Thomas Hobbes state of nature. Thomas Hobbes on the natural state of man, the doctrine of the state

05.08.2023 | To the teacher

Thomas Hobbes(1588-1649), an English philosopher of the 17th century, in his famous treatise “Levithian, or the matter, form and power of the church and civil state”, for the first time, perhaps, set out the theory of the social contract in a specific, clear and
rationalistic (i.e., based on the arguments of reason) form.
According to Hobbes, the emergence of the state is preceded by the so-called state of nature, a state of absolute, unlimited freedom of people equal in their rights and abilities. People are equal in their desire to dominate and have the same rights. Therefore, the state of nature for Hobbes is in the full sense “a state of war of all against all.” Absolute human freedom is the desire for anarchy, chaos, continuous struggle, in which the killing of man by man is justified. In this situation, the natural and necessary way out is to limit, curb the absolute freedom of everyone in the name of the good and order of all. People must mutually limit their freedom in order to exist in a state of social peace. They agree among themselves about this limitation. This mutual self-restraint is called a social contract. By limiting their natural freedom, people at the same time transfer the authority to maintain order and oversee compliance with the contract to one or another group or individual. This is how a state arises, whose power is sovereign, that is, independent of any external or internal forces. The power of the state, according to Hobbes, must be absolute; the state has the right, in the interests of society as a whole, to take any coercive measures against its citizens. Therefore, the ideal of the state for Hobbes was an absolute monarchy, unlimited power in relation to society.

Another English thinker of the 17th century held slightly different views. J. Locke (1632-1704). In the work “Two Treatises on government“He puts forward a different view of the original, natural state of man. Unlike Hobbes with his thesis about the “war of all against all,” Locke considers the original absolute freedom of people not the source of struggle, but an expression of their natural equality and willingness to follow reasonable natural laws. This natural readiness of people leads them to realize that in the interests of the common good it is necessary, while preserving freedom, to give part of the function to the government, which is called upon to provide further development society. This is how a social contract is achieved between people, this is how the state arises.
The main goal of the state is to protect the natural rights of people, the rights to life, liberty and property. It is easy to see that Locke significantly departs from Hobbes' theory. Hobbes emphasized the absolute power of the state over society and people. Locke emphasizes something else: people give the state only part of their natural freedom. The state is obliged to protect their natural rights to property, life, and freedom. The more rights a person has, the wider the range of his responsibilities to society. The state does not have absolute arbitrary power. The social contract presupposes, according to Locke, the responsibility of the state to citizens. If the state does not fulfill its duty to the people, if it violates natural freedoms, people have the right to fight against such a state. Locke is often cited as one of the leading theorists of democracy. government structure. His ideal is the English constitutional monarchy, which embodies the balance of interests of the individual and the state. Locke's views found clear expression in the Declaration of Independence of the United States and in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen in France.

J. -J. Rousseau (1712-1778) was one of the leading representatives of the French Enlightenment. His theory of the social contract differed significantly from both the views of Hobbes and the views of Locke. The natural state of people Rousseau interprets as a state of primitive harmony with nature. Man needs neither social restrictions, nor morality, nor systematic work. The ability for self-preservation keeps him from the state of “war of all against all.” However, the population is growing and changing geographical conditions, the abilities and needs of people develop, which ultimately leads to the establishment of private property. Society is stratified into rich and poor, powerful and oppressed, who are at enmity with each other. Inequality develops gradually: first, wealth and poverty are recognized, then power and defenselessness, and finally domination and enslavement. Society needs civil peace - a social contract is concluded, according to which power over society is transferred to the state. But the basis of state power, according to Rousseau, is the will and freedom of each individual person. This freedom and will remain absolute, unlimited even after the conclusion of a social contract. Therefore, Rousseau puts forward his famous thesis that the bearer and source of power is the people, who can and must overthrow authorities that violate the terms of the social contract. It is not the state that is sovereign, it is the people who are superstitious. people create laws, change them, and adopt new ones. These views are characterized by radicalism and revolutionism. They were the basis of the ideology of the most extreme group of revolutionaries of the times French Revolution- Jacobins and served as a justification for the Jacobin terror.

What do the views of D. Locke and T. Hobbes on the “natural state of society” have in common? and got the best answer

Answer from Olya Pavlova[guru]
Natural look.
And society, naturally, is British, commercial, slave-owning.

Answer from Angelochek[guru]
Thomas Hobbes, in his famous treatise “Levithian, or the matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil,” was perhaps the first to set out the theory of the social contract in a definite, clear and rationalistic (that is, based on the arguments of reason) form. According to Hobbes, the emergence of the state is preceded by the so-called state of nature, a state of absolute, unlimited freedom of people equal in their rights and abilities. People are equal in their desire to dominate and have the same rights. Therefore, the state of nature for Hobbes is in the full sense “a state of war of all against all.” Absolute human freedom is the desire for anarchy, chaos, continuous struggle, in which the killing of man by man is justified. In this situation, the natural and necessary way out is to limit, curb the absolute freedom of everyone in the name of the good and order of all. People must mutually limit their freedom in order to exist in a state of social peace. They agree among themselves about this limitation. This mutual self-restraint is called a social contract. By limiting their natural freedom, people at the same time transfer the authority to maintain order and oversee compliance with the contract to one or another group or individual. This is how a state arises, whose power is sovereign, that is, independent of any external or internal forces. The power of the state, according to Hobbes, must be absolute; the state has the right, in the interests of society as a whole, to take any coercive measures against its citizens. Therefore, the ideal of the state for Hobbes was an absolute monarchy, unlimited power in relation to society. Another English thinker of the 17th century held slightly different views. J. Locke (1632-1704). In his work “Two Treatises on Government,” he puts forward a different view of the original, natural state of man. Unlike Hobbes with his thesis about the “war of all against all,” Locke considers the original absolute freedom of people not the source of struggle, but an expression of their natural equality and willingness to follow reasonable natural laws. This natural readiness of people leads them to realize that in the interests of the common good it is necessary, while maintaining freedom, to give part of the function to the government, which is designed to ensure the further development of society. This is how the Social Contract between people is achieved, this is how the state arises. The main goal of the state is to protect the natural rights of people, the rights to life, liberty and property. It is easy to see that Locke significantly departs from Hobbes' theory. Hobbes emphasized the absolute power of the state over society and people. Locke emphasizes something else: people give the state only part of their natural freedom. The state is obliged to protect their natural rights to property, life, and freedom. The more rights a person has, the wider the range of his responsibilities to society. The state does not have absolute arbitrary power. The social contract presupposes, according to Locke, the responsibility of the state to citizens. If the state does not fulfill its duty to the people, if it violates natural freedoms, people have the right to fight against such a state. John Locke proceeded from the fact that any peaceful formation of states was based on the consent of the people. Stipulating in famous work"Two Treatises on Government" regarding the fact that "the same thing happens to states as to individuals: they usually have no idea of their birth and infancy," Locke at the same time thoroughly developed ideas regarding the fact that "unification into one political society“can and should happen no other way than through “consent alone.” And this, according to the author, is “the entire agreement that exists or should exist between individuals entering the state or creating it.”

