosophy of T. Hobbes, the concepts of the “state of nature”, “war of all against all”, the leviathan state are considered, and the main provisions of the political and legal doctrine of the philosopher are revealed.

Key words: Hobbes, origin of the state, social contract, state of nature, war of all against all, natural laws, Leviathan, absolutism.

Annotation: this article deals with Thomas Hobbes" social contract theory, which explains the origin of the state. The article explores such concepts as "the state of nature", "a war of all against all", "Leviathan" and explains the basic provisions of Thomas Hobbes" political and legal doctrine.

Keywords: Hobbes, the origin of the state, the social contract, the state of nature, a war of all against all, the natural laws, Leviathan, absolutism.

significant cognitive interest, its detailed study makes it possible to better understand the essence of the state, and, therefore, more accurately determine its role and functions in the modern world, which is extremely important. Currently, there are many theories that explain in their own way the causes and conditions for the emergence of society, the state, and law, one of which is the so-called “social contract” theory. The pluralism of opinions on this issue is explained by its complexity and long history of occurrence, as well as by the fact that the views of philosophers on it are often in close connection with their personal political views. Some researchers see the origins of the contract theory in ancient times, however

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY IN “LEVIATHAN” BY THOMAS HOBBES

The problem of the origin of the state has occupied the minds of philosophers for many centuries and has not yet been resolved. In addition to the fact that consideration of this problem represents

It became widespread in the natural law teachings of the 17th-18th centuries. One of the founders and the most authoritative supporter of this theory in modern times is the English materialist philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).

T. Hobbes believed that initially people were in the “natural state of the human race” and the state did not exist. Moreover, everyone had the “right to everything,” including even the life of another person. And since people are characterized by selfishness, fear, greed, ambition, thirst for power, profit, etc., all this led to a “war of all against all.” These thoughts were outlined by the philosopher in the famous work entitled “Leviathan, or the matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil” (1651).

In “Leviathan” T. Hobbes puts forward the principle of the original equality of people: “Nature created people equal in terms of physical and mental abilities...”. Equality of abilities is a source of mutual distrust between people, since it also gives rise to equal hopes for achieving set goals. People, pursuing the same goal, often become rivals or even enemies. According to T. Hobbes, this goal is mainly to preserve life. Trying to achieve this goal, they try to “destroy or conquer each other.” The fact that everyone is guided in life only by their own needs and interests leads to the above-mentioned “war of all against all.” In such conditions, the life and freedom of any person is constantly in danger. The only way to self-preserve is for a person to take preventive measures: “to keep everyone in check by force or cunning.” This is made even worse by the fact that people can go very far in seeking respect and appreciation from others. Thus, T. Hobbes identified three main reasons for this war: rivalry, mistrust and thirst for glory. “The first reason makes people attack each other for profit, the second for their own safety, and the third for reasons of honor.” In their actions, people adhere to the principle “man is a wolf to man.” From here it becomes obvious that the absence of universal power over people leads to complete chaos. Such a condition does not promise

nothing good for humanity, since no one can guarantee a person the fruits of his own labor; people's lives stand still: science, art, technology, and crafts do not develop. And most importantly, there is no society itself, but only “eternal fear and the constant danger of violent death.” In such circumstances, people's lives are “lonely, poor, hopeless, dull and short-lived.”

So, in the worldview of T. Hobbes we find a rather pessimistic assessment of human nature. But people cannot remain in such a plight forever. The fear of death and the desire to more fully satisfy one’s needs in life prompt a person to look for ways to overcome the “war.” Reason suggests on what conditions an agreement should be concluded between people, leading to the long-awaited peace. According to T. Hobbes, these conditions are natural laws.

The first (basic) natural law is defined by the philosopher as the need to “seek peace and follow it.” The second law instructs a person (if other people agree) “to renounce the right to all things to the extent necessary in the interests of peace and self-defense, and to be content with such a degree of freedom in relation to other people that he would allow other people in relation to themselves." T. Hobbes emphasizes that peace can only be made on the condition that every person renounces “the right to do whatever he wants.” Otherwise, the state of war will not be overcome. The third law follows from the second law: “people must fulfill the agreements they have entered into, without which agreements have no meaning and are just empty words.” This is the source of justice, which, like property, had no place in the pre-state state.

In addition to the above three natural laws, T. Hobbes identifies sixteen more: the fourth law instructs people to be grateful for benefits provided to them; the fifth law is defined by the philosopher as “the law of mutual compliance or courtesy”; the sixth instructs people to easily forgive offenses; the seventh is directed against cruelty and obliges people to choose the means of revenge in accordance with the good expected from it; the eighth law is against insult;

ninth - against pride; tenth - against arrogance; the eleventh instructs judges to be impartial in deciding disputes; the twelfth proclaims the principle of equal use by people of common indivisible things; the thirteenth prescribes drawing lots to determine the right of ownership of things that cannot but be used together or divided; the fourteenth law talks about primogeniture and first possession; the fifteenth guarantees mediators immunity in resolving disputes; the sixteenth requires the parties to the dispute to submit to arbitration; the seventeenth prohibits the parties to a dispute from being judges in their own case; the eighteenth prohibits the interested party from being a judge in the dispute; the nineteenth instructs judges to involve witnesses when resolving disputes. These sixteen laws can be reduced to a very simple rule: “do not do to others what you would not want done to you.” "Natural laws are unchangeable and eternal". Violation of each of them risks returning people to a “disastrous state of war” against each other.

