T. Hobbes is an English materialist philosopher, one of the founders of the social contract theory and the theory of state sovereignty.

Hobbes built his teaching on the study of the nature and passions of man. In the very nature of human beings there are reasons for rivalry, mistrust and fear, which lead to hostile clashes and violent actions aimed at destroying or subjugating others. Added to this is the desire for fame and differences of opinion, which also cause people to resort to violence. In a word, a "war of all against all" arises. In such a war, people use violence to subjugate others or in self-defense. But, one way or another, everyone is the enemy of everyone, relying only on their own strength and dexterity, resourcefulness and ingenuity. Hobbes writes about such a state of general war and confrontation as the "natural state of the human race" and interprets it as the absence of civil society, that is, state organization, state-legal regulation of people's lives.

In the state of nature, the philosopher noted, only natural law operates, allowing a person "to do whatever he pleases and against anyone." The measure of law in the state of nature is utility, because each person, acting at his own peril and risk, achieves what is beneficial to him, what serves his interests.

Hobbes not only did not idealize the natural state of mankind, but, on the contrary, emphasized that it interferes with the normal development of social life, diverts the forces and abilities of people from creative activity. people are eager to get out of this miserable state, they are striving to create guarantees of peace and security. Feelings and reason dictate to them the need to abandon the state of nature and transition to a state system. As a result of such aspirations, natural law gives way to natural law, according to which "it is forbidden for a person to do that which is detrimental to his life or which deprives him of the means to preserve it." According to Hobbes, one must distinguish between right and law, for right consists in the freedom to do or not to do something, while the law determines and obliges one or another member of this alternative. It is also important to emphasize that natural law, according to Hobbes, is not the result of an agreement between people, but is a prescription of the human mind. The fear of death, the desire not only to save one's life, but also to make it pleasant - such, according to Hobbes, are the feelings that incline people to peace. Reason, on the other hand, tells people the path that can provide them with a peaceful life and prosperity. Such a command of the "right mind" is the natural law that instructs people to seek peace and harmony.

The first and basic natural law says: one must seek peace wherever one can reach it; where peace is impossible to achieve, help must be sought to wage war. From the basic law, Hobbes derives the rest of the natural laws. At the same time, he attaches special importance to the second natural law, which reads: "... the right of all to everything cannot be preserved, it is necessary either to transfer some rights to others, or to abandon them." In total, Hobbes mentions nineteen natural laws in Leviathan. Suffice it to say that most of them are in the nature of demands and prohibitions: to be fair, merciful, compliant, unforgiving, and at the same time not to be cruel, vindictive, arrogant, perfidious, etc. Summarizing all natural laws, Hobbes reduces them to one general rule: "Do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you."

People, in connection with the inevitable extermination when they are in such a state for a long time, in order to save their lives and the general peace, renounce some of their "natural rights" and, according to an implicitly concluded social contract, endow them with those who undertake to preserve the free use of the remaining rights - the state . The state, the union of people in which the will of one (the state) is binding on all, is given the task of regulating relations between all people.

The conclusion of the contract and the formation of the state in the concept of T. Hobbes

Hobbes proceeds from a purely legal interpretation of a contract as an agreement between two or more parties on the observance of mutual obligations, the procedure and terms for their execution.

The social contract is fundamental and lasting, covering all individuals. People unite in society and conclude an agreement among themselves out of fear of each other and to create a sovereign power that would maintain a state of equilibrium. The contract is terminated with the disappearance of this power and as a result of the abdication of the monarch, the seizure of the state by enemies, the suppression of the royal family. Termination of the contract is allowed only in one case - when it ceases to correspond to the main goal of its existence - ensuring the security of society. This situation arises when the state, instead of protecting the individual, begins to threaten his life, thereby depriving him of the right to self-preservation. Hobbes thus created an entirely new interpretation of the contract theory, using it as an apology for a strong and even tyrannical state. His theory of the state of nature, unlike previous ones, does not start from what people once were in antiquity, but seeks to explain what they could potentially become, if we exclude interference in their lives by authoritarian state power. Therefore, although Hobbes uses the terminology of the contract theory, he formulated a new modification of it, which, according to a number of researchers, is outside the mainstream of political thought.

