Natural laws of Thomas Hobbes. The main socio-political theories of the New Time: a view of society, man and history N

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 the famous work “Two Treatises of Government” that “the same thing happens to states as to individuals: they usually have no idea about their birth and infancy,” Locke at the same time thoroughly developed ideas regarding the fact that “unification into a single political society” can and should occur only 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.”

Hobbes begins his research by finding out what a person is, what his essence is. Hobbes presents man in two forms - as a natural individual and as a member of a community - a citizen. A person can be in a natural or social (civil, state) state. Hobbes does not directly say that there are two types of morality, but he does talk about morality and the concepts of good and evil in connection with the state of nature and in connection with the civil state, and he shows that the differences between his characteristics of morality are significantly different. What characterizes the natural state? - This is a state in which the natural equality of people is manifested. Of course, Hobbes cannot help but see individual differences, both physical and mental; However, in the general mass, these differences are not so significant that it is impossible in principle to talk about the equality of people. Equality of ability gives rise to equality of hope for achieving goals. However, limited resources do not allow everyone to satisfy their needs equally. This is where rivalry between people arises. Constant rivalry breeds mistrust between them. No one, having something, can be sure that his property and he himself will not become the subject of someone else's militant claims. As a result, people experience fear and hostility towards each other. To ensure his own security, everyone strives to strengthen his power and strength and to ensure that others value him the way he values ​​himself. At the same time, no one wants to show respect to another, lest the latter be taken as an expression of weakness.

All these features of human life in the state of nature, namely: rivalry, distrust and thirst for glory, turn out to be the cause of the constant war of all against all. Hobbes interprets war in the broad sense of the word - as the absence of any guarantees of security; war "is not only a battle, or military action, but a period of time during which the will to fight through battle is clearly evident."

In the natural state, relations between people are expressed in the formula: “man is a wolf to man.” Citing this formula, Hobbes emphasizes that it characterizes relations between states, in contrast to another - “man is God to man,” which characterizes relations between citizens within a state. However, as can be judged from Human Nature, where Hobbes presents all human passions through the allegory of a race, both in the social and in the natural state, the principle of “man is a wolf to man” is always present in relations between people to the extent that mistrust and anger are the motives of human actions. The state of nature as a state of war is characterized by one more feature: there are no concepts of fair and unfair - “where there is no common power, there is no law, and where there is no law, there is no injustice.” Justice is not a natural quality of a person, it is a virtue that is affirmed by people themselves in the process of their self-organization. Laws and conventions are the real basis ("reason," as Hobbes sometimes says) for distinguishing between justice and injustice. In the state of nature, there is generally “nothing generally obligatory, and everyone can do what seems good to him personally.” In such a state, people act on the principle of like or dislike, want or don’t want; and their personal inclinations turn out to be the real measure of good and evil.

Natural law. In the state of nature, the so-called natural law (right of nature, jus naturale) operates. Hobbes insists on separating the concepts of “right,” which simply means freedom of choice, and “law,” which means the need to act in a certain established way. The law thereby indicates an obligation; freedom is on the other side of obligation. Obviously, this is not a liberal understanding of freedom, right and obligation. Natural law, according to Hobbes, is expressed in “the freedom of every man to use own strength at its own discretion to preserve its own nature, i.e. own life." According to natural law, everyone acts in accordance with his desires and everyone decides for himself what is right and what is wrong. "Nature has given everyone the right to everything." According to Hobbes, people are born absolutely equal and free, and in 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.

Only force can transform natural laws into imperatives, i.e. state. The state arises in two ways: as a result of violence and as a result of a social contract. Hobbes gives preference to the contractual origin of the state, calling such states political. By concluding a social contract among themselves, people alienate all their natural rights in favor of the sovereign. Hobbes considers it possible to draw an analogy between the state and a machine, an “artificial body” that is created by man to preserve his life. The state is, according to Hobbes, a “mechanical monster” with extraordinary and terrible power: it can protect the interests of a person, the interests of parties and a large social group.

