The natural state of society according to Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes's doctrine of state and law

Thomas Hobbes believed: “Natural law (lex naturalis) is a prescription, or a general rule found by reason, according to which a person prohibited do what is detrimental to his life and that deprives him of the means to preserve it, and neglect what he believes the best remedy to save life. "

In Leviathan Thomas Hobbes enumerates 19 natural laws:

"1). The precept or general rule of reason says that every person must seek peace if he has a hope of achieving it, but if he cannot achieve it, then he can use any means that give an advantage in war. The first part of this rule contains the first and basic law that one should seek peace 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.

2). The second law orders to renounce the right to everything, in other words, from the rights inherent in the natural (pre-state) state, which are the cause of all human strife. So: “In the case of consent of others, 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 allow in relation to to yourself". Hobbes comments on this rule in the words of the Gospel: “So, in everything you want people to do to you, so do you to them” (Matt. 7, 12). And this is the law of all people: quod tibi fieri pop vis, alteri ne feceris (what you don’t want for yourself, don’t do to others) ”.

3). The third law prescribes that the agreements entered into are carried out. On this basis, justice and injustice arise (it is fair to adhere to agreements, it is unfair to violate them).

These three fundamental laws are followed by sixteen others, which we will briefly discuss.

4). The fourth law (gratitude) is to return the benefits received so that others do not repent of their good deeds and continue to do them; this is where gratitude and ingratitude come from.

6). The sixth law (it is easy to forgive offenses) prescribes that when the necessary guarantees for the future are received, all those who repented and ask for forgiveness should be forgiven.

7). The seventh law says that even in revenge (ie, retribution by evil for evil), people must conform not to the size of the evil committed, but to the size of the good that will follow the revenge. " Failure to comply with this law breeds cruelty.

eight). The eighth law is against insult: "no person should by deed, word, facial expression or gesture show hatred or contempt for another." Violation of this law is insult.

nine). The ninth law (against pride) requires each person to recognize the other as his equal by nature; violation of this law is pride. (This is a clear confusion of several contexts: indeed, it is easier to govern a state when citizens have equal rights, but people - and this was well known already in the time of Thomas Hobbes, possess substantially different (i.e. unequal) abilities and achievements - Approx. I.L. Vikentieva)

10). The Tenth Law (Against Arrogance) prescribes that no one should claim any right for himself if he would not agree to grant it to any other person; hence humility and arrogance arise.

eleven). The Eleventh Law (Impartiality) prescribes that those who are entrusted with the duty to judge (adjudicate) two people, to behave fairly in relation to both; from here comes justice and impartiality. Violation of this law of partiality (prosopolepsia).

The remaining eight laws prescribe the equal use of common things, the rule to entrust the use of indivisible property by lot (natural or established by agreement), a guarantee of immunity for peace mediators, an arbitration court, conditions of fitness for an impartial trial, and the legality of testimony. Nevertheless, these laws by themselves are not enough to build a society, we also need the power to enforce laws: "treaties without a sword that forces them to be observed" are not suitable for achieving the set goal. Precisely because of this, according to Hobbes, it is necessary that all people elect one single person (or assembly) to represent their interests.

However, it is clear that the "social contract" was concluded not by subjects with the ruler, but by subjects among themselves.(The social contract that will offer Russo.) The ruler remains outside the framework of the contract as the only custodian of those rights that were refused by the subjects, and, therefore, the only one who retained all the original rights. If the ruler also entered into the treaty, civil wars could not have been prevented, because soon various contradictions and strife in government would arise. The power of the supreme ruler (or assembly, assembly) is indivisible and absolute in this very radical theory of the absolutist state, derived not from "God's grace" (as before), but from the above-described "social contract". "

Giovanni Reale and Dario Antiseri, Western Philosophy from the Origins to the Present, Volume 3, New Time, St. Petersburg, "Petropolis", 1996, p. 316-317.

Pre-state (natural) state, the emergence of the state and the status of state sovereignty according to T. Hobbes

The source of the doctrine of law and the state is the doctrine of the pre-state (natural) state - this is the state in which society dwells before the state. According to Hobbes, the pre-state state is formed by natural rights. That is, each person, in interaction with others, freely realizes natural rights. To get out of the natural state, people create a state.

