Thomas Hobbes And Punishment

Introduction At first glance, Hobbes’s theory of rule within his artificial commonwealth appears deceptively simple: an omnipotent, totalitarian sovereign who compels absolute obedience through the use of terror, fear, and the constant threat of violence. At the core of this conventional view is the common-held notion of the sovereign as a dispenser of cruel and malevolent punishment. However, a more nuanced examination of Hobbes’s treatment of the purpose and character of punishment reveals significant challenges to this one-dimensional understanding of sovereign rule. By demonstrating the rights-based (semi-liberal) nature of Hobbes’s punishment theory, this paper will present a reconceptualization of the sovereign and his relationship to …show more content…
For example, David Van Mill (2002) argues that the most predominant criticism of Hobbes’s political thought is his resolute support for an absolute sovereign who presents a significant hazard to the principles of individual freedom. He proceeds to highlight three contemporary theorists [Shkar (1989); Okin (1989); Gauthier (1995)] who each claim that the unequivocal power and lack of legitimate restraint possessed by the sovereign leads to oppression and the loss of individual rights (Mill 2002). Other scholars go beyond accentuating this threat to individual rights by depicting life under sovereign authority as frightening, dismal, and restrictive. According to Epstein (2016), “The only legitimate sovereign is an absolute sovereign…Hobbes’s absolutely terrifying sovereign gathers up the multitudes into a stable, harmonious, obedient, and self-identical unity.” While Epstein acknowledges the stability generated by the commonwealth, he ultimately emphasizes the perpetual terror and awe engendered in each subject by the unchecked and undivided power of the sovereign. In the most fanatical expression of this view, Michael Ridge (1998) likens the establishment of the artificial sovereign to the creation of an imperialistic “monster.” Ultimately, this body of scholarship seeks to portray Hobbes’s …show more content…
Hobbes’s utilization of words such as coerce, compel, terror, power, and strength in his description of punishment seem to portend a bleak and fearful existence, which is wholly incompatible with notions of individual rights and liberties. Also, punishment appears intimately associated with eliminating individual identity and personal choice through its capacity to “forme the wills of them all” and “compel men equally.” While the sovereign’s ability to coerce obedience via punishment (or threat of punishment) is said to promote security and peace, one cannot help but acknowledge the misery, quasi-enslavement, and perpetual fear that seem to define individual existence in such a civil arrangement. When Hobbes identifies the primary motives for seeking peace in civil society, he does not merely illuminate man’s fear of death and need for self-preservation. Rather, he includes a “desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living” (Hobbes, Leviathan, I. xiii) [emphasis added]. Although Hobbes does not expressly describe his understanding of “commodious living,” it is clear that those who contract to enter a commonwealth envisage some semblance of a comfortable and content existence beyond mere survival. Peter Steinberger (2002) defines “commodious living” as a condition exceeding the attainment of peace and security. In his estimation, the state must go beyond