Natural law theory was not only used by proponents English Revolution to substantiate the progressive demands of the bourgeoisie for the reorganization of society at that time, but also its opponents who acted as defenders of the strong royal power. Among them was the eminent natural law theorist Thomas Hobbes(1588–1679), who rationalistically substantiated the need absolute political power.

Your doctrine political absolutism Thomas Hobbes stated in two works: "Philosophical beginning

teachings about the citizen"(1642), "Leviathan, or Matter, the form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil"(1651).

Being an opponent of revolutionary changes, Hobbes, in his own political and legal doctrine, tried to impartially comprehend the nature and mechanism stable development of society. The desire to create a political and legal doctrine, free from class preferences and subjective assessments, prompted the philosopher to identify reasons people's choice of systems of government and regulation in human societies and determining the factors of their stability.

Methodology for analysis of politics and law. To understand Hobbes's political theory, it is necessary to take into account his main methodological position: the state, law, as well as models of order in society, are what are created by man and put by him to serve his goals. In other words, the causes and driving forces of politics, the essence of the state and law are rooted in human nature, in passions man and his mind.

Man is simultaneously both the material (constituent element) of the state and its creator. In human nature, Hobbes identified two a number of motives that determine human behavior:

1) passions, aspirations, feelings, i.e. then the general biological heritage, which compels certain actions in order to satisfy these needs and is the cause of the main “similarity” in thoughts and feelings inherent in all humanity;
2) knowledge, beliefs, values, a person’s ability to reason and thereby assess the consequences of people’s actions associated with rational choosing some kind of behavior. These motives are above the biological heritage and are a consequence of the accumulated knowledge accumulated in the form of cultural heritage.

The key to understanding nature politicians- this is the calculation of those resources, which each individual can mobilize to understand the actions of others and evaluate the consequences of their choices of certain behavior options. Speaking of “the general tendency of the whole human race,” Hobbes comes to the conclusion that every person is driven by “an eternal and incessant desire for more and more power, a desire that ceases only with death.”

Man constantly strives to use the means at his disposal in order to obtain for himself some visible good. Therefore, using the individual as the basic unit of explanation for the nature of politics, state and morals allows Hobbes's method to be defined as "methodological individualism". According to this position, the essence of man is based on selfishness and the desire for self-preservation. Based on this premise, a person’s behavior is guided primarily by passions, feelings, and instincts. The most obvious manifestations human nature- this is the desire for profit (greed), the love of fame (ambition) and the desire for security (fear). However, a person, unlike an animal, is able to foresee the consequences of actions performed under the influence of passion: “... passions that are not controlled are, for the most part, simple madness...”.

The doctrine of the state. Hobbes's starting point for political analysis is natural state person, free from any political conditions and restrictions. In the state of nature there is no power, no property, no possession, neither “yours” nor “mine”; natural law prevails: “Every person considers his own only what he can get, and only as long as he is able hold it." From birth, all people are physically and spiritually equal to each other, therefore everyone with the same right can claim and possess everything. Such equality was a denial of equal rights.

Over time, Hobbes notes, people become greedy and selfish, by nature they are susceptible to competition, fear, anger and always seek honor and benefits, acting for benefit and glory. The person becomes embittered and does not strive to live peacefully and amicably with other people. These passions make people enemies. Their relationships in the natural state are characterized by hostility and aggressiveness, based on the principle: “Man is a wolf to man” ( homo homini lupus est). Therefore, in the state of nature, where there is no authority to keep people in fear, they are in a “state of war of all against all” ( helium omnia contra omnes). But being reasonable beings, people understand the harmfulness of the “state of war of all against all,” and this forces them to look for a way to termination natural state.

Hobbes believed the highest good self-preservation man and his satisfaction needs. However, at a time when each person was striving for his own good, he instead found himself in a state of complete disadvantage. Experience shows that for the structure of human society it is not enough to pursue only one’s own selfish interests. Nature is designed in such a way that all people want good, based on the instinct of self-preservation and the dictates of natural reason. The instinct of self-preservation encourages natural law to act, as a result of the sensual and rational awareness of the need to abandon the natural state and transition to civil society. According to this law, “a person is prohibited from doing anything that is detrimental to his life or that deprives him of the means to preserve it.”

The state of war of all against all, characteristic of “natural law”, the principle of life of which is “man is a wolf to man”, in civil society are replaced by nineteen natural laws, the essence of which is expressed in the rule: “Do not do to others what you would not want to be done to you.” Natural reason formulates these rules and regulations, which constitute the single fundamental basis of order in civil society. These natural laws, being prescriptions of reason, are eternal. They represent the "rules of the world" governing relations between people who consider themselves equal and free.

However, the “rules of the world” are not sufficient for the organization of human societies, since they are only instructions that do not formulate themselves, do not support themselves and do not ensure their own implementation. They only appeal to consciousness and a sense of duty, but by no means force anyone to take certain actions and do not control these actions. They need to be done imperative(obligatory), since temptation always dominates in people's actions. To do this, these rules must be based on state coercion.

