David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Hobbes Studies 24 (2):137-157 (2011)
The degree to which Hobbes's citizenry retains its right to resist sovereign power has been the source of a significant debate. It has been argued by a number of scholars that there is a clear avenue for legitimate rebellion in Hobbes's state, as described in the Leviathan - in this work, Hobbes asserts that subjects can retain their natural right to self-preservation in civil society, and that this represents an inalienable right that cannot, under any circumstances, be transferred to the sovereign. The conclusion frequently drawn from this feature of Hobbes's account is that it places a considerable limit on sovereign authority. The right to self-preservation has been taken as proof that Hobbes sought to ensure that the sovereign's power relies upon the continual consent of the individuals that make up his or her constituency. I want to examine Hobbes's account of this civil right in Leviathan in order to show that this line of interpretation is ultimately unfounded. While self-preservation results from the individual's own judgment of threats to her personal safety, it is justified in only the most strictly delineated contexts. Judgments regarding the overall peace and security of the state do not, and cannot, fall to individual experiences and judgments. Hobbes is quite adamant that individuals are not appropriate judges of right and wrong action in matters the sovereign legislates
|Keywords||PUNISHMENT AUTHORIZATION SELF-PRESERVATION NATURAL RIGHT CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Matthias Kiesselbach (2010). Hobbes's Struggle with Contractual Obligation. On the Status of the Laws of Nature in Hobbes's Work. Hobbes Studies 23 (2):105-123.
Christine Chwaszcza (2012). The Seat of Sovereignty: Hobbes on the Artificial Person of the Commonwealth or State. Hobbes Studies 25 (2):123-142.
Tom Sorell & Luc Foisneau (eds.) (2004). Leviathan After 350 Years. Oxford University Press.
David P. Gauthier (1969). I. Yet Another Hobbes. Inquiry 12 (1-4):449-465.
Michael Moehler (2009). Why Hobbes' State of Nature is Best Modeled by an Assurance Game. Utilitas 21 (3):297-326.
Susanne Sreedhar (2010). Hobbes on Resistance. Cambridge University Press.
S. A. Lloyd (1992). Ideals as Interests in Hobbes's Leviathan: The Power of Mind Over Matter. Cambridge University Press.
Eric Brandon (2007). The Coherence of Hobbes's Leviathan: Civil and Religious Authority Combined. Continuum.
Michael Oakeshott (1975). Hobbes on Civil Association. Liberty Fund.
Helen Thornton (2005). State of Nature or Eden?: Thomas Hobbes and His Contemporaries on the Natural Condition of Human Beings. University of Rochester Press.
Severin V. Kitanov (2011). Happiness in a Mechanistic Universe: Thomas Hobbes on the Nature and Attainability of Happiness. Hobbes Studies 24 (2):117-136.
Mark Peacock (2010). Obligation and Advantage in Hobbes' Leviathan. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 40 (3):433-458.
Stewart Duncan (2005). Knowledge of God in Leviathan. History of Philosophy Quarterly 22 (1):31-48.
A. P. Martinich (2012). Egoism, Reason, and the Social Contract. Hobbes Studies 25 (2):209-222.
Added to index2011-11-12
Total downloads61 ( #72,285 of 1,911,608 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #179,609 of 1,911,608 )
How can I increase my downloads?