The natural state of society according to Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes on the natural state of man, the doctrine of the state

Hobbes begins his research by finding out what a person is, what his essence is. Hobbes portrays a person in two forms - 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 speak directly about the existence of two types of morality, but he speaks about 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 significantly different. What characterizes the natural state? - 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 talk about the equality of people. Equality of ability gives rise to equality of hopes for achieving goals. However, resource constraints prevent everyone from meeting their needs equally. Hence, rivalry between people arises. Constant rivalry breeds mistrust between them. No one, possessing something, can be sure that his property and he himself will not become the subject of someone's belligerent claims. As a result, people experience fear and enmity towards each other. To ensure their own safety, everyone seeks to increase their strength and power 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 would not be taken as an expression of weakness.

All these features of human life in the natural state, 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 security guarantees; war "is not only a battle, or military action, but a period of time during which the will to fight through battle is clearly manifested. "

In the natural state, relations between people are expressed in the formula: "man to man is a wolf". Citing this formula, Hobbes emphasizes that it characterizes relations between states, in contrast to the other - "man to man - God", which characterizes the relationship between citizens within the state. However, as can be judged by "Human Nature", where Hobbes represents all human passions through the allegory of competition in running, both in the public and in the natural state, the principle "man to man - a wolf" is always present in relations between people to the extent that mistrust and anger are the motives for human action. The natural state as a state of war is characterized by another peculiarity: 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 distinguishing between justice and injustice. In the state of nature there is generally no "anything universally binding, and everyone can do what he personally thinks good." In this state, people act on the principle of whether they like it or not, want it or not; and their personal instincts turn out to be a 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 the separation of the concepts of "right", which means only freedom of choice, and "law", which means the need to act in a certain established way. The law thus indicates an obligation; freedom is on the other side of obligation. Obviously, this is not a liberal understanding of freedom, rights and obligations. Natural right, according to Hobbes, is expressed in "the freedom of each person to use their own forces at their own discretion to preserve their own nature, that is, their 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 has the right to everything. Therefore, the state of nature is defined as "the war of all against all." After all, if everyone 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 natural state (civil status), the transition to which is due to the instinct of self-preservation and a reasonable desire for peace. The striving for peace, according to Hobbes, is the main natural law.

Only force can transform natural laws into an imperative, i.e. the 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 with each other, people alienate all their natural rights in favor of the sovereign. Hobbes considers it possible to draw an analogy between the state and the machine, an "artificial body" that was 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 an agreement between people, which put 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 freedoms in favor of the state, whose task is to ensure peace and security. Hobbes extols the role of the state, which he recognizes as an absolute sovereign. On the question of the forms of the state, Hobbes's 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, 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 "illness of the state", civil wars or even 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 obeys the collective opinion and will of people, having an absolute character. The concepts of good and evil differ 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 limits that are safe for the state.

Human nature is selfish, and this selfishness knows no boundaries. It is necessary to distinguish between two states of man - the natural and civil state. In the state of nature, the nature of man is fully manifested, he has all the full rights (including the right to kill another) in order to realize selfish interests. The principle of "war of all against all." This is a natural state. THAT the idea of ​​a person, corresponding to the realities with which Hobbes dealt, is abstracted from these realities and presented as something that is rooted in natural nature person. This is the eternal situation in which man has been and is. Justified by reference to the nature of those properties that were characteristic of the initial accumulation of capital. The secularized sanctification of the orientation of the bourgeoisie is justified not by reference to God, but by the fact that human nature is such. The consequences are as follows: a person in his natural state is so tied to the situation of war of all against all that it is dangerous to his life. Therefore, people, as soon as they begin to understand this, according to Hobbes, begin to realize the need to come to an agreement, conclude a social contract, go into a civil state. The contract itself is a means, an instrument of transition. Bertrand Russell. The history of Western philosophy and its relationship with

political and social conditions from antiquity to the present day: In three books. The 3rd edition is stereotyped. - M. Academic Project, 2000.

“The natural state of man is a war of all against all, a life full of dangers, savagery, lack of enlightenment. “In the absence of civil status, there is always a war of all against all. From this it is clear that while people live without a common power that keeps all of them in fear, they are in the state called war, and it is in the state of war of all against all. " Thomas Hobbes... Leviathan

Civil status - security, education, human development despite suppression.

The concept of the natural state is an artificial abstraction from those social conditions under which bourgeois society arose.