State Hobbes saw it as social contract. This understanding stemmed from first And main natural law, which states that it is necessary seek peace and follow it, but be prepared to defend yourself by all possible means. The demand for peace, ensuring security and the renunciation of everyone's rights to the extent required by the interests of peace is achieved by the voluntary union of people for mutual protection. In the name of peace and security, people transfer their rights to one person or a collection of persons who express the general will and oblige everyone to follow the decision made. A supreme power arises that fulfills the social contract. As a result of a social contract, a state arises that carries out the will of all citizens who have agreed. Hobbes gave the following definition states:“The state is a single person, responsible for whose actions it has made a huge number of people, by mutual agreement among themselves, so that this person can use the power and means of all of them as he considers necessary for their peace and common defense.”

According to Hobbes, specificity interpretation of the state as a social contract, which distinguishes it from other versions of natural law theories, was as follows:

1) Hobbes admitted the existence two acts of social contract:
- agreement associations, according to which the state is formed as an association of the people, a voluntary union of individuals for mutual protection;
- agreement submission, in accordance with which there is a transfer of supreme power from the people to the ruler and the renunciation of natural rights;
2) Hobbes proceeded from the fact that individuals, having concluded a social contract among themselves, entrust power and their fate to the head of state, who in the contract Not participates and bears no responsibility to the contracting individuals. Thus, Hobbes justified the idea absolute monarchy.

For the purpose of an objective scientific analysis of the state, Hobbes identifies it with the living body, compares it to a complex machine skillfully constructed by a person from various springs, levers, wheels, etc. Such an analogy allowed the thinker to interpret state like a mechanism, dressing it in the image of a great Leviathan(biblical monster), artificial man or earthly god, whose structure is similar to the human body. So, supreme power - soul of the state, judges and officials– joints, advisors- memory; laws- reason and will, artificial chains attached at one end to the lips of the sovereign, the other to the ears of the subjects; rewards and punishments- nerves; welfare of citizens- force, security of the people- class, civil world - health, turmoil- disease, Civil War- death .

Target state, according to Hobbes, is to achieve social order and provision security. The guarantor of peace and the implementation of natural laws is absolute the power of the sovereign. The unity of the state depends on the unity of power. Hobbes's theory of sovereignty suggests that unity of power inevitably entails a monopoly on the powers of government, including the power of the sword necessary to maintain and enforce the rules of law and protect the state.

Fundamental properties sovereignty are the following:

source rights rulers appear who are above the laws that they themselves proclaim;
rulers Not may be held accountable for compliance with the law to other members of society;
prerogatives rulers are unlimited, inalienable, absolute and indivisible.

The absolute power of the sovereign is expressed in the following prerogatives, those. exclusive rights of the monarch:

punish lawbreakers;
declare war and peace, organize armed forces;
impose taxes on citizens;
resolve disputes, protect the rights of one citizen from injustice on the part of another;
establish property laws;
establish subordinate bodies;
prohibit harmful teachings that lead to disruption of peace, etc.

Unity of power and unity of law, necessary for peace and harmony in states, are most effectively ensured in conditions absolute monarchy, where the good of the monarch is identical to the good of the state; where there is no separation of powers, since “divided powers mutually destroy each other”; where the right of inheritance gives the state an artificial eternity of life, etc.

Problem forms of government was decided by Hobbes in close connection with their ability to ensure peace and security. He identified three forms of political government:

1) monarchy - supreme power belongs to one person;
2) democracy - supreme power belongs to an assembly of people, where everyone has the right to vote;
3) aristocracy - the supreme power of an assembly of citizens, but only some of them have the right to vote.

Each form of government has the right to exist if it achieves its goals. Hobbes gives preference unlimited monarchy, since only it is perfect enough to ensure peace and security. The relationship between ruler and subjects in an unlimited monarchy is based on inequality. The power of the overlord is absolute, the subordination of his subjects is unconditional. The supreme power does not depend in any way on its subjects. The priority of the interests of the state, however, relates to the sphere of public, political law, where the main issue is the achievement of law and order and legality. Ensuring peace and security requires granting the sovereign only rights, including the right to monopoly legitimate violence, and citizens - only duties. The costs and restrictions caused by the unlimited power of a ruler cannot be compared with the tragedy and misfortunes of civil war or a state of anarchy.

In the field private law relations the state guarantees to its subjects freedom, which is understood by Hobbes as the right to do whatever not prohibited civil law, in particular "to buy and sell and otherwise enter into contracts with each other, to choose their place of residence, food, way of life, instruct children at their discretion, etc." .

The state performs not only a law enforcement function, but also a socio-economic and educational one. It should “encourage all kinds of trades, such as shipping, agriculture, fishing, and all branches of industry that have a demand for labor”; force physical labor healthy people shirking from work. The state should engage in educational and educational activities, in particular, to explain to its subjects how limitless the power of the sovereign is and how unconditional their duties to him are.

Hobbes distinguishes the state as a sphere of public relations and civil society as an area of interpersonal interactions. The fact is that the transfer of rights enshrined in the social contract begins civil society and private property appears as its basis. Civil society is significantly different from natural condition. Hobbes argues that only in a civil society, in a civil state, are it possible:

morality, primarily as compliance with the social contract;
conscious adherence to laws, which is a regulator interpersonal relationships;
social order, peace as the highest good, the main condition of which is the absolute power of the state and the unconditional submission of its subjects.

He notes the interconnection of the sphere public interest and private interests represented respectively by the state and civil society. In his opinion, the state has priority over civil society and can interfere in its affairs. However state It also has certain responsibilities to civil society, which are predetermined by natural laws:

protection from external enemies;
ensuring peace in society;
growth of people's well-being;
the opportunity for citizens to enjoy freedom without infringing on the interests of other people.

Hobbes poses the problem borders absolute power and responsibility of the sovereign. Ruler responsible to God and not to other men, and this responsibility binds and limits the sovereign. In the absence of the sovereign's responsibility before God, natural punishment follows: "...Intemperance is naturally punished by suffering; rashness - by failure; insults caused - by the violence of enemies; pride - by death; cowardice - by oppression; negligence of monarchs in governing the state - by rebellion; rebellion - by bloodshed ..." . Right to revolt among citizens arises when the sovereign, contrary to natural laws, encroaches on life subjects. And since the highest good is self-preservation man and the satisfaction of his needs, then the sovereign has no right to encroach on this good.

