Brian Maloney

Modern Political Thought

3/2/17

King of the Proud

Throughout the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes references his sovereign as

a construct that is not of nature, but sculpted from the laws of nature. The

status quo presented by Hobbes is such that natural laws, morality, ethics,

and justice are all developed by mankind in order to maintain the necessities

and comforts of life. The given environment of the sovereign Hobbes

described is more of a king of the proud than a paper tiger. A major

reason for the difference between the two is that his Leviathan is made up of

individuals each bound to unique standards that maintain a functioning

sovereign and society while the paper tiger sounds effective but holds no

ground. These separate parts of a society, each bound by fears, rights, and

securities, all facilitate the genuine and overarching hold an effective

government needs to establish justice, sovereignty and citizenship as

defined by Hobbes.

In order to better understand the meaning behind the terms the king

of the proud and Leviathan, it may be helpful to distinguish what the

Leviathan actually is. The relation of the sovereign to the subject is not a
contract. Rather, as Hobbes makes clear, the individual must understand his

will to be identical with the sovereign will, since one who desires peace must

logically want whatever is necessary for peace to be maintained. The real

unity that the subjects and the sovereign comprise is dramatically shown in

the picture found on the cover of the Leviathan, in which one finds a huge

figure literally composed of small individuals. Although it is usually identified

as a king, Hobbes makes it apparent that the sovereign power can be

composed of one person, several, or manyin other words, the Leviathan

can equally well describe a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a democracy. The

only requirement that Hobbes sets for sovereignty is that the reigning body

has absolute power to defend the social contract and decide what is

necessary for its defense.

It may seem strange to some man, that has not well weighed these

things; that Nature should thus dissociate, and render men apt to

invade, and destroy one another: and he may therefore, not trusting to this

Inference, made from the Passions, desire perhaps to have the same

confirmed by Experience. (Ch. 13, p 65)

This explanation by Hobbes is provided evidence as to why he believes

justice is not a predetermined set of values constructed by nature. It shows

the need for a developed set of rules to maintain order. The king of the proud

is the best way to describe the sovereign Hobbes constructs and teaches

about. The analytical process behind its development is set around the focal

point of the individual sacrificing personal rights to uphold the social contract
and avoid the natural outcome, conflict. He emphasizes some ideas that are

quite relevant to modern politics and modern political science. He argues

that human beings are not naturally social or political, that the state of

nature is a state of war, and that citizens must self-consciously create a

government that is based on mutual consent and that presupposes a

fundamental equality among its members.

An important development that shows the strength of the Leviathan

that Hobbes recommends is the distinction between the goals of individuals.

He reveals that humans are obsessed with contemplating their own power as

well as having others recognize it. The former is the desire for glory: the

latter is the desire for honor. He then points out the issues that cinew with

such desires. They ensure scarcity and irresolution, and so make it hard to

keep covenants. In addition, they determine the form of any solution: the

market is not a fully satisfactory solution, and the sovereign must redirect

desires for honor and glory into harmless channels. In summary, the goals of

individuals based on natural feelings, desires, and emotions destroy the

common good and create the natural outcome of a society bound by no

Leviathan. The need for a strong individual or group of individuals to

maintain a social contract with rules and regulations is set by the lack of

control and order that stems from nature.

There are many who claim that the giving up of individual rights is a

violation of fundamental human rights. Though Hobbes institution that he

created includes some giving and taking, it shows the necessary steps for
establishing a strong society instead of one that has a big roar and no bite.

In comparison, without the common being the focus of individuals within a

society there is no singular, unified body. The conflicting desires of members

inevitably lead to a deconstruction of the sovereign in either ideology or

physicality. Hobbes argues that if the sovereign is to fulfill its function it must

have enough power to overcome any other potential power within the state.

There is no way of knowing at the start how much power will be

needed to carry out this task, and a limited or conditional power may not be

enough. This represents a need for a self-aware construct that is able to

either gain power, or lose it, all the while being balanced by its members.

Furthermore, if the sovereign were limited, then it would be so by either

some other body, in which case either that body would be sovereign, or there

would be an endless struggle between the two. Or, if the sovereign were

limited it might mean that every citizen could decide for themselves. For

example, they could be judge in their own case which would create a sort of

contingent anarchy. The power of the sovereign depends on the continuous

support of the citizens. So, if the sovereign power is not potentially unlimited

or expandable, the result would either be anarchy or the ever present

possibility of civil war

Later in the book, Hobbes, references a quote he recalls form his past.

He claims it is a condition of war:

 As I have heard some say, that Justice is but a word, without

substance; and that whatsoever a man can by force, or act, acquire to

himselfe, (not onely in the condition of warre, but also in a Common-

wealth,) is his own, which I have already shewed to be false: So there be

also that maintain, that there are no grounds, nor Principles of Reason, to

sustain those essentiall Rights, which make Sovereignty absolute. (Ch 30, p

179)

This may be Hobbes most impressive point in my opinion. He explains how

the principles of Reason he touched on by philosophers of the past have no

room to be true in a non-Sovereign state. That is to say that the even the

base desires of individuals have little room to work in the Leviathan he

describes.

All the evidence throughout the book regarding what is the most

effective way to maintain a sovereign state. The book has led me to this

conclusion: Individualists will not support the all-powerful state. This seems

obvious to a modern world that is focused primarily on individual freedoms

rather than the well-being of the whole. One of the assumptions or

predictions made by Hobbes is that he expects that a strong state would

encourage highly competitive activity. This activity would inherently improve

the conditions of each person and spur on the respective markets. It seems

that the majority of history has agreed with him, as free markets tend to

promote higher individual satisfaction. So, the more competitive individuals

are, the stronger state is needed to be. The stronger the market becomes,
the stronger the state needs to be. The individual as solely self-interested

creates a false dichotomy that implies that self-success and dedication to the

Leviathan are opposites. The truth is, as Hobbes indicates, they do not

exclude each other. In a society with a competitive market, the

institutionalized values, and customs are imbedded into the society as it

develops from the individuals to something much greater. All of the moving

parts and conflicting interests point to the fact that a strong central power is

needed.

Evidently, the two portions of the book are in a sort of interactive cycle

that facilitates the growth and power of the other. Part I: Of Man indicates

the flaws and benefits of the needs and wants of man, along with some

noted necessary sacrifices. Part II: Of Common-wealth shows how the

Leviathan is more important and how the constructs of nature and men need

to be changed but used to propel the greater good of a society. His ideologies

also seem to be more pure than his predecessors. He concerns himself with

only issues of Natural Sciences as he phrases it. This is why the king of

the proud works as a description of his sovereign. Hobbes was able to make

the concerns of the few fit into the well-being and survival of a whole state.

Though minor individual rights are sacrificed, the Leviathan gains an

incredible amount of strength from it as a governing body to humans that

desire to step outside of the incorrect and savage ways of natural law.