The state is, according to Hobbes, a work of art, a product of a contract between people. For a treaty to be effective, lasting and enforced, it must be based on intimidation. By concluding it, people thereby renounce their rights in favor of some body or person who embodies state power.

“The goal of the state is mainly to ensure security. The ultimate reason, goal or intention of people (who by nature love freedom and domination over others) when imposing bonds on themselves (by which they are tied, as we see, living in the state) is concern for self-preservation and, at the same time, for a more favorable life. In other words, when establishing a state, people are guided by the desire to get rid of the disastrous state of war, which is (as shown in Chapter XIII) a necessary consequence of the natural passions of people where there is no visible power that keeps them in fear and under the threat of punishment, forcing them to comply with agreements. and the observance of natural laws set forth in chapters XIV and XV. " Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan

The state instills fear in its subjects, forcing them to submit to itself; by pacifying them in this way, it acts for their own good. Emphasizing the beneficial significance of the omnipotence of the state for its subjects, Hobbes, who was opposed to the separation of powers, did not take into account, however, that the omnipotent state (and this has been shown by historical experience) often turns into a machine that works for its own needs, and not for the good of the people. but against them. Hobbes calls the dictates of the right mind as natural laws. By right reason, he understands the act of reasoning, that is, the proper judgment of each individual person about the actions he performs. The right mind is given to us by nature, it is a natural ability. Since, according to logic, correct judgment follows from true and correctly selected premises, then any violation of natural laws consists in false reasoning or in the stupidity of people who do not see their responsibilities in relation to other people. But these responsibilities are necessary for the sake of self-preservation. Hobbes says that it is impossible to be in a natural state for a long time, since it leads to mutual extermination of people. Therefore, they come to the conclusion that it is necessary to create a state that could regulate their relations and end the "war of all against all." The state should be formed as a result of the conclusion of a social contract. But in this agreement there should be natural laws that should not be violated.

The main provisions of the theory of social contract include the following:

Each person is born free and is his own master, no one is able to subjugate a person without his consent. Hobbes emphasized that a person does not owe anything to those to whom he has not promised anything;

The basis of law can only be contracts and agreements. In contrast to natural law, the idea of ​​political law, that is, based on treaties, was put forward;

The basis of any legal authority among people can only be agreements: legal authority arises from the voluntary agreement of free and virtuous people. At the same time, the divine origin of power is rejected;

As a result of a social contract, an association of equal and free individuals is formed: freedom and equality of the parties to the contract ensure the unification of the people into an indissoluble whole (collective personality), whose interests cannot contradict the interests of private individuals;

Under the terms of the social contract, sovereignty belongs to the people. At the same time, popular sovereignty is understood as the common will of the people. He is inalienable and indivisible;

The essence of the theory of social contract lies in the transfer of power by the people to the state. Such a social agreement gives the political organism (state) unlimited power over all its members;

In all forms of government, sovereignty and legislative power are vested in the entire people, who are the source of power;

The people have the right not only to change the form of government, but also to terminate the social agreement itself and to regain its natural freedom again;

Emphasizing the indivisibility of sovereignty, Hobbes opposed the separation of powers: he opposed the system of separation of powers with the idea of ​​delimiting the functions of state bodies. Electronic textbook on philosophy. Authors: A.L. Andreev, G.S. Arefieva, V.E. Gan, A.V. Kozlov, V.S. Kostelov ..

What is common in the views of D. Locke and T. Hobbes on the "natural state of society"? and got the best answer

Answer from Ўlya Pavlova [guru]
Natural look.
And the society, of course, is British, commercial, slave-owning.