Based on this, his main contribution in the long term is recognized not as the development of the theory of the social contract, but as a clear statement of the principle of sovereignty and the relationship between sovereign power and law. Unlike the so-called social animals (ants, bees, etc.), which are characterized by the consent of aspirations, says Hobbes, human society is characterized by the unity of the will. This unity makes it possible to speak of civil society or the state as a single person, in which the general will is embodied. Based on the consent of many people acting under the influence of fear, this general will appears as the will of them all. Thus, Hobbes sees in the general will some abstract construction, different from a simple set of individual wills and in this way strongly reminiscent of its subsequent interpretation by Rousseau, who owes a lot to the English thinker. The mass of people standing outside the state and representing its ruler (whether it be an assembly or one person) is unable to independently express their will. That's why initial stage The formation of any state should be considered as the consent of the majority of people to its creation by mutual renunciation of part of their rights in favor of the sovereign. According to Hobbes, the formation of the state occurs as follows: numerous natural persons are united into a civilian person, either under the influence of fear (in the course of conquests) or in the hope of protection. In the first case, a despotic or patrimonial state arises, in the second - a political one. However, in both cases, in order to fulfill the basic condition of the social contract (preserving the safety of subjects), the sovereign must have full power. An important conclusion follows from this, which could be defined as the law of indivisibility of sovereignty. The one who has the supreme power stands above the law, for he creates it himself. He has the right to the property of citizens, since it is generally possible only if it is protected from extraneous encroachments by the state. He holds in his hands the sword of war and justice, appoints and dismisses officials and servants of the state, finally, gives an assessment of various teachings. Hobbes compares the state with the biblical monster - Leviathan, trying to emphasize the infinity and absolute nature of his power, based not on law, but on force. At the same time, comparing the state with a person, he notes that the ruler is his soul, because only thanks to the ruler the state acquires a single will, just as a person has it thanks to the soul. Sovereignty for Hobbes is identical with absolute power and implies absolute subordination to it. The general will or the will of the state is not bound by civil law or obligations towards individual citizens, who must unquestioningly carry out the orders of the highest authority. Personal freedom is a relative concept. According to the mathematical definition of Hobbes, freedom - “is nothing but the absence of obstacles to movement. Therefore, water enclosed in a vessel is not free, but if the vessel is broken, it is released. He who is kept in a spacious dungeon has greater freedom than he who is confined in a narrow dungeon. Following this logic, one can come to the conclusion that freedom is only the right to choose the degree and method of its limitation. In the history of political thought, the doctrine of Hobbes has traditionally been interpreted as a theoretical justification for modern absolutism. For this, as we have seen, there are substantial reasons. It is important, however, to note that Hobbes' teaching can equally be interpreted in favor of the democratic order of government. The historical process led to the fact that sovereignty was concentrated in the hands of parliament, and the parliament itself began to represent not only the interests of a narrow privileged layer, but also the masses of the population. For such an interpretation of the teachings of Hobbes, one can find some grounds in his concept of forms of government. Following the above theory of sovereignty, Hobbes sharply criticizes the thesis of ancient authors (primarily Aristotle) ​​on the division of all forms of government into right and wrong. In his opinion, these are simply different (more or less biased) names for the same forms of government, and it is impossible to establish a fundamental difference, for example, between monarchy and tyranny (which nullifies the assessment of government from the standpoint of its legality). It makes no sense to talk about mixed forms of government, because sovereignty is indivisible. For the same reason, the concept of separation of powers is unambiguously rejected, the implementation of which in practice, for example, in the mixed monarchy of Aristotle, leads to the consolidation various functions for certain social groups: the power to establish laws - for all citizens, monetary taxation - for a part of the people, the court - for the magnates, and the decision on the issue of war and peace - for the monarch. The fundamental drawback of such a separation of powers, according to Hobbes, is that at best it is practically useless, but at worst (in the event of a conflict) it leads to a deepening and formalization of a split in society, which may result in the collapse of the social contract - civil war, t i.e. the actual revival of the state of nature with its anarchy and the war of all against all. Hobbes therefore considers reasonable only unitary government, the forms of which he classifies according to the number of persons in power, into democracy (where the supreme power belongs to the assembly of all citizens), aristocracy (where it is concentrated in the hands of the best people or optimates) and monarchy (where one person rules), and in all cases, the monopoly of power remains with any one institution. Three forms of power are compared in terms of their effectiveness. Democracy, according to Hobbes, is a particularly inefficient and expensive form of government because it distracts from work. big number people, is carried out with the help of numerous parties and their leaders - ambitious demagogues, striving for power at the cost of a split in society and the threat of civil war. All the sympathies of the thinker are on the side of a firm monarchical power, which is most consistent with the true interests of the people. The change in forms of government is explained by the successive transfer of power from a more representative group of rulers to a less representative one and, finally, to one person, i.e. the process of its concentration. In the history of thought, Hobbes has been treated in exactly the opposite way, but no one can deny his great influence.

The Science of Civil Society by T. Hobbes

The English philosopher and political theorist Thomas Hobbes, who made the first conscious attempt to build a "science" of Civil Society on the basis of paramount principles arising from the idea of ​​what a Man would be in a state in which there would be no power - political, moral and social. According to his theory, society is like a person - his simplest
element, there is a car. To understand how it works, you need
imagine it separately, decompose it into its simplest elements, and then anew
fold according to the laws of motion of the components. Hobbes distinguished
artificial "(made by Man) and natural (established
physically) world. A person can only have a certain knowledge about
what people have created. In them, he sought to show that the natural state of Man, in which there was no power and in which he enjoyed the natural right to everything that helped his self-preservation, was an endless struggle, because there was no protection for his desires. Since Man had a mind that enabled him to know the causes of things, he was able to discover those principles of behavior that he had to prudently follow for his own safety.

It was on these principles, called by Hobbes the "Convenient Articles of the World", that men agreed to establish their natural right to everything and to submit to absolute sovereign authority.

Hobbes' conclusions point to monarchical rule, but he was always careful when he touched on this topic, using the phrase "one person or an assembly of people." In those days it was dangerous to touch royalist and parliamentary sore points.