The doctrine of law. Hobbes is considered the founder legal positivism, those. such a legal understanding, according to which everything that the supreme authority orders is law government. He expressed it formula:"The legal force of a law consists only in the fact that it is an order of the sovereign." The only difference between Hobbes's doctrine of law and classical legal positivism is that it admitted natural law that existed in the state of nature.

Essence rights Hobbes derives from human nature, which contains the desire to wealth, love of fame, instinct of self-preservation. Nature is designed in such a way that each individual pursues only his own selfish interests in his activities. Hobbes wrote: "Competition for wealth, honor, command, or other power leads to strife, hostility, and war, for one competitor pursues his desire by killing, subjugating, displacing, or repelling the other. While men live without a common power to hold them in fear, they are in that state called war."

Methodologically important for Hobbes's understanding of law is opposition the natural state of man and his position in civil society when the state arises. At these two stages of human evolution, the life of an individual is organized and regulated differently.

To the state of nature“wars of all against all” correspond to natural freedom and natural law, where everyone has the right to everything. Natural law According to Hobbes, there is the freedom of every person to use his own strength By to his discretion to preserve one's own nature. Hobbes contrasts natural law natural law which is the fundamental basis for establishing order and peaceful relations in relationships between equals and free people in the state. Being a rational being, man ends the state of nature by establishing states and establishing natural laws - regulations human reason, according to which the individual is prohibited from doing what is detrimental to his life, or what deprives him of the means to preserve it.

IN civil state, people interact on the basis of nineteen natural laws, alternatives to natural law. They make up "Rules of the world", based on the presumption of equality in human relationships.

Rule 1 says what to look for peace and follow it. This is a fundamental law of human society.

Rule 2 enjoins the individual to renounce the right to all things, to the extent necessary in the interests of peace and self-defense, and to be content with such degree freedom in relation to other people, which he would allow other people to have in relation to himself.

Rule 3 proceeds from the fact that the measure of law is justice, based on the consent of individuals: “People must fulfill the agreements they make.”

Rule 4 sets the standard that people should act in such a way towards others that they have no reason to regret their good actions.

Rule 5 requires each person to adjust to everyone else...

Rule 8 establishes the principle of tolerance (tolerance and respect) in relationships between people: no person should show hatred or contempt to another by deed, word, facial expression or gesture.

Rule 9 states that every person should recognize others as his natural equals, etc.

Finally, the summary rule, which Hobbes calls golden rule, ensures a balance of interests and the establishment of peace, prescribing to everyone: “Do not do to another what you would not want done to you.”

Hobbes distinguished concepts of "right" and "law". If entity rights consists in the freedom to do or not to do something, then the essence law expressed in an order and obligation to do or not do something.

Let us note that the freedom of the individual is interpreted by the thinker not in the liberal sense, but as a synonym for natural law, the state of “war of all against all.” For this reason, the concept of “right” is broader than the concept of “law”. Right includes:

natural(moral) laws, i.e. prescriptions of natural reason, addressed to the individual’s consciousness and sense of duty and not based on coercion;
civilian laws, i.e. orders of the sovereign, which are based on the compulsion of the supreme power and which must be obeyed. “Civil law is for every subject those rules that the state has prescribed to him orally, in writing or with the help of other sufficiently clear signs of its will...”.

Hobbes proceeded from a positivist understanding of freedom as the right to do everything that is not prohibited by law. In this case, the source of freedom is the state, and the form is civil laws. The purpose of civil laws is precisely to “limit the liberty of individuals.”

Hobbes was a supporter statist approach to the law. Therefore, in the civil state, one can rather talk about the freedom of the sovereign, which is supra-legal in nature, since he is not subject to civil laws, rather than about the freedom of the individual. And only where the sovereign has not prescribed any rules, the subject is free to do or not to do anything according to his own discretion. Everything that is not prohibited or prescribed by law is left to the discretion of the subjects. Such are, for example, “the freedom to buy and sell and otherwise enter into contracts with each other, to choose your abode, your food, your way of life, to instruct your children as you please, etc.”

Discussing the relations of subjects among themselves, Hobbes substantiated a number of specific requirements in the field of law and its application:

equal trial by jury for all;
guarantees of the right to defense;
proportionality of punishment to crime, etc.

Hobbes defended idea unity of state and law, power and law, which is necessary to achieve peace and harmony in civil society. WITH one On the other hand, the unity of power is based on the unity of law, since individuals, in exchange for guarantees of self-preservation, renounce natural freedom and transfer natural rights to the state, pledging to obey the sovereign. WITH another On the other hand, the sovereign's monopoly on legitimate violence to ensure order is also not unlimited. The ruler, being a subject of God, must follow natural laws, for the violation of which he is responsible to him. Thus, Hobbes expresses the idea connectedness the ruler by natural laws, and the subjects by civil laws.

Right there. P. 204.
Hobbes T. About the citizen. P. 210.
Hobbes T. About the citizen. P. 223.
Right there. P. 225.
Hobbes T. Decree. Op. P. 213.
Hobbes T. About the citizen. P. 211.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) interpreted the problem of the relationship between law and law from a clearly expressed statist (statist) position. Significant importance in the development of this topic, as in the entire political and legal teaching of Hobbes, is attached to the fundamental opposition of the state of nature to the state (civil state).

Hobbes proceeds from the fact that “nature created men equal in physical and mental abilities” 5c. In any case, the possible natural difference between people is not so great that one of them could claim for himself some good that the other could not claim with the same right.

58 Hobbes T. Leviathan or matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil. M., 1936, p. 113. In the following, for the sake of brevity, this work will be referred to as “Leviathan.” See also: Hobbes T. Philosophical foundations of the doctrine of the citizen. M., 1914, p. 22 et seq.