The source of the state is a social contract, the essence of which is the voluntary transfer by members of society of their natural rights to a person or group of persons gaining power.

According to Hobbes, the state is the only object of power and absolute sovereign.

Unlike Machiavelli, Hobbes's theory of statism is based on the concept of natural law.

Hobbes distinguishes between the pre-state, i.e. natural, state (status naturalis) and state, i.e. civil, status (status civilis).

In the natural state, man acts as a physical body and is governed by natural law (jus naturale). Natural law 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 whatever, in his own judgment and understanding, is the most appropriate means for this. "

The natural state is a state of war of all against all (bellum omnium contra omnes); a state of constant fear for your life.

However, people have a natural mind that prescribes them to follow natural laws (leges naturalis) - unchanging and eternal. Natural law (lex naturalis) - "a general rule found by reason, according to which a person is prohibited from doing what is detrimental to his life or that deprives him of the means to preserve it, and to miss what he considers the best means to preserve life."

Hobbes distinguishes three fundamental natural laws.

1. Law as a goal: “one should seek peace and follow

2. Law as a means: “in the case of consent of others

people must agree to give up the right to all things

insofar as it is necessary in the interests of peace and

defense, and be content with such a degree of freedom for

relation to other people, which he would have admitted to another

some people in relation to themselves. " Give up the right to

all things mean for Hobbes “to abolish the imu

society "and establish the right of ownership, lack of co

which in its natural state is the cause of the “war of all

against all".

3. Law as a duty: “people must fulfill the imprisoned

the agreements they have made, without which agreements have no nickname

whose meaning ”(pacta sunt servanda).

Hobbes is a materialist. He believed that a person is a body in the world of bodies: “After all, a person is not only a physical body; he is also part of the state, in other words, part of the political body. And for this reason he should be treated equally as a person and as a citizen. "

Hobbes identifies three forms of government of the state:

Monarchy;

Aristocracy;

Democracy.

Monarchy is a form of government in which common interests coincide most of all with private interests: "The wealth, power and glory of the monarch are conditioned by the wealth, power and glory of his subjects."

Aristocracy is a form of government in which "the supreme power belongs to the assembly of only a part of the citizens."

Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power belongs to the assembly of all.

Hobbes criticized the monarchy, because the inheritance of supreme power can go to a minor or someone who cannot distinguish between good and evil. But democracy also provoked his criticism, since with regard to the solution of questions of war and peace and in relation to the drafting of laws, it finds itself in "the same position as if the supreme power were in the hands of a minor."

The image of the state. The state is presented to Hobbes by Leviathan. Leviathan is a sea monster reported in the Bible. Leviathan's body is covered with scales, each of which symbolizes a citizen of the state, and in his hands - symbols state power: "For art created that great Leviathan, which is called the state (in Latin civitas) and which is only an artificial man, although larger in size and stronger than natural man, for the protection and protection of which he was created."

Hobbes draws analogies between the state as an artificial man and man as such: the supreme power is the soul; magistrates - joints; reward and punishment - nerves; the well-being and wealth of individuals is strength; the safety of the people is an occupation; justice and laws - artificial intelligence and will; civil peace - health; distemper is a disease; civil war is death.

Thomas Hobbes has made tremendous contributions to science and philosophy. In his work "On the Body" the English thinker managed to reveal his understanding of the subject of philosophy to the fullest extent. Answering the question "what is philosophy", Hobbes, like other leading thinkers of his era, opposed scholasticism, which existed as the official philosophy of the Christian church in most Western European countries.

Philosophy is divided by Hobbes into two main parts: the philosophy of nature and the philosophy of the state. The first is concerned with natural bodies, which are products of nature. The second explores the phenomena social life, and first of all the state, which forms an artificial, political body, created on a contractual basis by the people themselves. To know the state, it is necessary to first study the person, the inclinations and customs of people united in a civil society. This is the philosophy of morality. 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 the state.