Answer from Angelochek[guru]
Thomas Hobbes, in his famous treatise "Levithian, or Matter, Form and Power of the Church and Civil State," was perhaps the first to set forth 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 natural state, the state of absolute, unlimited freedom of people who are equal in their rights and abilities. People are equal among themselves and in the desire to dominate, to have the same rights. Therefore, the natural state for Hobbes is in the full sense "a state of war of all against all." Absolute freedom of a person is the striving for anarchy, chaos, continuous struggle, in which the murder of a person by a person is also justified. In this situation, the natural and necessary way out is to restrict, curb the absolute freedom of everyone in the name of the good and order of all. People must mutually restrict their freedom to exist in a state of social peace. They agree among themselves on this limitation. This mutual self-restraint is called a social contract. By limiting their natural freedom, people at the same time delegate the authority to maintain order and oversee the observance of the treaty 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 measures of coercion against its citizens. Therefore, the ideal of the state for Hobbes was absolute monarchy, unlimited power in relation to society. Another English thinker of the 17th century adhered to somewhat 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 "war of all against all", Locke considers the initial absolute freedom of people not to be a source of struggle, but an expression of their natural equality and readiness to follow reasonable natural, natural laws. This natural readiness of people leads them to the realization 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 called upon to ensure the further development of society. This is how the Social Contract between people is achieved, this is how the state appears. The main goal of the state is to protect the natural rights of people, the rights to life, freedom and property. It is easy to see that Locke deviates significantly from Hobbes's theory. Hobbes emphasized the absolute power of the state over society and people. Locke emphasizes something else: people give the state only a part of their natural freedom. The state is obliged to protect their natural rights to property, life, freedom. The more rights a person has, the wider the range of his responsibilities to society. At the same time, the state does not have absolute arbitrary power. The social contract implies, according to Locke, the responsibility of the state to its citizens. If the state does not fulfill its duty to the people, if it violates natural freedoms, then 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. Specifying in famous work"Two treatises on government" about the fact that "the same thing happens to states as to individuals: they usually have no idea of ​​their birth and infancy," Locke also elaborated on the ideas that "unification into a single political society" can and should take place only through "consent alone." And this, according to the author, is "the whole agreement that exists or should exist between individuals entering the state or creating it."

The Renaissance can rightfully be considered a new stage in the development of social thought. During this period, new studies appeared aimed at studying various aspects of society, which can certainly be attributed to the field of sociology. Erasmus of Rotterdam, Thomas More, Niccolo Machiavelli, Michel Montaigne - this is not a complete list of the great medieval scientists who raised the problems of human relations in society. As a result, a model of a society resembling a community began to take shape, where order and moral foundations were regulated by the will of God and traditions. Man in such a system of the universe played a very insignificant role.

Later, the figures of the Enlightenment era radically changed the view of society and the place of man in it. Scientists study the structure of society, determine the origins of the development of inequality, the emergence of heterogeneity in society, identify the role of religion in social processes.

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) turned to the ideas of Plato and Aristotle and created on their basis the original theory of society and the state.

His main work, The Sovereign, describes the principles of creating a strong state in an environment where civil virtues are not developed among the people, but the emphasis is not on the structure of society, but on the behavior of a political leader. Machiavelli formulated the laws of the behavior of a ruler who wants to succeed.

The first law: the actions of people are ruled by ambition and the desire for power. To achieve the stability of society, it is necessary to find out which social stratum is more ambitious: those who want to keep what they have, or those who want to acquire what they do not have. Both motives are equally destructive for the state, and any cruelty is justified to maintain stability.

Law Two: A smart ruler does not have to keep all his promises. After all, subjects are not in a hurry to fulfill their obligations. Seeking power, you can squander promises, but having come to it, you do not have to fulfill them, otherwise you will become dependent on subordinates. It is as easy to earn hatred for good deeds as it is for evil, but evil is a sign of firmness. Hence the advice: in order to conquer power, one must be kind, but to keep it, one must be cruel.

The third law: evil must be done immediately, and good - gradually. People value rewards when they are rare, but punishments must be carried out immediately and in large doses.

Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679) took the next step: he developed the theory of the social contract, which became the basis of the doctrine of civil society. Hobbes posed the question: "How is society possible?" - and answered it this way: firstly, people are born incapable of social life, but acquire an inclination for it as a result of upbringing (socialization); secondly, civil society is generated by the fear of some of others. The natural state of people, according to Hobbes, is a "war of all against all," the absolute rivalry of individuals in the struggle for existence. This natural state of society gives people a fear of each other. It is fear that makes people create a civil society, i.e. a society that, on a contractual basis, guarantees each of its members relative protection from the hostile actions of others. Fear does not disconnect, but, on the contrary, unites, encourages concern for universal security. State - the best way satisfying such a need.

Civil society is the highest stage of development; it rests on legal norms recognized by all. In civil society, three forms of government are possible: democracy, aristocracy, monarchy. As a result of the social contract, the war of all against all ends: citizens voluntarily limit their personal freedom, receiving reliable protection in return.