Such equality of people, meaning their equal opportunities to harm each other, combined with the three main causes of war rooted in human nature (competition, mistrust, love of glory) leads, according to Hobbes, to the fact that the state of nature turns out to be a general, unceasing war.. " From here it is obvious,” he writes, “that as long as people live without a common power that keeps them all in fear, they are in that state called war, and precisely in a state of war of all against all.”59

In Hobbes's depiction of the state of nature, there is no general authority. And where there is no general power, he notes, there is no law, and where there is no law, there is no justice. There is also no property, no possession, no distinction between mine and yours. Everyone in the state of nature has the right to everything - this is his natural right and natural freedom.

Hobbes defines natural law as follows: “Natural right, commonly called jus naturale by writers, is the liberty of every man to use his own powers as he pleases, for the preservation of his own nature, that is, his own life, and therefore the liberty of doing all that which, in his own judgment and understanding, is the most suitable means for this purpose” eo.

Freedom in his teaching means the absence of external obstacles to do what a person wants, since he is able to do it according to his physical abilities. In this sense, man, according to Hobbes, is free precisely in the state of nature.

Natural law, according to Hobbes, should not be confused with natural law (lex naturalis) - a prescription or found by reason general rule, according to which a person is prohibited from doing something that is detrimental to his life or that deprives him of the means to preserve it, and to miss what he considers the best means to preserve life.

Hobbes emphasizes: “It is necessary to distinguish between jus and lex, between right and law, although those who write on this subject usually confuse these concepts: for right consists in the freedom to do or not to do, while

™ Hobbes T. Leviathan, p. 115. 60 Ibid., p. 117.

how the law determines and obliges one or another member of this alternative, so that law and right differ from each other in the same way as obligation and freedom, which are incompatible in relation to the same thing."

Man is a rational being, and general rule and the injunction of reason, according to Hobbes, sounds like this: “... every man should strive for peace, since he has the hope of achieving it, but if he cannot achieve it, then he can use any means that give an advantage in war » e2.

This prescription of reason, testifying to Hobbes’s peculiar rationalistic (appealing to reason) approach to the topic under discussion, contains both rules of behavior in the state of nature (in the second part of the above form we're talking about about natural law sanctioned by reason), and the rule for emerging from the natural state of general war to peace (the first part of the formula). The first part of Hobbes's maxim of reason appears as the first and fundamental natural law: peace should be sought and followed.

From this basic natural law, Hobbes, resorting to deduction, derives a whole series of other natural laws that specify the rule for searching for civil peace between people63.

Thus, the second natural law states that if other people consent to it, a person must agree to renounce the right to all things to the extent necessary in the interests of peace and self-defense, and to be content with such a degree of freedom in relation to other people as he would allow other people to treat him. Hobbes notes that the requirement of this law is already presented in the well-known gospel formula: act towards others as you would like others to act towards you.

In another formulation, which, according to Hobbes, summarizes the basic meaning of all natural laws, this rule states: do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

"Ibid. vg Ibid., p. U8.

63 See: Ibid., p. 118-138; It's him. Philosophical foundations of the doctrine of the citizen, p. 30-59.

8 V. S. Nersesyants 225

The Third Natural Law requires people to keep the agreements they make. This law, according to Hobbes, contains the source and beginning of justice. Injustice is failure to fulfill a contract, and everything that is not unfair is fair.

However, agreements based on trust are void where there is fear of non-fulfillment (i.e. in the state of nature). “That is why,” he writes, “before the words just and unjust can take place, there must be some kind of coercive power, which, by the threat of punishment outweighing the good expected by people from their violation of the agreement, would force people in equal measure to fulfill them agreements and would strengthen the property that people acquire through mutual agreements in return for the renunciation of universal rights. And such power can appear with the founding of a state” 64.

Hobbes interprets the widespread definition of justice as the unchanging will to give (reward) to everyone his own in the spirit of his concept: justice presupposes one’s own (property), and the latter is possible only where there is a state and coercive civil power.

The rest of the natural laws formulated by Hobbes require compliance with the rules of gratitude, gratitude, modesty, mercy, forgiveness, the inviolability of peace brokers, impartial and impartial resolution of disputes, etc.65

Natural laws are unchanging and eternal. “For,” Hobbes explains, “injustice, ingratitude, arrogance, pride, crookedness, partiality and other vices can never become legitimate, since it can never be that war preserves life and peace destroys it”6.

64 Hobbes T. Leviathan, p. 127.

85 One of the natural laws prohibits drunkenness and everything that deviates the mind from its natural state, thereby destroying or diminishing the power of reasoning. The basis for the formulation of this law is as follows: natural law is the command of right reason (recta ratio), and the latter in the state of nature is “an act of reasoning, i.e. each individual’s own and true reasoning about his actions, which can lead to benefit or harm for other people” (Hobbes T. Philosophical Foundations of the Doctrine of the Citizen, pp. 30, 53-54).

66 Hobbes T. Leviathan, p. 137.

He characterizes the science of natural laws as the only and true philosophy of morality, as the science of good and evil in human actions and in social life.

Hobbes notes the inaccuracy of applying the name law to the prescriptions of reason, which are the “natural laws” he formulates. “For,” he continues, “these precepts are only conclusions or theorems as to what leads to the preservation and protection human life, while law in its proper sense means the injunction of one who rightfully commands others. However, if we consider these very theorems as proclaimed by God, who commands everything with justice, then they are correctly called laws.”67

The presence of natural laws alone does not lead to peace and security. The observance of these laws can only be ensured by a common power that keeps people in fear and directs their actions towards the common good. Such a common power, according to Hobbes' contractual theory of the emergence of the state, can be established only by concentrating all power and all force in one person or collection of people, bringing all the wills of the parties to the contract into a single will. The multitude of people thus united in one person (the sovereign) is the state (civitas).

Describing the process of state formation, Hobbes writes: “Such is the birth of that great Leviathan, or rather (to speak more respectfully) of that mortal god, to whom we, under the dominion of an immortal god, owe our peace and our protection. For thanks to the powers given to him by each individual in a state, a specified person or collection of persons enjoys such enormous concentrated power and authority in him that the fear inspired by this power and authority makes that person or this collection of persons capable of directing the will of all people to peace within and to mutual assistance against the external enemy. And in this person or assembly of persons consists the essence of the state, which can be defined as a single person, for whose actions a great many people have made themselves responsible by mutual agreement among themselves, so that this person can use the power and means of them all so,

There, p. 138.

as it deems necessary for their peace and common defense” 6\ The bearer of this person, the sovereign, has supreme power over his subjects. “Sovereign power,” Hobbes emphasizes, “is the soul of the state” 69.