Thomas Hobbes' doctrine of man

If we try to characterize the internal logic of philosophical
studies of Hobbes, the following picture emerges.

The problem of power, the problem of the genesis and essence of the state community was one of the central philosophical and sociological problems facing the leading thinkers of the 16th - 17th centuries in the era of the creation of national states in Europe, strengthening their sovereignty and forming state institutions. In England, under conditions of revolution and civil war, this problem was particularly acute. It is not surprising that the development of questions of moral and civil philosophy, or the philosophy of the state, attracted the attention of Hobbes first of all. The philosopher himself emphasized this in the dedication to the work "On the Body", in which he defines his place among other founders of science and philosophy of modern times.

The development of these questions forced Hobbes to turn to the study of man. The English philosopher, like many other advanced thinkers of that era, who did not rise to an understanding of the real, material causes of social development, tried to explain the essence of social life based on the principles of "Human Nature". In contrast to Aristotle's principle that man is a social being, Hobbes argues that man is not social by nature. In fact, if a person loved another only as a person, why should he not love everyone equally. In society, we are not looking for friends, but for the implementation of our own interests.

“What do all people do, what do they consider pleasure, if not slander and arrogance? Everyone wants to play the first role and oppress others; everyone claims talents and knowledge, and how many listeners in the audience, so many doctors. Everyone strives not for cohabitation with others, but for power over them and, consequently, for war. The war of all against all is now the law for savages, and the state of war is still a natural law in relations between states and between rulers, "writes Hobbes. According to Hobbes, our experience, the facts of everyday life, tell us that there is mistrust between people "When a man goes on a journey, a man takes a weapon with him and takes a large company with him; when he goes to bed, he locks his door; when he stays at home, he locks his drawers. What opinion do we have of our fellow citizens, since we about our children and servants, since we lock our drawers, don't we accuse people with these actions, just as I accuse them with my statements.

However, adds Hobbes, none of us can blame them. The desires and passions of people are not sinful. And when people live in the state of nature, no unjust acts can exist. The concept of good and evil can take place where society and laws exist; where there is no established, there can be no injustice. Justice and injustice, according to Hobbes, are not abilities of either the soul or the body. For if they were such, a person would own them, even being alone in the world, just as he owns perception and feeling. Justice and injustice are the qualities and properties of a person who does not live alone, but in society. But what pushes people to live together in peace among themselves, contrary to their inclinations, to mutual struggle and mutual extermination. Where
look for those rules and concepts on which human society is based?

According to Hobbes, such a rule becomes a natural law based on reason, with the help of which everyone ascribes to himself abstinence from everything that, in his opinion, may be harmful to him.

The first basic natural law is that everyone must seek peace with all the means at his disposal, and if he cannot obtain peace, he may seek and use all the means and advantages of war. From this law follows directly the second law: everyone must be ready to give up his right to everything when others also wish it, since he considers this refusal necessary for peace and self-defense. In addition to the waiver of their rights, there may also be a transfer of these rights. When two or more people transfer these rights to each other, this is called a contract. The third natural law says that people must adhere to their own contracts. In this law is the function of justice. Only with the transfer of rights does cohabitation and the functioning of property begin, and only then is injustice possible in violation of contracts. It is extremely interesting that Hobbes derives from these basic laws the law of Christian morality: "Do not do to another what you would not like them to do to you." According to Hobbes, natural laws, being the rules of our mind, are eternal. The name "law" for them is not quite suitable, but since they are considered as the command of God, they are "laws".

Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679) - English materialist philosopher. His main works are "The Philosophical Principle of the Doctrine of the Citizen" (1642) "Leviathan, or 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. According to Hobbes, people are born absolutely equal and free, and in natural state everyone is entitled to everything. Therefore, the state of nature is defined as "the 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 of nature is opposed to the state (civil status), the transition to which is due to 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 turn natural laws into an imperative, i.e. state. The state arises in two ways: as a result of violence and as a result of the 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. sovereign(one person or a meeting of people) is not bound by any contract and does not bear any responsibility to the people. The power of the state, from the point of view of Hobbes, must be absolute and indivisible. "To divide the power of the state means to destroy it, since the divided powers mutually destroy each other." The people have no right to change the form of government and criticize the sovereign. The sovereign, in turn, is not punishable and has supreme legislative, executive and judicial power. The sovereign is limited only by the limits of 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 the individual to kill or maim himself or forbids him to defend himself against the attack of enemies. The protection of one's own life is based on the highest law of all nature - the law of self-preservation. The sovereign has no right to transgress this law. Otherwise, he risks losing power. Hobbes establishes three forms of the 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 is composed either of all the citizens, so that any of them has the right to vote and can participate, if he likes, in the discussion of affairs, or only from a part of them. Tyranny and oligarchy are not separate forms of state power, but only other names of the same types - names that express our negative attitude towards each of these forms. The best form in terms of achieving the means for which state power exists is, according to the philosopher, monarchy. "Those who have experienced resentment under the monarchy call it tyranny, and those who are dissatisfied with the aristocracy call it oligarchy." However, Hobbes prefers absolute monarchy. The king, whose power is limited, is not higher than the one who has the right to limit this power, and, therefore, this king is not a sovereign. Only an absolutely unlimited king, whose power is transmitted only by inheritance, can be considered a sovereign.