During this period, the Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico(1668-1744) tried to create the basis for a new science of society, to develop a scheme for the "movement of nations." This attempt was then the only one. Basically, all research in this area was characterized by fragmentary, unsystematic nature, in connection with which one cannot say about the emergence of sociology as a science at that time. The analysis of society, human behavior in a group, issues of heterogeneity and inequality has not attracted sufficient attention of researchers, and achievements in the study of social phenomena have been small compared with successes in other areas of scientific activity.

Giambattista Vico(1668-1744) in the era of the Enlightenment developed the principles of the historical method and knowledge of the "civil world", completely created by people. According to Vico, the origin of all social institutions should be sought in the "modifications of consciousness" of people, and not in any external force, managing people like puppets. Moreover social order arises and develops " naturally... under certain circumstances of human necessity or benefit ”. Since history and the civil world are completely created by people according to their understanding, they are subject to systematization, and if you create an appropriate method, you can turn history into a science no less accurate than geometry. Vico proposed a number of rules: if the periods in history are identical, then we can talk about the analogy of one period to another, but one should not extend ideas and categories of modernity to separate epochs; similar periods alternate in approximately the same order; history moves in a spiral, and not in a circle, entering the traditional phase in a new form (the law of cyclical evolution). Emphasizing the specificity of historical eras, Vico sees the unity of world history, seeks to find common, recurring and essential in history different nations and countries. Each society goes through an evolutionary cycle, consisting of three successively replacing each other stages ("age of the gods", "age of heroes" and "age of people") and ending with the crisis and death of the given society. The specifics of the “internal” history of each era depends on the characteristics of “morals” (by which Vico understands not only the moral and traditional way of life of the nation, but also the economic one), legal institutions, forms of government and methods of legitimizing power, interpersonal communication and characteristic stereotypes of thinking. These factors are manifested in the concrete-eventual course of history as the “struggle of estates” and the dynamic logic of socio-political forms of social life corresponding to its vicissitudes. Fixing the state of contemporary European nations in the phase of the “century of people” (“civil era”), Vico reveals the main impulse of historical changes in the confrontation between the plebeians and the aristocracy. Their struggle (plebeians strive to change the social organization, aristocrats - to preserve it) leads to a consistent change in power-organizing forms from aristocracy through democracy to monarchy. The disintegration of the monarchy is accompanied by the disintegration of the entire social organism and the destruction of civilization. The historical cycle is renewed, starting again from the religious stage of development. But there is no absolute repetition in history and will not be, since there is freedom of human decision. If specific events of the cyclical “movement of nations” may differ, then the very law of cyclical reproduction of essential forms of cultural and historical wholes is unified and universal, supporting the thesis, important for Vico, about the “return of human things” (then rooted in the philosophy of F. Nietzsche and O. Spengler ).

Sociology has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and historical events French Revolution, which had a significant impact on the further development of mankind. Here one should name such thinkers as Vico (1668-1744), Montesquieu (1689-1755), Voltaire (1694-1778), Rousseau (1712-1778), Helvetia (1715-1771), Turgot (1727-1781), Condorcet (1743-1794).

Later, the figures of the Enlightenment era radically changed the view of society and the place of man in it. Claude Adrian Helvetius, Denis Diderot, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire begin to analyze the structure of society, determine the origins of the development of inequality, the emergence of heterogeneity in society, and identify the role of religion in social processes. Having created a mechanical, rational model of society, they singled out the individual as an independent subject, whose behavior depends mainly on his own volitional efforts.

Charles Louis Montesquieu (1689-1755). He played a special role in creating the ideological and theoretical basis of sociological science. The main work “On the Spirit of Laws”. He sets out to understand history, to see a certain order in the multitude of customs, mores, habits, ideas, various socio-political institutions. Behind the chain of events that seem random, he tries to see the patterns that govern these events. Many things, he noted, govern people: climate, religion, laws, principles of government, examples of the past, manners, customs; as a result of this, a common spirit of the people is formed.

In his works, Montesquieu gave Special attention political and state institutions. Of particular interest are his ideas about the separation of powers and three types of government (democracy, aristocracy, despotism), which later became the basis for the political structure of modern bourgeois-democratic states.

The emergence of the theory of geographical determinism is largely associated with the name of Montesquieu. He studied the influence of climate, geographic environment, population on various aspects of socio-political and economic life. In his opinion, the nature of the political regime depends on the size of the territory occupied by the state. For example, Montesquieu believed that a republic by its nature requires a small territory, a monarchical state should be of medium size, and the vast size of an empire is a prerequisite for despotic government.