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

The philosopher believes that although initially all people were created equal in terms of physical and mental abilities, and each of them has the same "right to everything" with others, but man is also a deeply egoistic being, overwhelmed by greed, fear and ambition. He is surrounded only by envious people, rivals, enemies. "Man is a wolf to man." Therefore, the philosopher believes that in the very nature of people there are reasons for rivalry, mistrust and fear, which lead to hostile clashes and violent actions aimed at destroying or conquering others. Added to this are the lust for fame and division of opinion, which also leads people to resort to violence. Hence the fatal inevitability in society "... war of all against all, when everyone is governed 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. / compiled by editor V.V. Sokolov, translated from Latin and English. - M .: Thought. 1991 p.99. To have the "right to everything" in such a war means "... to have the right to everything, even to 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 - “... 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 for human life ”T. Hobbes decree op. with. 99. In such a war, people use sophisticated violence to subjugate others or to defend themselves.

One way or another, but “... people are naturally prone to greed, fear, anger and other animal passions”, they seek “honor and benefits,” they act “for the sake of benefit or glory, that is, 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 believe that they are evil by nature. After all, evil is not the desires of people themselves, 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 should be borne in mind that people "by nature are deprived of upbringing and are not trained to obey reason."

It is about the state of general war and confrontation that Hobbes writes as about the "natural state of the human race" and interprets it as the absence of civil society, i.e. government organization, state and legal regulation of people's lives. In a word, in a society where there is no state organization and management, arbitrariness and lawlessness reign, "and a person's life is lonely, poor, hopeless, stupid and short-lived." However, in the nature of people, according to Hobbes, not only are forces that plunge individuals into the abyss of "war of all against all", people yearn to get out of this miserable state, strive to create guarantees of peace and security. After all, the properties of a completely different plan are inherent in man; they are such that they induce individuals to find a way out of such a disastrous state of nature. First of all, it is fear, death and the instinct of self-preservation, dominating over other passions "... the desire for things necessary for a good life, and the hope to acquire them by their hard work." T. Hobbes decree op. with. 98 Along with them, the natural mind appears, i.e. the ability of everyone to reasonably reason about positive and negative consequences their actions. Feelings and reason dictate to people the need to abandon the natural state and transition to a civil society, to a state structure. As a result of such aspirations, natural law - “i.e. freedom of every person to use his own strength at his own discretion to preserve his own life ”ibid p. 98 gives way to the natural law, according to which “a person is prohibited from doing what is detrimental 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 (they are expressed by the prescriptions of natural reason) are what is 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 do something, while the law determines and obliges one or the other." Thus, natural law is not the result of an agreement between people, but is a prescription of the human mind. According to Hobbes, natural laws proceed from human nature itself and are divine only in the sense that reason "is given to each person by God as a measure of his actions," and moral institutions Scripture, although declared to people by God himself, can be deduced independently of him "by means of inferences from the concept of natural law", that is, with the help of reason. The main general prescription of reason according to Hobbes says that every person should seek peace if he has a hope of achieving it; if he cannot achieve it, then he can use any means that give an advantage in the war.

Therefore, the first part of the basic natural law deduced 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 deduces, relying on his synthetic method, the rest of 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 the right is made according to Hobbes, or a simple renunciation of it, or 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 wrong to demand renunciation of the right to resist violence, attempts at imprisonment, imprisonment, etc. Mutual transfer of rights is carried out by people in the form of a contract - "An agreement is the action of two or many persons transferring their rights to each other." In the event that a contract is concluded about something that relates to the future, it is called an agreement. Agreements can be made by people, either under the influence of fear or voluntarily.

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

In "Leviathan" Hobbes, in addition to the three indicated, indicated 16 more natural (unchanging 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 be cruel, vindictive, arrogant, treacherous, etc. So, for example, the sixth natural law says: if there is a guarantee for the future, a person should forgive past offenses to those who, showing repentance, desire it. Hobbes Decree Op. 177 The ninth law stipulates that each person must recognize others as equal by nature. Breaking this rule is the pride of Hobbes' edict 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 should judge them impartially. Otherwise, disputes between people can only be resolved by war. T. Hobbes decree op. P.119 The Sixteenth Law states that in the event of a dispute, the parties must submit to their decision by the arbitrator. ibid. 121

