I want to bring it back to one of the topics covered in
class today on the question of who is “to judge” moral action and who is the “the
judge” and reference what I think sums up Hobbes’ answer to that question on
page 163.
In Chapter 29 Hobbes
talks about those things that weaken a common-wealth. He compares those things
that can weaken a common wealth to diseases and the manner in which they infect
a natural body. He believes that the diseases of the common wealth stem from “the
poison of seditious doctrines,” one of which is the idea that “every man is
judge of good and evil actions.” He goes on to explain that this might be true
in the condition of nature where civil laws are absent. It’s even true under
civil governments in such cases that are not determined by the law, BUT, “otherwise
it is manifest that the measure of good and evil actions is the Civil Law; and
the Judge the legislator who is always representative of the commonwealth.”
According to Hobbes, adherence to these seditious doctrines results in the idea that it is okay for men to think they can disobey or obey the
commands of the commonwealth as they see fit, ultimately distracting and
weakening the commonwealth.
It would seem that in trusting the commonwealth to choose their
legislators as representatives, Hobbes also trusts legislators as judges of the
law, and only in the absence of civil law and legislative body might it be acceptable for man to become
his own judge.
In applying this to international relations...
If there is a presence of international law within separate legislative bodies (e.g. UN or EU) but there is no overarching legislative body selected by an international commonwealth to administer these laws equally, actors are free to act as their own judges.We see this in cases with members of the EU or even within the UN where, in the absence of their own judgement, the international institution leaves it up to a member state to act as judge within their own civil laws.
I absolutely agree that Hobbs trusts legislators and gives them a wide breadth of Authority. I would assert your claim using even stronger language that Thomas Hobbs gives any sovreign unlimited authority as well as protections. First it is important to cover what gives the sovereign legitimacy to act upon.
ReplyDeleteI think Hobbs goes into detail on his reasoning this by detailing his concept off justice in a terms of the common wealth.
Hobbs provides several sequential points which he further delineates legitimate judges
Ch 18 He states " From this institution of a common wealth are derived all the rights and faculties of him, or them, on whom the sovereign power is conferred by the consent of the people assembled" 115 this statements details how Hobbs defines what he views as legitimate government.
In comments directly following he clearly shows why he is a royalist in that those once selecting their representatives, “cannot lawfully make a new covenant, amongst themselves, to be obedient to any other, in anything whatsoever, without his permission" 115
Hobbs believes that by voicing their choice people confer upon their selected representatives all the power to act on their behalf. He argues for unlimited power as once chosen those underneath the sovereign are ruled by him completely and they must surrender all will through him.
He justifies the nearly unlimited power and freedom from rebuke un Ch. 18 pg. 118 " no man that hath sovereign power can justly be put to death or otherwise in any manner by his subjects punished. For seeing every subject is author of the actions of his sovereign; He punished another, for the actions committed by himself"
He sees the sovereign and the governed as the same entity with their unity occurring upon the conference of power by the sovereign.
This is obviously in stark contrast to what we view today and has no redress in the form of civil rights. He is quite absolute in his interpretation.