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Developed the concept of “ordre naturel” (natural order), which, thanks to the social contract, turns into “ordre positif” (“positive order”).

Unlike Hobbes, Rousseau does not believe that humans are naturally hostile to each other. In his understanding, a person is by nature good, free and self-sufficient.

The primitive state of the human community is characterized by the freedom and equality of all. The period of coming out of the state of savagery, when a person becomes a social being, seemed to him the happiest era - the “golden age”.

Further troubles for humanity arise as social inequality increases. As a result of the division of labor, there is an appropriation of only a few who enter into a social contract with the have-nots based on inequality and lack of freedom of the have-nots.

In this way, inequality is fixed with the help of a contract. It can only be eliminated by transferring the rights of all individuals to society during the voting process, when the interests of individuals are neutralized and a common will is justified. In this social contract, the position of people is twofold: on the one hand, they are independent as part of the sovereign, and on the other, as subjects, they are forced to submit to the common will. Rousseau substantiates the legitimacy of the revolutionary coup: the people have the right to "throw off the yoke" and "regain freedom", since slavery is contrary to the very nature of man. The basis of Rousseau's political theory is the doctrine of popular sovereignty as the implementation of a common will. She, in turn, acts as a source of laws, a measure of justice and the main principle of management.

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

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

58 Hobbes T. Leviathan or matter, form and power of the church and civil state. M., 1936, p. 113. Hereinafter, for brevity this work will be designated "Leviathan". See also: Hobbes T. Philosophical foundations of the doctrine of the citizen. M., 1914, p. 22 ff.

This equality of people, meaning their equal opportunities to harm each other, combined with the three main causes of war rooted in human nature (rivalry, distrust, love of glory) leads, according to Hobbes, to the fact that the state of nature turns out to be a general incessant war .. " Hence, it is obvious, - he writes, - that while people live without a common power that keeps all of them in fear, they are in the state that is called war, and it is in the state of war of all against all ”59.

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

Hobbes defines natural law as follows: “Natural law, usually called jus naturale by writers, is the freedom of every person to use his own powers at his own discretion to preserve his own nature, that is, his own life, and, therefore, the freedom to do all that what, according to his own judgment and understanding, is the most suitable means for this ”eo.

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

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

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

™ Hobbes T. Leviathan, p. 115.60 Ibid, p. 117.

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

Man is a rational being, and the general rule and prescription of reason, according to Hobbes, sounds like this: "... the whole" man must strive for peace, since he has a hope to achieve it, if he cannot achieve it, then he can to use all means that give an advantage in war ”e2.

This prescription of the mind, testifying to Hobbes's peculiar rationalistic (appealing to reason) approach to the topic under discussion, contains both the rules of behavior in the natural state (in the second part of the given form we are talking about the natural law sanctioned by reason), and the rule of exiting the natural state of the universal war to peace (first part of the formula). The first part of Hobbesian maxim of reason acts as the first and fundamental natural law: one should seek the world and follow it.

From this basic natural law, Hobbes, resorting to deduction, deduces a number of other natural laws that concretize the rule of the search for civil peace between people63.

So, the second natural law says that in the case of consent of other people, a person must agree to give up the right to all things to the extent that it is necessary in the interests of peace and self-defense, and be content with such a degree of freedom in relation to other people, which he would tolerate other people in relation to himself. Hobbes notes that the requirement of this law is already represented in the well-known Gospel formula: act towards others as you would like others to act towards you.

In its other formulation, which summarizes, according to Hobbes, the main meaning of all natural laws, this rule says: do not do to another what you would not want to be done to you.

"Ibid. Vg Ibid., P. U8.

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

8 V.S.Nersesyants 225

The third natural law requires people to abide by the agreements they make. This law, according to Hobbes, contains the source and the beginning of justice. Injustice is non-fulfillment of a contract, and anything that is not unfair is fair.

However, agreements based on trust are invalid where there is concern about their failure (i.e., in the natural state). “That is why,” he writes, “before the words just and unjust can take place, there must be some kind of coercive power that, by the threat of punishment outweighing the benefit that people expect from their violation of the agreement, would compel people equally to comply with them. agreements and would strengthen the property that people acquire through mutual agreements in return for renouncing universal law. And such power can appear with the foundation of the state ”64.