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

All these features of the life of people in the state of nature, namely: rivalry, mistrust and the 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 security guarantees; war "is not only a battle, or military action, but a period of time during which the will to fight through battle clearly manifests itself."

In the state of nature, 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 the other - "man to man - God", which characterizes relations between citizens within the state. However, as can be judged from "Human Nature", where Hobbes represents all human passions through the allegory of a race, both in a social and natural state, the principle "man to man is a wolf" is always present in relations between people to the extent that distrust and malice are the motives of human actions. The state of nature as a state of war is characterized by another feature: there are no concepts of just and unjust - "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 says in places) for the distinction between justice and injustice. In the state of nature, there is generally "nothing obligatory, and everyone can do what he personally considers good." In this state, people act according to the principle of like or dislike, like or dislike; 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 means only the freedom of choice, and "law", which means the need to act in a certain established way. The law thus points to an obligation; freedom is on the other side of obligation. Obviously, this is not a liberal understanding of freedom, rights and obligations. Natural law, according to Hobbes, is expressed in "the freedom of every person to use own forces at its own discretion for the preservation of its own nature, i.e. own life". According to natural law, everyone acts in accordance with their 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 is entitled to everything. Therefore, the state of nature is defined as "the 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 of nature is opposed to the state (civil status), the transition to which is due to 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 turn natural laws into an imperative, i.e. state. The state arises in two ways: as a result of violence and as a result of the 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", which is created by man to save his life. The state is, according to Hobbes, a "mechanical monster" with extraordinary and terrible power: it can protect the interests of the individual, the interests of parties and a large social group.

Hobbes considers the state as the result of an agreement between people that put an end to the natural pre-state state of "the war of all against all." He adhered to the principle of the original equality of people. Individual citizens have voluntarily restricted 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 absolute sovereign. On the question of the forms of the state, Hobbes' sympathies are on the side of the monarchy. Defending the need for the subordination of 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, the 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 the "disease of the state", civil wars or even the death of the state. Hence 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 obeys the collective opinion and will of people, having an absolute character. The concepts of good and evil are distinguished only by the state, while a person must obey the will of the state and recognize as bad what the state recognizes as bad. At the same time, the state should 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 safe limits for the state.

II. The Natural Laws of Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes made a huge contribution to science and philosophy. In his work “On the Body”, the English thinker managed to reveal his understanding of the subject of philosophy with the greatest completeness. Answering the question "what is philosophy", Hobbes, like other advanced 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 the state. The first is concerned with natural bodies, which are the 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 customs of people united in civil society. This is what moral philosophy does. Thus, the philosophical system of Hobbes 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 puts a certain idea of ​​the nature of the individual at the basis of his philosophical system. The starting point of his reasoning about the social structure and the state is the "natural state of people." This natural state is characterized in 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 the others, however, a person is also a deeply selfish being, overwhelmed by greed, fear and ambition. Surround him only envious, rivals, enemies. "Man to man is a wolf." 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 subjugating others. Added to this is the desire for fame and differences of opinion, which also cause people to resort to violence. Hence the fatal inevitability in society "... the war of all against all, when everyone is controlled by his own mind and there is nothing that he could not use as a means of salvation from enemies" T. Hobbes. Works in 2 T. T2. / compiler 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 the life of every other person." T. Hobbes decree op. 99 In this war, according to Hobbes, there can be no winners, it expresses a situation in which everyone is threatened by everyone - “... as long as the right of everyone to everything is preserved, 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 human life» T. Hobbes Decree Op. With. 99 . In such a war, people use sophisticated violence to subjugate others or in self-defense.

One way or another, but “... people are naturally subject 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, selfishness is declared to be the main stimulus of human activity. But Hobbes does not condemn people for their selfish inclinations, does not consider 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 harm other people. In addition, it must be borne in mind that people "by nature are devoid of education and are not trained to obey reason."

It is precisely 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 control, arbitrariness and lack of rights reign, "and a person's life is lonely, poor, hopeless, stupid and short-lived." However, in the nature of people, according to Hobbes, there are not only forces that plunge individuals into the abyss of the “war of all against all”, people are eager to get out of this miserable state, they strive to create guarantees of peace and security. After all, a person is also inherent in the properties of a completely different plane; they are such that they impel 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 over the rest of the passions "... the desire for things necessary for a good life, and the hope of acquiring them with one's diligence." T. Hobbes Decree Op. With. 98 Together with them comes natural reason, i.e. the ability of everyone to reason sensibly about positive and negative consequences their actions. Feelings and reason dictate to people the need to abandon the state of nature and transition to civil society, to a state system. As a result of such aspirations, natural law - “i.e. the freedom of every man to use his own powers as he sees fit for the preservation of his own life” ibid., p. 98 gives way to the natural law, according to which “it is forbidden for a person to do what is harmful to his life or what deprives him of the means to preserve it” ibid p.98. The instinct of self-preservation gives the first impulse to the process of overcoming the natural state, and the natural mind tells people on what conditions they can carry out this process. These conditions (the prescriptions of natural reason express them) are what are otherwise called natural laws.

