Page:The ethics of Hobbes (IA ethicsofhobbes00hobb).pdf/60

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

42

INTRODUCTION.

men in a state of nature. "Homines ex natura hostes,"^[1] says Spinoza. Again, he is in agreement with Hobbes with regard to the motive which impels men to organize the State. It is the motive of self-preservation. He differs from Hobbes, however, in his views on the form of government. In the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, he favors a democratic form of government. Later, in his Tractatus Politicus, he inclines to an aristocracy. Rousseau, in his Discourse sur l'inégalité des conditions parum les homines, as well as in his Contrat Social, reveals the influence of the English thinker. He adheres to the social contract theory, but differs materially from Hobbes in his application of it.^[2] Later, the influence of Hobbes's political philosophy may be found in the writings of Bentham and Austin. Speaking of Spinoza's "philosophy of law and government," Pollock

noza: His Life and Philosophy, chap. X. See also Spinoza's Works, edited by Bruder, Vol. II., Epist. I., p. 298, for Spinoza's conception of the difference between some of his views and those of Hobbes.

↑ Tractatus Politicus, chap. II., § 14.
↑ Bluntschli gives a rather interesting comparison between Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau in their application of this theory. "It should he noted," he says, "that the Theory of Contract is applied in quite different ways by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. According to Hobbes (Leviathan, chap. XVII.), men only pass from 'the state of nature' to the social state by surrendering their rights to a sovereign (one, few, or many); Locke (Treatises on Government, Bk. II., § 6) supposes rights, e.g., of liberty and property, to exist in a state of nature; by the 'original compact' a form of government is instituted to secure these rights (chap. VIII.). According to Rousseau, men pass from the state of nature to the social state by the social contract (as in Hobbes's theory), but the sovereign to whom each surrenders his rights is 'the people,' so that each is sovereign as well as subject (Contr. Soc., I., C. 6). This sovereignty is inalienable (II., C. 1); a government is not instituted by a contract (III., C. 16), as in Locke's theory; the government is only the minister of the General Will. Thus, according to Hobbes, a revolution against the de facto government, which he identifies with the sovereign, implies a return to the state of nature, anarchy, and is quite unjustifiable. According to Locke, a revolution may be justifiable where the government has ceased to fulfill its part of the contract, i.e., to protect personal rights. According to Rousseau, a revolution would be only a change of ministry." – The Theory of the State, 6th ed., trans., Bk. IV., chap. IX. For a brief account of the develop-

[1] Tractatus Politicus, chap. II., § 14.

[p42-2-2] Bluntschli gives a rather interesting comparison between Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau in their application of this theory. "It should he noted," he says, "that the Theory of Contract is applied in quite different ways by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. According to Hobbes (Leviathan, chap. XVII.), men only pass from 'the state of nature' to the social state by surrendering their rights to a sovereign (one, few, or many); Locke (Treatises on Government, Bk. II., § 6) supposes rights, e.g., of liberty and property, to exist in a state of nature; by the 'original compact' a form of government is instituted to secure these rights (chap. VIII.). According to Rousseau, men pass from the state of nature to the social state by the social contract (as in Hobbes's theory), but the sovereign to whom each surrenders his rights is 'the people,' so that each is sovereign as well as subject (Contr. Soc., I., C. 6). This sovereignty is inalienable (II., C. 1); a government is not instituted by a contract (III., C. 16), as in Locke's theory; the government is only the minister of the General Will. Thus, according to Hobbes, a revolution against the de facto government, which he identifies with the sovereign, implies a return to the state of nature, anarchy, and is quite unjustifiable. According to Locke, a revolution may be justifiable where the government has ceased to fulfill its part of the contract, i.e., to protect personal rights. According to Rousseau, a revolution would be only a change of ministry." – The Theory of the State, 6th ed., trans., Bk. IV., chap. IX. For a brief account of the develop-

[1]

[2]