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

As noted by Doctor of Law L.S. Mamut, the real socio-historical prototypes of those natural laws, about which T. Hobbes interprets, are the interconnections 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 act, according to the concept of T. Hobbes, the prerequisites for the establishment of peace in the human community. History of political and legal doctrines: Textbook for universities. 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 is, they themselves are not obligatory for execution. Only force can turn them into an unconditional imperative of behavior. For Hobbes, a natural law, as we have already noted, is the freedom to do something or not to do something, and a positive law is a prescription to do or, conversely, not to do something. Natural laws oblige the individual to desire their implementation, but they cannot force him to practically act in accordance with them. It is imperative that a force is needed that can severely limit everyone's right to everything and decide what belongs to whom, what is right, and what is not.

The absolute power of the state is, according to T. Hobbes, the guarantor of peace and the implementation of natural laws. She forces the individual to comply with them by issuing civil laws. If natural laws are coupled with reason, then civil laws are based on force. However, in their content, they are 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 a simple expression of the 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 to subordinate state power to law.

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

Hobbes based his teaching on the study of the nature and passions of man. It is in the very nature of humans that there are reasons for rivalry, mistrust and fear that lead to hostile clashes and violent actions aimed at destroying or subjugating others. Added to this is the lust for fame and division of opinion, which also leads 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 to defend themselves. 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 this 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 natural state, the philosopher noted, only natural law operates, allowing a person "to do whatever he wants and against anyone." The measure of law in the natural state is the benefit, 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 strength and abilities of people from creative activity. people yearn to get out of this miserable state, strive to create guarantees of peace and security. Feelings and reason dictate to them the need to abandon the natural state and transition to a state structure. As a result of such aspirations, natural law gives way to natural law, according to which "a person is prohibited from doing what is detrimental to his life or that deprives him of the means to preserve it." According to Hobbes, one should distinguish between right and law, for right consists in the freedom to do or not 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 preserve one's life, but also to make it pleasant - these are, according to Hobbes, the feelings that incline people to peace. Reason prompts people the way that can provide them with a peaceful life and prosperity. Such a dictate of the "right mind" is the natural law that prescribes people to seek peace and harmony.

The first and basic natural law says: you need to look for peace wherever you can achieve it; where peace cannot be achieved, help must be sought to wage war. From the basic law Hobbes deduces the rest of natural laws. At the same time, he attaches special importance to the second natural law, which says: "... the right of everyone to everything cannot be preserved, it is necessary either to transfer some rights to others, or to refuse them." Hobbes mentions nineteen natural laws in total 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, treacherous, etc. Summarizing all natural laws, Hobbes reduces them to one general rule: "do not do to others what you would not wish to be done in relation to you."

People, in connection with the inevitable extermination while being in such a state for a long time, in order to preserve their lives and the common peace, give up part of their "natural rights" and, according to a secretly concluded social contract, endow them with the one who undertakes to preserve the free use of the remaining rights - the state ... The state, the union of people, in which the will of one (state) is obligatory for all, is delegated the task of regulating relations between all people.

The conclusion of a treaty 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 timing of their fulfillment.

The social contract is fundamental and long lasting, covering all individuals. People unite in society and conclude an agreement with each other out of fear of each other and to create a sovereign power that would maintain a state of balance. The treaty terminates with the disappearance of this power and as a result of the abdication of the monarch, the capture of the state by enemies, and the suppression of the royal family. Termination of the contract is allowed only in one case - when it ceases to correspond to the main purpose of its existence - to ensure the safety 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 a completely new interpretation contract theory, using it to apologize for a strong and even tyrannical state. His theory of the state of nature, unlike previous ones, does not proceed from what people once were in antiquity, but seeks to explain what they can potentially become if authoritarian state power is excluded from interference in their lives. Therefore, although Hobbes uses the terminology of the contractual theory, he formulated a new modification of it, which, according to a number of researchers, stands outside the mainstream of political thought.