Hobbes notes that one should distinguish between jus and lex - right and law, "for the right consists in the freedom to do or not to do something, while the 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 proceed from human nature itself and are divine only in the sense that reason "is given to every man by God as a measure of his actions," and the moral principles of Holy Scripture, although announced to people by God himself, can be deduced regardless of him "by means of inferences from the concept of natural law", i.e. with the help of the mind. The main general prescription of reason according to Hobbes is that every man must seek peace if he has any hope of achieving it; if he cannot achieve it, then he can use any means that give advantage in war.

Therefore, the first part of the basic natural law, derived by the philosopher, says: one should seek the world and follow it. The second part is the content of natural law, which is reduced to the right to defend oneself by all possible means. From the basic law, Hobbes derives, relying on his synthetic method, the rest of the natural laws. The most important among them is the renunciation of each of his rights to the extent that this is required by the interests of peace and self-defense (the second natural law). The renunciation of a right is made according to Hobbes, either by a 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. It is also impossible to demand the renunciation of 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.” In the event that an agreement is concluded about 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.

A third natural law follows from the second natural law: people are obliged to fulfill the agreements they have made, 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 (immutable and eternal) laws. Most of them are in the nature of demands 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 says: if there is a guarantee regarding the future, a person must forgive past offenses to those who, showing repentance, wish it. Hobbes Decree Op. 177 The ninth law states that each person must recognize others as equal by nature. Violation of this rule is the pride of Hobbes, Decree op. 118. The eleventh law (impartiality) obliges.. if a person is authorized to be a judge in a dispute between two people, then natural law prescribes that he judge them impartially. For otherwise disputes between people can be resolved only by war. T. Hobbes decree op. p.119 The sixteenth law states that in the event of a dispute, the parties must submit their decision to the arbitrator. there with 121

Thus, Hobbes reduces all natural laws to one general rule: "do not do to another what you would not like to be done to you."

As Doctor of Law L.S. Mamut, the real socio-historical prototypes of those natural laws that T. Hobbes talks about - the relationship of commodity owners, private owners, mediated by acts of exchange and formalized by contracts. Thus, in the end, it is the exchange and the contract that, according to the concept of T. Hobbes, are the prerequisites for establishing peace in the human community. History of Political and Legal Doctrines: A Textbook for High Schools. 4th ed., ed. professor V.S. Nersesyants. - M: Publishing group NORMA-INFRA * M, 2004 p.263.

No matter how impressive the role of natural laws, however, they themselves are not binding. Only force can turn them into an unconditional imperative of behavior. For Hobbes, the natural law, as we have already noted, is the freedom to do or not do something, and the positive law is the command to do or, conversely, not to do something. Natural laws oblige the individual to desire their implementation, but cannot make him practically act in accordance with them. We certainly need a force that can severely limit the right of everyone to everything and decide 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. It compels 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, for the latter are those natural laws, but only backed up by the authority and power of the state. They can neither be canceled nor changed by the simple will of the state. Putting civil laws in such a strict dependence on natural laws, 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.

III. Origin, essence, purpose, forms of the state.

The doctrine of state sovereignty

Hobbes developed the idea of ​​legitimizing and justifying the state through reason and consciousness with the help of the concept of the contractual origin of political power.

The state, he believed, arises on the basis of an agreement. The basis of the state lies in the reasonable desire of people for self-preservation and security. T. Hobbes believes that in order to comply with natural laws, you need confidence in your safety, and to achieve security there is no other way than to connect a sufficient number of people for mutual protection. Thus, the state is established by people in order to use it to end the "war of all against all", to get rid of the fear of insecurity and the constant threat of violent death - companions of the "unbridled state of anarchy". By mutual agreement among themselves (everyone agrees with everyone), individuals entrust a single person (an individual person or a collection of people) with the supreme social power over themselves.

But in both cases, the power of the state is one and inseparable, it reduces the will of all citizens "into a single will" - "Such a common power that would be able to protect people from the invasion of foreigners and from the injustices caused to each other, and, thus, deliver them that security, in which they could be fed from their labors and from the fruits of the earth and live in contentment, can be erected in only one way, namely, by concentrating all power and strength in one person or in an assembly of people, which, by a majority of votes, could bring together all the wills of citizens into a single will” T. Hobbes Decree Op. With. 132. .

Such power must be based on a voluntary renunciation of the right to own oneself, - “I renounce my right to own myself and give this right to such and such a husband or such and such an assembly of husbands, if you also give them your right and just like me, empower them to do everything and recognize their actions as yours. When this happens, then the multitude of people, united in this way in one person, is called the state, in Latin sivitas. Such is the birth of that great Leviathan, or rather that mortal God, to whom, under the dominion of the immortal God, we owe our peace and our protection. from 133 . This is how a state emerges with supreme power, using the strength and means of all people in such a way as it considers necessary for their peace and common protection.

In Leviathan, Hobbes gave a detailed definition of the state: “The state is a single person, responsible for the actions of which a huge number of people have made themselves responsible by mutual agreement among themselves, so that this person can use the power and means of all their peace and common defense” People who created the state by mutual agreement, not only sanction all its actions, but also recognize themselves as responsible for these actions.