Among the powers of the sovereign, Hobbes specifically highlights such rights as establishing laws, punishing lawbreakers, declaring war and making peace, administering justice, establishing a system of organs, prohibiting harmful teachings that lead to disruption of peace, etc. However, the powers of the sovereign are not limited to this, since the listed morals, according to Hobbes, imply other rights that are necessary to carry out the tasks of the state.

The supreme power in any form of state (democracy, aristocracy or monarchy) is, according to Hobbes, absolute in nature: it is “as extensive as can be imagined” 70.

Concerning the question of the duties of the sovereign, Hobbes observes: “The duties of the sovereign (whether monarch or assembly) are determined by the end for which he was invested with the supreme power, namely, the security of the people, to which he is obliged by natural law, and for which he is responsible to God, the creator of this law, and before no one else" 71.

Hobbes, at the same time, writes that “there are some rights that cannot be thought of, so that anyone can cede or alienate them by words or signs” 72. Among these inalienable (natural) rights of man, he names the right of resistance to those who encroach on his life and health, whoever wants to put him in chains or imprison him.

In general, Hobbes notes that “every subject has freedom in respect of everything the right to which cannot be alienated by contract”73. Thus, no contract can oblige a person to accuse himself and confess to the accusation, to kill or injure himself or another, to abstain from food, use

water and air, the use of medicines and other things necessary for life. A subject is free to disobey the sovereign's orders to perform such acts, so long as, Hobbes emphasizes, our refusal to obey in such cases does not undermine the purpose for which the sovereign power was established.

The remaining liberties of subjects "arise from the omissions of the law." 74 Where the sovereign has not prescribed any rules, the subject is free to do or not to do anything as he pleases. The measure and volume of such freedom of subjects in different states depend on the circumstances of place and time and are determined by the supreme power, its ideas about expediency, etc.

The inalienable rights of a subject, recognized by Hobbes, generally relate to issues of his personal self-preservation and self-defense. According to the Hobbesian concept, within these limits, a subject can resist civil authority. Therefore, the subsequent actions of the criminal, dictated by motives of self-defense (for example, armed resistance of rebels who face the death penalty; escape of a prisoner from prison or from the place of execution, etc.) are not a “new illegal act” 75.

But no one, Hobbes emphasizes, has the right to resist the “sword of the state” in order to protect another person (guilty or innocent), since such a right deprives the sovereign of the ability to protect the safety of his subjects and destroys the very essence of power.

About the laws issued by the sovereign, Hobbes writes: “These rules about property (or about mine and yours) and about good, evil, lawful and illegal in human actions are civil laws, that is, the special laws of each individual state...” 7b

He calls civil laws artificial chains for subjects, whose freedom consists only in what is passed over by the silence of the sovereign (legislator) when regulating the actions of people.

However, such freedom does not in any way abolish or limit the sovereign's power over life and death.

74 Ibid., p. 178.

76 Ibid., p. 151.

subjects. The only limitation on the sovereign is that, being himself a subject of God, he must obey natural laws. But if the sovereign violates them, thereby causing damage to his subjects, he, by. the meaning of the Hobbesian concept of sovereignty, he will only commit a sin before God, but not injustice towards his subjects.

In the civil state, we can actually talk only about the freedom of the state, and not of private individuals. The purpose of civil laws is precisely to “limit the freedom of individuals” 77. In this issue, the main meaning of Hobbes’s distinction between right (natural) and law (civil, positive) is clearly manifested. “For right,” Hobbes emphasizes, “is freedom, precisely the freedom that civil law leaves us. Civil law is an obligation and takes away from us the freedom that natural law provides us. Nature grants every person the right to ensure his safety with his own physical strength and, in order to prevent an attack on himself, to attack any suspicious neighbor. Civil law deprives us of this freedom in all those cases where the protection of the law ensures safety.”78.

Moreover, this is the case in all forms of state: freedom is the same in both monarchy and democracy. From these positions, Hobbes sharply reproaches the ancient authors (especially Aristotle and Cicero), who linked freedom with a democratic form of government. To these views he attributes dangerous and destructive consequences: “And through the reading of Greek and Latin authors, people from childhood acquired the habit of favoring (under the false mask of freedom) the rebellions and dissolute control of their sovereigns, and then the control of these controllers, as a result of which so much blood was shed, that I consider myself entitled to assert that nothing has ever been bought at such a high price as the study of Greek and Latin by Western countries” 7E.

When characterizing civil laws, Hobbes emphasizes that only the sovereign is in all states

ties by the legislator, and the freedom of the sovereign is supra-legal in nature: the sovereign (one person or assembly) is not subject to civil laws.

Regarding the question of customs, he notes that the basis for recognizing the force of law behind a long practice is not the length of time, but the will of the sovereign (his tacit consent). From these positions, he objects to lawyers who consider only reasonable customs to be law and propose to abolish bad customs. Deciding what is reasonable and what is subject to abolition, Hobbes notes, is a matter for the legislator himself, and not for jurisprudence or judges. The law must correspond to reason, but precisely to the reason of the sovereign.

With regard to laws established under previous sovereigns, but continuing to operate under the present sovereign, Hobbes formulates the following rule: the legislator is not the one by whose power the law was first issued, but the one by whose will it continues to remain law. “The legal force of the law,” he emphasizes, “consists only in the fact that it is an order of the sovereign” 8°.

An essential feature of civil laws, according to Hobbes, is that they are brought to the attention of all those who are obliged to obey them, through oral or written publication or in another form, obviously emanating from the supreme power.

The interpretation of all laws (both civil and natural) is the prerogative of the supreme power, therefore only those who are entrusted with this by the sovereign can interpret them.