Hobbes views the state as the result of a contract between people, putting an end to the natural pre-state state of “war of all against all.” He adhered to the principle of the original equality of people. Individual citizens voluntarily limited their rights and freedom in favor of the state, whose task is to ensure peace and security. Hobbes extols the role of the state, which he recognizes as the absolute sovereign. On the question of the forms of the state, Hobbes' sympathies are on the side of the monarchy. Defending the need to subordinate the church to the state, he considered it necessary to preserve religion as an instrument of state power to curb the people.

Hobbes believed that the very life of a person, his well-being, strength, rationality of the political life of society, the common good of people, their consent, which constitutes the condition and “health of the state”, depend on the activities of the state; its absence leads to “state disease,” civil wars, or even the death of the state. From this Hobbes concludes that all people are interested in a perfect state. According to Hobbes, the state arose as a result of a social contract, an agreement, but, having arisen, it separated from society and is subject to the collective opinion and will of the people, having an absolute character. The concepts of good and evil are distinguished only by the state, but a person must submit to the will of the state and recognize as bad what the state recognizes as bad. At the same time, the state must take care of the interests and happiness of the people. The state is called upon to protect citizens from external enemies and maintain internal order; it should give citizens the opportunity to increase their wealth, but within limits that are safe for the state.

The theory of natural law was used not only by supporters of the English Revolution to substantiate the progressive demands of the bourgeoisie for the reorganization of society at that time, but also by its opponents, who acted as defenders of 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 reasons and driving forces 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 with everyone by 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 unification 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 objective purposes scientific analysis state Hobbes identifies it with the living body, likens complex machine, skillfully constructed by man 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 the ruler cannot be compared with the tragedy and troubles 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 physically healthy people who are shirking from work to 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 of interpersonal relationships;
• social order, peace as the highest good, the main condition of which is the absolute power of the state and the unconditional subordination 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 state authority orders is law. 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 according to 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 the relationships of equal 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 advocated 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 made enormous contributions to science and philosophy. In his work “On the Body,” the English thinker managed to most fully reveal his understanding of the subject of philosophy. Answering the question “what is philosophy,” Hobbes, like other leading thinkers of his era, opposed scholasticism, which existed as the official philosophy of the Christian church in most Western European countries.

Philosophy is divided by Hobbes into two main parts: the philosophy of nature and the philosophy of state. The first is interested in natural bodies, which are products of nature. The second explores the phenomena of social life, and first of all the state, which forms an artificial, political body created on a contractual basis by the people themselves. In order to know the state, it is necessary to first study the person, the inclinations and morals of the people united in civil society. This is what moral philosophy does. Thus, Hobbes's philosophical system consists of three interrelated parts: the doctrine of natural bodies, the doctrine of man and the doctrine of the political body, or state.

The most important are the socio-political views of T. Hobbes, which are contained in his works “On the Citizen”, “Leviathan”. T. Hobbes bases his philosophical system on a certain idea of ​​the nature of the individual. The starting point of his reasoning about social order and the state is “the natural state of people.” This natural state is characterized by him “by the natural tendency of people to harm themselves mutually, which they derive from their passions, but most importantly, from the vanity of self-love, the right of everyone to everything.”

The philosopher believes that although initially all people are created equal in terms of physical and mental abilities, and each of them has the same “right to everything” as others, man is also a deeply selfish creature, overwhelmed by greed, fear and ambition. He is surrounded only by envious people, rivals, and enemies. “Man is a wolf to man.” Therefore, the philosopher believes that in the very nature of people there are reasons for rivalry, mistrust and fear, which lead to hostile clashes and violent actions aimed at destroying or conquering others. Added to this is the desire for fame and differences of opinion, which also force people to resort to violence. Hence the fatal inevitability in society of “... a war of all against all, when everyone is controlled by his own mind and there is nothing that he cannot use as a means of salvation from his enemies” T. Hobbes. Essays in 2 Volumes. Volume 2. /compiled by editor V.V. Sokolov, translated from Latin and English. - M.: Thought. 1991 p.99. To have the “right to everything” in the conditions of such a war means “... to have the right to everything, even to the life of every other person.” T. Hobbes decree cit.s. 99 In this war, according to Hobbes, there can be no winners; it expresses a situation in which everyone is threatened by everyone - “... while the right of everyone to everything remains, not a single person (no matter how strong or wise he may be) can be sure of that he can live all the time that nature usually provides for human life” T. Hobbes decree op. With. 99. During such a war, people use sophisticated violence to subjugate others or in self-defense.