It should be noted that the contractual doctrine of the state was directed against feudal and theological interpretations (patriarchal, monarchy by the grace of God, etc.) and generally corresponded to capitalist relations, the universal legal form of which, as is known, is a contract, a contract. The halo of mysticism was removed from the state; it came to be regarded as one of the many results of a legal agreement - a contract, as a product of human actions.

Thus, the contract as the basis for the emergence of the state in the theory of Hobbes is a kind of consent of the subject, recognizing political power. Another system-forming feature of the state, singled out by Hobbes, is political power, organized as a single entity. “The one who is the bearer of political power is called the sovereign, he is said to have supreme power, and everyone else is his subject.” Thus, relations of domination and subordination arise, i.e. political state. Thus, according to Hobbes, a "political body" is formed.

From the point of view of T. Hobbes, states can arise not only through the voluntary consent of individuals to form a single person and obey him in the hope that it will be able to protect them against everyone. Another way is the acquisition of supreme power by force. For example, the head of the family forces the children to submit to him under the threat of destroying them in case of disobedience, or someone subjugates enemies to his will by military means and, having achieved their obedience, grants them life on this condition (states with “paternal”, paternalistic and despotic power). T. Hobbes calls the states arising as a result of a voluntary agreement based on the establishment or political states. States that come into being with the help of physical force, the thinker refers to those based on acquisition, see Hobbes' decree op. 133; He doesn't show much respect for them. It is worth noting that in this classification of states, T. Hobbes' dislike for the English pre-revolutionary feudal-monarchist orders is visible.

Hobbes considered a normal, healthy state to be one in which the right of a person to life, security, justice and prosperity are ensured. From this point of view, the qualities of political power, its rights and abilities were determined.

The criteria for determining the powers of the supreme power for Hobbes was, first of all, its ability to overcome the "war of all against all", the extreme states of society. So the sovereignty must be "as vast as can be imagined." The one to whom the supreme power (sovereign) is handed over (transferred) is not bound either by civil law or by any of the citizens. The sovereign himself issues and repeals laws, declares war and makes peace, resolves and resolves disputes, appoints all officials, etc. The Sovereign may use the forces and means of his subjects as he deems necessary for their peace and protection. At the same time, the supreme power does not bear any responsibility for its actions to its subjects and is not obliged to account for these actions to them.

The prerogatives of the sovereign are indivisible and not transferable to anyone. “To divide the power of the state means to destroy it, since the divided powers mutually destroy each other.” Thus, Hobbes strongly rejected the concept of separation of powers. This separation of powers is for him the only reason for the civil war then raging in England.

State power, according to Hobbes, in order to fulfill its main purpose - ensuring peace and security for citizens - must be indivisible and sovereign. She should stand above all and should not be subject to anyone's judgment or control. She must be above all laws, for all laws are established by her and only from her receive their strength. Whatever its form, it is inherently limitless. In a republic, the popular assembly has the same power over its subjects as the king has in monarchical government, otherwise anarchy will continue. The denial of absolute power comes, according to Hobbes, from ignorance of human nature and natural laws. It follows from the nature of sovereignty that it cannot be destroyed by the will of the citizens. For, although it proceeds from their free contract, yet the contracting parties have bound their will not only in relation to each other, but also in relation to the supreme power itself; therefore, without the consent of the supreme power itself, they cannot withdraw from their obligation.

Defending the unity of supreme power and the indivisibility of sovereignty, Hobbes at the same time recognized another aspect of the theory of separation of powers, namely: the need to distribute competence in the exercise of power and control, a kind of division of labor in the state mechanism as a guarantee of order and control. Hobbes put forward the concept of political (state) absolutism, based on the "rational-bureaucratic" principles of power and control. Hobbes considered the indicated properties of political power (sovereignty, unity, absolutism) to be common and essential for all forms of the state, both monarchical and republican.

The state has the highest possible power and it "can do whatever it pleases with impunity." The state, according to Hobbes, is a great and powerful force, a kind of "mortal God", who reigns supreme over people and rises above them. This means that the power of the sovereign is in fact his monopoly on the life and death of his subjects; moreover, "whatever the supreme representative does to a subject under any pretext, cannot be considered injustice or lawlessness in the proper sense." Citizens have no rights in relation to the supreme power, and therefore it cannot be rightfully destroyed by people who agreed to establish it.

At the same time, the author of Leviathan, while subordinating the individual to the absolute power of the state, nevertheless leaves him the opportunity to oppose the will of the sovereign. This opportunity is the right to revolt. It opens only when the sovereign, contrary to natural laws, obliges the individual to kill or maim himself or forbids him to defend himself against the attack of enemies. The protection of one's own life is based on the highest law of all nature - the law of self-preservation. The sovereign has no right to transgress this law. Otherwise, he risks losing power.

The goal of the state is to abolish the natural state of man, and establish an order in which people would be provided with security and a peaceful existence. But in order to maintain a state of security, state power must be armed with appropriate rights.

These rights are as follows: Hobbes calls the first right "the sword of justice" - that is, the right to reward and punish with such measure as the sovereign himself considers reasonable. The sovereign is granted the right to bestow wealth and honour, and to impose corporal and pecuniary punishments, as well as the punishment of dishonor, on any subject, in accordance with the law previously issued by the sovereign. And if there was no such law, then the sovereign is given the right to reward and punish, as he thinks reasonable, to encourage people to serve the state or to keep them from harming it.