Based on this, his main contribution in the long term is recognized, not the development of the theory of the social contract, but 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 tend to agree aspirations, says Hobbes, human society characterized by unity of will. This unity makes it possible to speak of civil society or the state as a single entity in which the common will is embodied. Based on the consent of many people acting under the influence of fear, this common will appears as the will of all of them. Thus, Hobbes sees in the general will some kind of abstract construction, different from a simple aggregate of individual wills and this strongly resembles its subsequent interpretation of Rousseau, who owes much to the English thinker. The mass of people standing outside the state and representing its ruler (be it an assembly or one person) is unable to independently express their will. therefore initial stage formation of any state should be considered 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 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 main condition of the social contract (preserving the safety of the 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 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 outside encroachments by the state. He holds in his hands the sword of war and justice, appoints and dismisses officials and servants of the state, and finally evaluates various teachings. Hobbes compares the state with the biblical monster - Leviathan, seeking to emphasize the boundlessness 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 does the state acquire a single will, just as a person has it thanks to his soul. Sovereignty for Hobbes is identical with absolute power and presupposes absolute submission to it. The general will or will of the state is not bound by civil law or obligations in relation to individual citizens, who must unquestioningly fulfill 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. Consequently, the water contained in the vessel is not free, but if the vessel is broken, it is released. He who is kept in a spacious dungeon has more 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 Hobbesian doctrine has traditionally been interpreted as a theoretical basis for the absolutism of modern times. There are substantial grounds for this, as we have seen. It is important, however, to note that the teachings of Hobbes can equally be interpreted in favor of a 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 stratum, 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 negates 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 the separation of powers is unequivocally rejected, the implementation of which in practice, for example, in the mixed monarchy of Aristotle, leads to the consolidation of 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 tycoons, and the decision of the question of war and peace - with the monarch. The fundamental drawback of such a separation of powers, Hobbes believes, 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 can result in the collapse of the social contract - a civil war, i.e. that is, the actual revival of the natural state with its anarchy and the war of all against all. Hobbes therefore considers only unitary government to be reasonable, 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 on power remains with any one institution. The comparison of three forms of power is made in terms of their effectiveness. Democracy, according to Hobbes, is an especially ineffective and expensive form of government, since it distracts a large number of people from work, 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 a threat civil war... All the sympathies of the thinker are on the side of solid monarchical power, which is most consistent with the true interests of the people. The change in the 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, the attitude towards Hobbes was exactly the opposite, but no one can deny his enormous influence.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1649), the English philosopher of the 17th century, in his famous treatise "Levithian, or the matter, form and power of the ecclesiastical and civil state", for the first time, perhaps, expounded 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 a social contract between people is achieved, this is how the state arises.
The main goal of the state is to protect the natural rights of people, the rights to life, 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. Locke is often cited among the main theoreticians of democratic state structure... His ideal is the English constitutional monarchy, in which the balance of interests of the individual and the state is embodied. Locke's views were vividly expressed in the US Declaration of Independence and in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen in France.

J. -J. Rousseau (1712-1778) was one of the greatest representatives of the French Enlightenment. His theory of the social contract differed significantly from both Hobbes's and Locke's. The natural state of people Rousseau interprets the state of primitive harmony with nature. A person does not need social restraints, morality, or systematic work. The ability to self-preserve keeps him from the state of "war of all against all." However, the population is growing, geographic conditions are changing, the abilities and needs of people are developing, which ultimately leads to the establishment of private property. Society is stratified into rich and poor, powerful and oppressed, who are at enmity with each other. Inequality develops gradually: first, wealth and poverty are recognized, then - power and defenselessness, finally - domination and enslavement. Society needs civil peace - a social contract is concluded, according to which power over society is transferred to the state. But the basis of state power, according to Rousseau, is the will and freedom of each individual person. This freedom and will remain absolute, unlimited even after the conclusion of the social contract. Therefore, Rousseau puts forward his famous thesis that the bearer and source of power is the people, which can and should overthrow the authorities that violate the terms of the social contract. The state is not sovereign, the people are superstitious. people make laws, change them, adopt new ones. These views are radical and revolutionary. It was they who formed the basis of the ideology of the most extreme group of revolutionaries during the French Revolution - the Jacobins and served as the justification for the Jacobin terror.