One way or another, but “... people are naturally susceptible to greed, fear, anger and other animal passions,” they seek “honor and benefits,” act “for the sake of benefit or glory, i.e. for the sake of love for oneself, and not for others,” therefore everyone is the enemy of everyone, relying in life only on their own strength and dexterity, resourcefulness and ingenuity. Thus, egoism is declared to be the main stimulus of human activity. But Hobbes does not condemn people for their selfish tendencies, nor does he believe that they are evil by nature. After all, it is not the desires of people themselves that are evil, the philosopher points out, but only the results of actions arising from these desires. And even then only when these actions cause harm to other people. In addition, it must be taken into account that people “by nature are deprived of education and are not trained to obey reason.”

It is about the state of general war and confrontation that Hobbes writes as “the natural state of the human race” and interprets it as the absence of civil society, i.e. state organization, state legal regulation of people's lives. In a word, in a society where there is no state organization and management, arbitrariness and lawlessness reign, “and a person’s life is lonely, poor, hopeless, stupid and short-lived.” However, according to Hobbes, the nature of people contains not only forces that plunge individuals into the abyss of a “war of all against all,” people long to get out of this pitiful state and strive to create guarantees of peace and security. After all, man inherently has properties of a completely different plane; they are such as to induce individuals to find a way out of such a disastrous state of nature. First of all, it is fear, death and the instinct of self-preservation, which dominates other passions “... the desire for things necessary for a good life, and the hope of acquiring them through hard work.” T. Hobbes op. op. With. 98 Along with them comes natural reason, i.e. the ability of everyone to reason rationally about the positive and negative consequences of their actions. Feelings and reason dictate to people the need to abandon the state of nature and move to civil society, to a state structure. As a result of such aspirations, natural law - “i.e. the freedom of every person to use his own strength at his own discretion for the preservation of his own life” ibid p. 98 gives way to the natural law, 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” ibid p.98. The instinct of self-preservation provides the first impulse to the process of overcoming the natural state, and natural reason tells people under what conditions they can carry out this process. These conditions (they are expressed by the prescriptions of natural reason) are what are otherwise called natural laws.

Hobbes notes that it is necessary to distinguish between jus and lex - right and law, "for right consists in freedom to do or not to do something, while law determines and obliges one or the other." Thus, natural law is not the result of the agreement of people, but is a prescription of human reason. According to Hobbes, natural laws come from human nature itself and are divine only in the sense that reason is “given to every man by God as the standard of his actions,” and the moral institutions of the Holy Scriptures, although declared to people by God himself, can be deduced independently of him “through inferences from the concept of natural law,” i.e. with the help of the mind. The main general precept of reason according to Hobbes is that every man must strive for peace if he has any hope of achieving it; if he cannot achieve it, then he can use any means that give an advantage in war.

Therefore, the first part of the basic natural law deduced by the philosopher says: one should seek peace and follow it. The second part is the content of natural law, which boils down to the right to defend oneself by all possible means. Hobbes deduces from the fundamental law, based on his synthetic method, other natural laws. The most important among them is the renunciation of each of his rights to the extent required by the interests of peace and self-defense (the second natural law). The renunciation of a right is accomplished according to Hobbes, either by simple renunciation of it, or by transferring it to another person. But not all human rights can be alienated - a person cannot give up the right to defend his life and resist those who attack him. One cannot demand that one renounce the right to resist violence, attempts at deprivation of liberty, imprisonment, etc. The mutual transfer of rights is carried out by people in the form of an agreement - “A contract is the action of two or many persons transferring their rights to each other.” When a contract is made regarding something that relates to the future, it is called an agreement. Agreements can be concluded by people, both under the influence of fear and voluntarily.