The second right of the sovereign is the "sword of war," that is, the right to declare war and make peace, according to what he finds useful. This may also include the right to determine the number of armed forces and Money necessary for the conduct of war, for the security of citizens depends on the existence of troops, the strength of the troops depends on the unity of the state, and the unity of the state depends on the unity of the supreme power.

The third right is the right of jurisdiction. The sovereign has judicial power and the right to decide disputes. An integral part of the supreme power is the right of jurisdiction, i.e. the right to consider and resolve all disputes that may arise regarding the law, both civil and natural, or regarding this or that fact. For without the solution of disputes, there can be no defense of the subject from the insults of another.

The fourth right is the right to establish property laws, because before the establishment of state power, everyone had the right to everything, which was the reason for the war against everyone, but with the establishment of the state, everything must be determined what belongs to whom.

The fifth right is the right to establish subordination to the authorities, with the help of which it would be possible to carry out a balanced regulation of all functions of state power. The sixth right is the right to prohibit harmful teachings that lead to a violation of peace and tranquility within the state, as well as aimed at undermining state unity. The seventh right is the right to give honorary titles and to determine the position in society that each person should occupy, and those signs of respect that subjects should show each other in public and private meetings. All other rights, according to Hobbes, are contained in the above or can be logically derived from them.

It is worth noting that Hobbes understood that the approach he proposed to determining the size of the powers of the sovereign, the volume of the content of absolute power, could turn people away from it. However, he assures: “There is nothing painful in absolute power, except for the fact that human institutions cannot exist without some inconvenience. And these inconveniences depend on the citizens, not on the authorities.” T. Hobbes peculiarly rejects the opinion that unlimited power should lead to many bad consequences. His main argument is that the absence of such power (turning into a continuous "war of all against all") is fraught with much worse consequences. As the theoretician of political absolutism T. Hobbes, the possibility of tyrannical use of the unlimited and uncontrolled power of the state worries much less than unbridled conflicts of private interests and the confusion of social anarchy they generate.

If the state power is armed with all the rights that belong to citizens in the state of nature, then it also bears those duties that follow from natural laws. All of them, according to the thinker, are contained in one provision: the good of the people is the highest law.

The duty of the sovereign, according to T. Hobbes, is to manage the people well, because the state was established not for its own sake, but for the sake of citizens. Since this good of the people is, first of all, peace, anyone who violates the peace, thereby opposes the prescription of state power. However, it must be added that peace is a blessing in so far as it contributes to the preservation of human life; but people strive not just for life, but for happy life. Consequently, the task of the authorities is, therefore, to ensure not just life, but the happy life of citizens. But what is a happy life?

Happiness, says the philosopher, consists in enjoying the various benefits of life, and in order to be able to enjoy all these benefits of life, the following is necessary: ​​protection from external enemies, maintaining peace within the state, raising welfare and wealth, and granting the right to every citizen to enjoy freedom without prejudice to other citizens. The state power, therefore, must ensure these four conditions necessary for the happiness of the citizens living in the state. And in order for the state power to fulfill its duties, it must have certain rights, which were mentioned above.

But the state endowed with absolute power must perform, according to Hobbes, not only police and security functions. Its task: "to encourage all kinds of crafts, like shipping, agriculture, fishing, and all industries that demand labor"; to force physically healthy people who shirk from work to work.

He should be engaged in educational and educational activities (in particular, suggesting to his subjects how unlimited the power of the sovereign is and how unconditional their obligations to him are).

The state guarantees its subjects freedom, which is (according to T. Hobbes) the right to do everything that is not prohibited by civil law, in particular “to buy and sell and otherwise conclude contracts with each other, choose their place of residence, food, lifestyle, instruct children at their own discretion, etc.”

The active role of the state is manifested in the vigorous struggle against those teachings that weaken or lead states to disintegration. However, Hobbes called for the use of the power of the state "not against those who are mistaken, but against the errors themselves."

As a theoretician of political absolutism, who advocated the unlimited power of the state as such, T. Hobbes does not pay much attention to the problem of state forms. In his opinion, "power, if only it is perfect enough to be able to protect subjects, is the same in all forms."

According to T. Hobbes, there can be only three forms of the state: monarchy, democracy and aristocracy. The first type includes states in which the supreme power belongs to one person. To the second - states in which the supreme power belongs to the assembly, where any of the citizens has the right to vote. Hobbes calls this type of state the rule of the people. The third type includes states in which the supreme power belongs to the assembly, where not all citizens, but only a certain part of them, have the right to vote.

According to the thinker, these forms of the state differ from each other not in the nature and content of the supreme power embodied in them, but in differences in suitability for the implementation of the purpose for which they were established.

As for other traditional forms of government (tyrannies and oligarchies), Hobbes does not consider them independent types of state. Tyranny is the same monarchy, and the oligarchy is no different from the aristocracy. At the same time, Hobbes' sympathies belonged to the monarchy, he is convinced that it expresses and implements the absolute nature of the power of the state better than other forms; in it, the general interests coincide very closely with the private (i.e., with their own, special) interests of the sovereign. It is more convenient for the supreme power to be precisely monarchic, since "the state is personified in the personality of the king."