But natural laws, as conditions for concluding peace, are not in themselves binding. An agreement between people cannot be based on simple trust, so a guarantor is needed. Moreover, none of the parties to the agreement can act as such, since all people are equal to each other. The emergence of a coercive power in the form of the state would monitor each person's compliance with the contract. Therefore, people’s refusal of “freedom to do whatever they want” should result in them transferring part of their rights to the state, which, on the basis of natural laws, will create positive law, making these laws an “unconditional imperative of behavior.” “People agree among themselves that they will now have a state, that they will now have common wealth, that they will have Leviathan, and this state should have a sovereign.” T. Hobbes emphasizes that the fullness of their rights is not taken away from people. Rights “without which a person cannot live or cannot live well” must remain with him. “The main right that people give up is the right to punish other people with death...”. Consequently, the state now acquires the right to carry out the death penalty against those who violate the concluded agreement. Subjects have the right to “buy and

sell and otherwise enter into contracts with each other, choose their location, food, lifestyle, instruct children at their discretion, etc.” . We are not talking about any political rights here. Enormous power is concentrated in the hands of the person or group of persons at the head of the state, which forces each subject to obey the general will and forces “internal peace and mutual assistance against external enemies.” The bearer of this supreme power is defined by T. Hobbes as the sovereign. Every person different from this person is his subject.

T. Hobbes proclaims the principle of inalienability and indivisibility of power in the state. Having once concluded a treaty with the sovereign, subjects no longer have the right to terminate it. They cannot, without violating justice, abolish the supreme power, change the form of government, punish the sovereign, condemn his actions, etc. The supreme power cannot be destroyed or changed by the people who themselves agreed to establish it. The power of the sovereign is “absolute, i.e. it is limitless: as vast as one can imagine.” The sovereign’s competence includes the right to formulate legislation, exercise judicial power, declare war and make peace with other states, appoint military and civil officials, punish and reward his subjects, award them honorary titles, etc. “Only the sovereign can determine which opinions are harmful in the state, and which ones are useful.” The indivisibility of rights means that the sovereign, having lost one of the above rights, cannot retain full power. The responsibilities of the sovereign boil down to one simple proposition: the good of the people is the supreme law. But since they are not written down anywhere, it turns out that they are optional and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he sees fit in relation to the people. T. Hobbes justifies such unlimited supreme power. He is convinced that its absence will lead to an “unbridled state of anarchy,” which threatens subjects with even greater “disasters and terrifying misfortunes” than the oppressions they supposedly endure under the yoke of absolute power.

The philosopher does not undertake to assert that all states in the world arose as a result of the conclusion of a social contract. However, he saw the “animal state” in which the Indian tribes lived in America as evidence of the existence of a “war of all against all.” According to T. Hobbes, the “war of all against all” can be well illustrated by the way of life that people adhere to during a civil war, when there is a power vacuum. Such ideas of the philosopher can probably be explained by the experience of the Civil War in England, which occurred in 1640-1650. At this time he was in Paris, fearing persecution at home for his royalist views. “Leviathan” was published after its author returned to England in 1651. Russian sociologist and philosopher A.F. Filippov notes that in the concept of T. Hobbes, “the natural state of war of all against all does not need to be understood historically specifically, that this is some kind of idealization.” According to Hobbes, sovereignty can be established in two ways: physical force (subjugation or conquest) and voluntary agreement. The philosopher called the state founded in the first way “based on acquisition,” and the state that arose in the second way “based on establishment,” or “political state.” As for the forms of state power, the thinker identifies three: democracy, aristocracy and monarchy. At the same time, he gives his preferences to the latter.

The theory of the social contract greatly shook the position of the theological theory that had dominated before its emergence since the Middle Ages, which defended the idea of ​​​​the divine origin of sovereign power. It is important to note that T. Hobbes did not act from an anti-religious position. The philosopher devoted a significant part of his treatise to theology.

Thus, T. Hobbes uses the image of Leviathan to describe a state possessing earthly omnipotence, in his own words, a “mortal God”. The philosopher recognizes an absolute (unlimited) monarchy as an ideal state. His views had a significant influence on the social thought of that time, and many of the provisions of his political philosophy are still relevant today. Subsequently the theory

T. Hobbes served as a prototype for the creation of later concepts of the contractual origin of the state, such as the theories of J. Locke and J.-J. Rousseau, who reveal quite serious differences with her.

Literature:

1. Hobbes T. Leviathan, or Matter, form and power of the church and civil state [Electronic resource] // Civil society in Russia. Scientific electronic library.: URL: http://www.civisbook.ru/files/File/Gobbs Leviafan.pdf (access date 04/26/2016).

2. History of political and legal doctrines: Textbook for universities. Under general ed. V. S. Nersesyants. M.: NORM, 2004. 933 p.

3. Filippov A.F. “Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes [Electronic resource] // PostNauka. Academy [Website]. URL: http://postnauka.ru/faq/40Q76 (date accessed 04/26/2016).

4. Filippov A.F. Relevance of Hobbes’ philosophy: Article one [Electronic resource] // Sociological Review. N3. 2009. URL: https://sociologica.hse.ru/data/20ii/03/30/i2ii855i06/8 3 11.pdf (access date 04/26/2016).