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

Other natural laws formulated by Hobbes require observance of the rules of gratitude, appreciation, modesty, mercy, forgiveness, inviolability of peace mediators, impartial and impartial resolution of disputes, etc.

Natural laws are immutable and eternal. “For, - explains Hobbes, - injustice, ingratitude, arrogance, pride, crookedness, disingenuousness and other vices can never become legitimate, since it can never be that war preserves life, and peace ruins it” c6.

64 Hobbes T. Leviathan, p. 127.

85 One of the laws of nature prohibits drunkenness and everything that deviates the mind from its natural state, thereby destroying or diminishing the ability to reason. The basis for the formulation of this law is as follows: natural law is the dictate of the right mind (recta ratio), and the latter in its natural state is “an act of reasoning, that is. own and true reasoning of each individual person about his actions, which can lead to benefit or harm for other people ”(T. Hobbes Philosophical Foundations of the Doctrine of the Citizen, pp. 30, 53-54).

66 Hobbes T. Leviathan, p. 137.

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

Hobbes notes the inaccuracy of applying the name law to the prescriptions of the mind, which are the "natural laws" formulated by him. “For,” he continues, “these prescriptions are only conclusions or theorems about what leads to the preservation and protection of human life, while law in its own sense means the prescription of one who rightfully commands others. However, if we consider these very theorems as proclaimed by God, who rules all but the right, then they are correctly called laws ”67.

The existence of natural laws alone does not yet lead to peace and security. These laws can only be guaranteed by a general power that keeps people at bay and directs their actions towards the common good. Such a shared power, according to Hobbesian contract theory the emergence of the state can be established only by concentrating all power and all power in one person or an assembly of people, bringing all the wills of the parties to the agreement into a single will. A multitude of people united in this way in one person (sovereign) is the state (civitas).

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

Ibid, p. 138.

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

Among the powers of the sovereign, Hobbes specifically singles out such rights as the establishment of laws, the punishment of lawbreakers, the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace, the administration of justice, the establishment of a system of organs, the prohibition of harmful doctrines leading to the violation of the peace, etc. However, the powers of the sovereign are not limited to this. since the listed morals, according to Hobbes, imply other rights that are necessary for the implementation of the tasks of the state.

The supreme power in any form of state (democracy, aristocracy or monarchy) is, according to Hobbes, absolute: it is "as vast as one can imagine" 70.

Concerning the question of the duties of a sovereign, Hobbes notes: “The duties of a sovereign (be it a monarch or an assembly) are determined by the purpose for which he was invested with supreme power, namely, the purpose of ensuring the safety of the people, to which he is obliged by natural law and for which he is responsible to God, the creator of this law, and before anyone else ”71.

At the same time, Hobbes writes that “there are certain rights that cannot be thought of, so that someone could concede or alienate them with words or signs.” 72 Among these inalienable (natural) human rights, he names the right to resist those who encroach on him life and health, who wants to impose chains on him or imprison him.

In general terms, Hobbes notes that "every subject has freedom in respect of all that the right to which cannot be alienated by agreement" 73. So, no agreement can oblige a person to accuse himself and confess to the charge being brought, to kill or injure himself or another, refrain from food, use

water and air, the use of medicines and other things necessary for life. The subject is free to disobey the orders of the sovereign to carry out such actions if, Hobbes emphasizes, our refusal to obey in such cases does not undermine the purpose for which the supreme power was established.

The rest of the freedoms of the subjects “flow from the default of the law” 74. Where the sovereign has not prescribed any rules, the subject is free to do or not do anything at his own discretion. The measure and volume of such freedom of subjects in different states depend on the circumstances of place and time and are determined by the supreme power, its ideas about expediency, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

74 Ibid, p. 178.

76 Ibid, p. 151.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only with the establishment of the state natural (moral) laws become valid laws ("orders of the state", "civil laws"), due to the fact that the supreme power obliges people to obey them. Taking this into account, Hobbes says that “natural and civil laws coincide in content and have the same scope”, that “natural law is in all states of the world a part of civil law, and the latter, in turn, is a part of the prescriptions of nature” 81. He further explains that civil and natural laws are “not different kinds, but various parts rights,

80 Ibid., P. 214.

81 Ibid, p. 209.

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

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

Among civil laws (that is, positive human laws) Hobbes singles out distributive and criminal laws84. Distributive laws are addressed to all subjects and determine their rights, indicating the ways of acquiring and maintaining property, the order of claims, etc. The speech here is essentially about issues of private law (substantive and procedural).