Interstate relations, according to Hobbes, can only be relations of rivalry and enmity. States are military camps, defending themselves from each other with the help of soldiers and weapons. Such a state of states, Hobbes emphasizes, should be considered natural, "because they are not subject to any common authority, and the unstable peace between them is soon broken." It is obvious that the era in which he lived gave great attention to the views of Hobbes. At that time, continuous and bloody wars were waged by European states. Despite this, there were thinkers who, under the same historical conditions, considered war not a natural, but an unnatural state of mankind.

Conclusion

Thus, the political and legal doctrine of Hobbes is in line with the theories of natural law and the contractual origin of political power. As we have seen, Hobbes associated the implementation of the laws of nature about the world, equivalent, equality, contract, justice, property with the transition of a person to a political state. They are all summed up in one general rule: Do not do to another what you would not like to be done to you. According to his theory, state power is needed in order to force people to comply with agreements. In juridical terms, the transition to a political state is expressed in the fact that natural laws are concretized in the form of positive (“civil”) legislation issued by state power. Natural laws, according to Hobbes, are not only outwardly binding prescriptions for actions and deeds. They indicate what in human action corresponds to reason, and what contradicts it. Consequently, natural laws contain judgments of good and bad, just and unjust. In other words, these laws are the interconnection of the legal and moral spheres.

The concept of Hobbes about absolute state power is the price of an open and clear expression of a very typical idea for a certain kind of ideology about the main dignity of the state. Its exponents believe that the state has such a dignity if it reliably protects (by any means at the same time) order - the order of relations pleasing to them in society. But such cardinal questions as: does the state become a self-sufficient force, alien to society and opposing it, is it controlled by society and is it responsible to it, is the state built and functioning on democratic and legal principles - are either ignored by supporters of political absolutism, or recognized as unimportant and relegated somewhere into the background.

In the writings of Hobbes, much is said about the "duties of the sovereign." All of them are contained in one provision: the good of the people is the highest law. The duty of the sovereign, according to T. Hobbes, is to manage the people well, because the state was established not for its own sake, but for the sake of citizens. These formulas are full of political wisdom and humanism. But within the framework of the teachings of T. Hobbes on the state, they look more like decorative inserts. The fact is that according to T. Hobbes, people who already exercise supreme power are not in any real dependence on the people and therefore do not bear any obligation to them. Rulers experience only something subjective "in relation to reason, which is a natural, moral and divine law, and to which they must obey in everything, as far as possible." Since Hobbes does not allow the creation of appropriate social and legal institutions that would guarantee such obedience to the sovereign from the outside, it generally seems chimerical. It is worth noting that this is completely in the spirit of the ideologists of absolutism - to entrust the care of order in society to the apparatus, civil laws, to all the real physical power of the state, and to leave care for the well-being of the people at the mercy of the "good will" of the rulers.

It should be noted that the merit of T. Hobbes lies in the fact that he began to consider the state not through the prism of theology, but to derive its laws from reason and experience. The desire to put the study of the state and law on the rails of objective scientific analysis lead T. Hobbes to apply the analogy of the state with the human body. The main role is played by the approach to the state as an "artificial person", i.e. as to expediently, skillfully constructed by people from various springs, levers, wheels, threads, etc. automatic mechanism. At the same time, he likened the structure of the state to the structure of a living organism: the sovereign - the soul of statehood, secret agents - the eyes of the state, etc. He compared civil peace with health, and rebellions, civil wars- with the disease of the state, entailing its disintegration and death. It was with T. Hobbes that the understanding of the state as a machine was established in Western European political theory, which then had a long and difficult fate.

In general, Hobbes' theory had a great impact on the development of political and legal thought and his time, and more late periods. We can say that the concepts of state and law of the XVII-XVIII centuries. developed largely under the sign of the problems raised by Hobbes. The powerful mind of Hobbes, his perspicacity allowed Hobbes to construct a system from which all bourgeois thinkers, not only of the seventeenth, but also of the eighteenth and twentieth centuries, up to the present, drew, as from a rich source.

List of used literature

1. Hobbes T. Works in 2 T. T2. / compiler and editor V.V. Sokolov, translated from Latin and English. - M.: Thought. 1991

2. Zorkin V.D. "Political and legal doctrine of Thomas Hobbes" // " Soviet state and law”, 1989, No. 6.

3. History of political and legal doctrines: Pre-Marxist period: Textbook, edited by O.E. Leistva - M: Legal Literature, 1991

4. History of political and legal doctrines: Textbook for universities. 4th ed. under general. ed. professor V.S. Nersesyants. - M: Publishing group NORMA-INFRA * M, 2004.

5. History of philosophy in summary/translated from Czech I.I. Baguta - M: Thought, 1994

6. History of philosophy: a textbook for universities / V. P. Yakovlev - Rostov-on-Don Phoenix 2004

7. History of philosophy: a textbook for universities / V.V., Ilyin - St. Petersburg: Peter 2005

8. Meerovsky B.V. Hobbes. - M., Thought 1975

9. Radugin A.A. Philosophy: A course of lectures - M. Center. 1997