The third law follows from the second natural law: people are obliged to fulfill the agreements they make, otherwise the latter will have no meaning. The third natural law contains the source and beginning of justice.

In Leviathan, Hobbes, in addition to the three indicated, indicated 16 more natural (unchangeable and eternal) laws. Most of them are in the nature of requirements or prohibitions: to be fair, merciful, compliant, unforgiving, impartial and at the same time not to be cruel, vindictive, arrogant, treacherous, etc. Thus, for example, the sixth natural law states: if there is a guarantee regarding the future, a person must forgive past offenses to those who, showing repentance, wish to do so. Hobbes decree op. 177 The ninth law establishes that every person must recognize others as equal to himself by nature. Violation of this rule is pride Hobbes decree op. p.118. The Eleventh Law (Impartiality) requires...if a person is authorized to be a judge in a dispute between two people, then natural law dictates that he judge them impartially. For otherwise, disputes between people can only be resolved by war. T. Hobbes decree op. 119 The sixteenth law states that in the event of a dispute, the parties must submit to the decision of the arbitrator. in the same place with. 121

Thus, Hobbes reduces all natural laws to one general rule: “Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.”

As noted by Doctor of Law L.S. Mamut, the actual socio-historical prototypes of those natural laws that T. Hobbes talks about are the relationships between commodity owners, private owners, mediated by acts of exchange and formalized by contracts. Thus, in the end, it is exchange and agreement that, according to the concept of T. Hobbes, are the prerequisites for the establishment of peace in human society History of political and legal doctrines: A textbook for universities. 4th edition, ed. Professor V.S. Nersesyants. - M: Publishing group NORMA-INFRA * M, 2004 p.263.

No matter how impressive the role of natural laws is, they themselves are not obligatory. Only force can turn them into an unconditional imperative of behavior. For Hobbes, natural law, as we have already noted, is freedom to do or not do something, and positive law is an order to do or, conversely, not to do something. Natural laws oblige the individual to desire their implementation, but cannot force him to practically act in accordance with them. We definitely need a force capable of strictly limiting everyone’s right to everything and deciding what belongs to whom, what is a right and what is not.

The absolute power of the state is, according to T. Hobbes, the guarantor of peace and the implementation of natural laws. She forces the individual to fulfill them by issuing civil laws. If natural laws are associated with reason, then civil laws are based on force. However, their content is the same. Any arbitrary inventions of legislators cannot be civil laws, because the latter is the essence those natural laws, but only supported by the authority and power of the state. They cannot be canceled or changed by a simple expression of the will of the state. By placing civil laws in such strict dependence on natural ones, T. Hobbes probably wanted to direct the activities of the state to ensure the development of new, bourgeois social relations. But it is unlikely that he had the intention of subordinating state power to law.

“state of nature” in the social philosophy of modern times (J.-J. Rousseau, Hobbes, J. Locke)

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1649), English philosopher of the 17th century, in his famous treatise Levithian, or matter, form and power of the church and civil state” for the first time, outlined 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 solution is to curb the absolute freedom of everyone in the name of the good and order of all. People must mutually limit their freedom to exist in a state of social peace. They agree among themselves about this. 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 enforce the agreement 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 to take any coercive measures against its citizens in society as a whole. 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 from 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, natural principles. This natural readiness of people leads them to realize that for 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 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, life, and freedom. The more rights a person has, the wider his circle in front of 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 obligations 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 main theorists of democratic government. His ideal is the English constitutional monarchy, which embodies the balance of the individual and the state. Locke's views found clear expression in American Independence and the Rights of Man and Citizen in France.

J. -J. Rousseau (1712-1778) was one of the largest 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, population is growing and changing geographical conditions, abilities and people develop, which ultimately leads to the establishment. 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, change them, accept new ones. These views are characterized by radicalism and revolutionism. It was they who underlay the ideology of the most extreme group of revolutionaries during the French Revolution - the Jacobins - and served as the justification for the Jacobin terror.