Criminal laws, according to Hobbes, are addressed to officials and determine penalties for violations of the law. Although each person should be informed in advance about these punishments, however, the command here, in Hobbes's opinion, is not addressed to the criminal, from whom one cannot expect that he will honestly punish himself.

In addition, he divides laws into basic and non-basic. ”To the main, he considers laws obliging subjects to support the power of the sovereign, without which the state will perish.

82 Ibid, p. 210. Therefore, the current customs as a non-copy

Hobbes considers the natural law to be a natural law (i.e., not position

tive, not civil law). However, these contradictions

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

recognizes the possibility of an oral form of civil law,

in light of which the latter cannot be characterized as

The "written part" of all laws. By the way, Hobbes should have

talk about natural and civil law as different

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

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

military law, moreover, interpreted by him as a right in the subjective

nom, not in an objective sense.

83 Ibid, p. 208.

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

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

Along with civil laws (as opposed to natural laws), Hobbes also singles out divine laws - God's commandments addressed to a certain people or certain persons and declared as laws by those who were authorized by God to do so.

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

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

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

Legislation, therefore, becomes a tool for the implementation of important spiritual and ideological attitudes and beliefs. This, however, also follows from Hobbes's judgments about managerial, control, and

88 Ibid, p. 223.

87 Ibid, p. 223-224.

the sovereign's authority over scientific doctrines and public opinion.

Assuming that "people's actions are determined by their opinions," 88 Hobbes sees good management of opinions as a path to good management of people's actions in order to establish "peace and harmony" among them. And although he notes that he recognizes the truth as the only criterion for the suitability or inadequacy of this or that doctrine, he believes that this does not contradict the verification of this doctrine from the standpoint of the "cause of the world", which in his usage means, in fact, the highest, absolutely uncontrolled statist interests.

Thus, he believes that it is “the competence of the supreme power to judge which opinions and teachings impede and which contribute to the establishment of peace, and, therefore, in what cases, in what framework and what people may be given the right to make speeches. to the masses and who should consider the doctrines of all books before they are published ”8E. People who are ready to take up arms to defend and enforce this or that opinion are in a state of suspended hostilities, in a state of discord and continuous preparation for civil war. Hobbes resolves this struggle of opinions and teachings with the help of censorship - “judges of opinions and teachings” 90 appointed by the sovereign.

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

Freedom in Hobbes's interpretation is a synonym for the natural

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

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

89 Ibid, p. 150.

90 Ibid, p. 151.

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

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

Paralyzed by the fear of revolution and civil war and busy with the search for internal harmony, Hobbes, in fact, completely ignores the problem of peace and war between states. Everywhere by "peace" he means the inner peace, namely the state of obedience of subjects to the authorities. But even here, in the sphere of the Hobbesian construction of civil status, overcoming war and achieving peace is very illusory, since a free sovereign in his relationship with unfree subjects in essence (and according to the specific natural-legal meaning of Hobbesian interpretation of freedom) is in a natural state (not connected by anything , has the right to everything, etc.).

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

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

Such a legal understanding, proceeding from the statist concept (uncontrolled freedom of the state, sovereign, civil power in general), makes Hobbes the founder of bourgeois legal positivism. Leading representatives of this trend (J. Austin, Sh. Amos, K. Gerber, P. Laband, G.F. Shershenevich and others) accept and defend (in varying modifications and variations) the main idea of ​​Hobbesian interpretation: positive law ( Hobbes has a positive law) - this is an order of the sovereign.

Thus, J. Austin characterized law as “an aggregate of rules established by a political leader or sovereign,” and stressed: “Every right is a command, an order” 91. Likewise, according to Sh. Amos, “the right is the order of the supreme political power the state in order to control the actions of individuals in this community ”92. GF Shershenevich adhered to similar views. “Any rule of law,” he wrote, is an order ”° 3. Law, according to him, is a “product of the state”, and state power is characterized by it as “that initial fact, from which the norms of law proceed, clinging to each other” 94.

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

Essentially in common in their positions is that under the conditions of statehood, only positive law (positive law), understood as an imperative order, is recognized as law. Denial of meaningful

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

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

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

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

"4 Ibid, p. 314.

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

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