Only with the establishment of the state do natural (moral) laws become actual laws (“orders of the state”, “civil laws”), due to the fact that the supreme power obliges people to obey them. Taking this into account, Hobbes says that “natural and civil laws coincide in content and have the same scope”, that “natural law is in all states of the world part of civil law, and the latter, in turn, is part of the dictates of nature”81. Further, he explains that civil and natural laws are “not various types, A various parts rights,

80 Ibid., p. 214.

81 Ibid., p. 209.

of which one, the written part, is called civil, the other, unwritten, is called natural law”82. Obedience to civil law is one of the requirements of natural law.

In general, Hobbes gives the following definition of civil law: “Civil law is for every subject those rules which the state, orally, in writing, or by other sufficiently clear signs of its will, has prescribed to him, so that he may use them to distinguish between right and wrong, i.e. . that is, between what is consistent and what is not consistent with the rule" 83.

Among civil laws (i.e., positive human laws), Hobbes distinguishes distributive and criminal laws84. Distribution laws are addressed to all subjects and define their rights, indicating the ways of acquiring and maintaining property, the procedure for claims, etc. We are essentially talking about issues of private law (substantive and procedural).

Criminal laws, according to Hobbes, are addressed to officials and determine punishments for violations of laws. Although every person should be informed in advance about these punishments, the command here, according to Hobbes, is not addressed to the criminal, who cannot be expected to honestly punish himself.

In addition, he divides laws into fundamental and non-fundamental. "He includes fundamental laws that oblige subjects to support the power of the sovereign, without which the state will perish. Here Hobbes includes laws on pre-

82 Ibid., p. 210. Therefore, current customs as non-written

Hobbes considers this law to be a natural law (i.e., not a positive

tive, not civil law). However, these contradictions

in Hobbes's judgments are not removed, because he repeatedly

recognizes the possibility of an oral form of civil law,

in light of which the latter cannot be characterized as

the “written part” of all laws. By the way, Hobbes should have

talk about natural and civil laws as different

certain parts of laws (legislation), and not law, since

law in his teaching (as opposed to law) is only a natural

civil law, moreover, interpreted by him as a subjective right

nom, and not in the objective sense.

83 Ibid., p. 208.

" Ibid., pp. 221-222. 85 Ibid., p. 224.

horns of the Supreme Power (the law of war and peace, the administration of justice, the appointment of officials and, in general, the right of the sovereign to do whatever he deems necessary in the interests of the state). Non-fundamental laws include laws (for example, on litigation between subjects), the abolition of which does not entail the collapse of the state.

Along with civil laws (as distinguished from natural laws), Hobbes also identifies divine laws - the commandments of God, addressed to a certain people or certain individuals and declared as laws by those who were authorized by God to do so.

The rationalism of Hobbes's approach to divine laws is clearly manifested in the fact that he recognizes them only to the extent that they do not contradict natural laws; Only in this sense and scope do they have mandatory significance. As if compensating for his rationalistic reduction of theonomial rules to rational ones, Hobbes readily recognizes the divine nature of natural laws, but this does not change the essence of the matter - their autonomous rationalistic meaning.

The secular, anti-theological orientation of Hobbes’s position that “faith and the secret thoughts of man are not subject to command” is also obvious. 86 This means that faith in general (including faith in divine laws) is not the object of legislative regulation.

But, as they say, a holy place is never empty, and Hobbes - in striking accordance with this proverb - puts the state ("mortal god", Leviathan) in the place of the "immortal god" as a legislator. “I therefore conclude,” he writes, “that in all things not contrary to the moral law (i.e., natural law), all subjects are obliged to obey, as divine laws, what is declared such by state laws” 87.

Legislation, therefore, becomes a tool for implementing important spiritual and ideological attitudes and views. This, however, also follows from Hobbes’s judgments about management, control and prices.

88 Ibid., p. 223.

87 Ibid., p. 223-224.

the sovereign's powers regarding scientific doctrines and public opinion.

Based on the fact that “men’s actions are determined by their opinions”88, Hobbes sees the good management of opinions as the way to good management of people’s actions in order to establish “peace and harmony” among them. And although he notes that he recognizes the truth as the only criterion for the suitability or unsuitability of a particular teaching, he believes that this is not contradicted by the verification of this teaching from the standpoint of “the affairs of the world,” which in his use of words means, in fact, the highest, absolutely uncontrolled statist interests.

Thus, he believes that “it is the competence of the supreme power to be the judge of which opinions and teachings hinder and which contribute to the establishment of peace, and, therefore, in what cases, within what limits and to what people the right to make speeches can be granted to the mass of the people and who should examine the doctrines of all books before publishing them” 8E. People who are ready to take up arms to defend and implement this or that opinion are in a state of suspended hostilities, in a state of discord and continuous preparation for civil war. Hobbes resolves this struggle of opinions and teachings with the help of censorship - “judges of opinions and teachings” 90 appointed by the sovereign.

The anti-democratic, anti-liberal and anti-individualistic character of Hobbes's concept of sovereignty is obvious. Its essential consequence is the interpretation of law (all positive human legislation) as an order of the sovereign. Moreover, the law (civil, state) and law (natural) are contrasted in such a way that the law summarizes only the lack of freedom, lack of rights and duties of subjects in relation to the sovereign and the freedom, sovereignty and powers of the sovereign in relation to subjects.

Freedom in Hobbes's interpretation is a synonym for the natural nature he criticizes (in relation to individuals).

88 Ibid., p. 150-151. French materialists and educators

Then they will say that the world is ruled by opinions.

89 Ibid., p. 150.

90 Ibid., p. 151.

rights and evidence of the state of war of all against all. Taking into account the fact that with the establishment of the state, the natural rights and freedoms of the subjects pass to the sovereign, who thus turns out to be the only real bearer of freedom and right, we can say with complete confidence that even in the state of statehood constructed by Hobbes, the peace he sought was not achieved and the war continues. Only its front and character have changed: instead of a war of all against all (and along with its insurmountable remnants), a war (internal and external) is unfolding, the source of which is the law and freedom (in the sense of the Hobbesian concept - natural) of the sovereign.

Hobbes himself recognizes the natural-legal (and, therefore, military) nature of the relationships between various sovereigns (and sovereign states). Consequently, in this regard, the establishment of civil power leads to a transition from sporadic and chaotic small (individual and group) skirmishes to organized (at the national level and scale) war between sovereigns.

Paralyzed by the fear of revolution and civil war and busy searching for internal harmony, Hobbes, in fact, completely loses sight of the problems of peace and war between states. Everywhere by "peace" he means inner world, namely the state of obedience of subjects to authorities. But even here, in the sphere of the Hobbesian construction of the civil state, overcoming war and achieving peace is very illusory, since the free sovereign in his relations with unfree subjects is essentially (and according to the specific natural-legal meaning of Hobbes’s interpretation of freedom) in a state of nature (not bound by anything). , has the right to everything, etc.).

The dialectic of the process of contractual establishment of the state depicted by Hobbes is, therefore, such that the exit of people from the state of nature is accompanied by the price of such a renunciation of their rights and freedoms in favor of civil power that the latter, taking into its hands the powers and possibilities of the state of nature, turns into a new and unique subject of natural law and freedom. This exclusivity of power as a subject of natural law in a civil state is the essence of sovereignty in Hobbes.

sky interpretation and the meaning of his understanding of positive law as an order of the sovereign.

This legal understanding, based on the statist concept (uncontrolled freedom of the state, sovereign, civil power in general), makes Hobbes the founder of bourgeois legal positivism. Leading representatives of this trend (J. Austin, S. Amos, K. Gerber, P. Laband, G. F. Shershenevich, etc.) accept and defend (in one modification or variation) the basic idea of Hobbes’s interpretation: positive law ( Hobbes has a positive law) - this is the order of the sovereign.

Thus, J. Austin characterized law as “a set of rules established by a political leader or sovereign” and emphasized: “Every law is a command, an order”91. Likewise, according to S. Amos, “law is an order from the supreme political power of the state in order to control the actions of individuals in a given community”92. G. F. Shershenevich held similar views. “Every rule of law,” he wrote, “is an order” °3. Law, in his assessment, is “the product of the state,” and state power is characterized by him as “that initial fact from which the norms of law proceed, clinging to each other” 94.

The main difference in the approaches of Hobbes and the above-mentioned positivists to law is that Hobbes, while admitting a state of nature, recognizes natural law within its framework, while his followers deny both. But Hobbes, as we have seen, denies natural law (though only among subjects) in the civil state.

The essential commonality in their positions is that under statehood, only positive law (positive law), understood as an authoritative order, is recognized as law. Denial of content

91 Austin J. Lectures on Jurisprudence or the Philosophy of Positive Law. L., 1873, vol. 1, p. 89, 98.

For a detailed critical analysis of these and other similar provisions of J. Austin, as well as Sh. Amos, G. F. Shershenevich and a number of other positivists, see: Zorkin V. D. Positivist theory of law in Russia. M., 1978, p. 60 et seq.

p Amos Sh. A systematic View of the Science of Jurisprudence. L, 1872, p. 73.

93 Shershenevich G. F. General theory of law. M., 1910, issue. 1, p. 281.

»4 Ibid., p. 314.

(including value-substantive) features of law is accompanied by a substitution of the legal properties of the law (and the so-called positive law in general), its power source and character. By its order, state power generates law - this is the credo of this type of legal understanding, the true essence of which is manifested in the statement: everything that state power orders is right (law). The difference between law and arbitrariness is thereby, in principle, deprived of an objective and meaningful meaning and for adherents of the legal-positivist approach has only a subjective and formal character: obvious arbitrariness, sanctioned by a certain subject (state) in a certain form (in the form of a particular act - a law, a rescript , decree, etc.) is unconditionally recognized by law.

Legal positivism thereby underlines its complete helplessness to establish any scientifically significant objective criteria for distinguishing law as a special social phenomenon from other phenomena (both from arbitrariness and lawlessness, and, say, from morality) and is limited to pointing to the authority of power as the only criterion for this difference. In the positivist interpretation, magical possibilities are recognized behind the order of state power. It turns out that the order solves problems not only of a subjective nature (formulation of legal norms), but also of an objective nature (formation, creation of the law itself), as well as the actual scientific profile (establishing and clarifying the difference between law and arbitrariness and non-legal phenomena in general). In all this, the statist roots and attitudes of legal-positivist views are clearly manifested.

Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679) - English materialist philosopher. His main works are “The Philosophical Beginning of the Doctrine of the Citizen” (1642) and “Leviathan, or the Matter, Form and Power of the Church and Civil State” (1658). In his works, Hobbes likened the state to a mechanism, and also used organic analogy and mathematical analysis as methods for studying political and legal issues. natural state everyone has the right to everything. Therefore, the state of nature is defined as “a war of all against all.” After all, if every person has the right to everything, and the abundance around us is limited, then the rights of one person will inevitably collide with the same rights of another. The state is opposed to the state of nature(civil status), the transition to which is determined by the instinct of self-preservation and a reasonable desire for peace. The desire for peace, according to Hobbes, is the main natural law.(one person or a collection of people) is not bound by any agreement and does not bear any responsibility to the people. The power of the state, from Hobbes' point of view, must be absolute and indivisible. “To divide the power of the state means to destroy it, since divided powers mutually destroy each other.” The people have no right to change the form of government or criticize the sovereign. The sovereign, in turn, is not punishable and has supreme legislative, executive and judicial powers. The sovereign is limited only by the divine will and natural law. But, nevertheless, Hobbes leaves the individual the opportunity to resist the will of the sovereign. This opportunity is the right to revolt. It opens only when the sovereign, contrary to natural laws, obliges an individual to kill or maim himself or forbids him to defend himself from the attack of enemies. Protecting your own life is based on the highest law of all nature - the law of self-preservation. This law has no right to be violated and is sovereign. Otherwise, he risks losing power. Hobbes establishes three forms of state: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy; for state power can belong to one person or a council of many (monarchy - when one rules, and everyone obeys him; aristocracy - a group of people rules; democracy - when everyone rules). Accordingly, the council of many people consists either of all the citizens in such a way that any of them has the right to vote and can participate, if he wants, in the discussion of affairs, or only of a part of them. Tyranny and oligarchy are not separate forms of state power, but only other names for the same types - names that express our negative attitude towards each of these forms. The best form from the point of view of achieving those means for the sake of which state power exists is, according to the philosopher, monarchy