Hobbes, history, and non-domination

Pettit's and Skinner's stimulating books are open to historically-minded objections. Pettit's reading of Hobbes is Rousseauian, but he rejects the Hobbesian/Rousseauian belief that some modern people are driven by amour-propre/“glory”. If Hobbes is right, there is, in Pettit's sense, no “common good”. Skinner's treatment of the neo-Roman “theorists” over-estimates their self-consciousness and their consistency. Leviathan chapter 21 is not a response to neo-Romanism; it treats civil liberty as non-obligation, not as non-interference.

The lion and the ox: Oakeshotts engagement with Leo Strauss on Hobbes

Recent studies of Michael Oakeshott have stressed the mutually constitutive importance of Hobbes to Oakeshott, arguing in part that Oakeshott’s Hobbes largely reflected his own concerns and broader philosophical project. This paper does not dispute this, but proposes a complementary account: Oakeshott’s interpretation of Hobbes was also formed in large measure by both his sympathy for Leo Strauss’s account and by his perception of it as the principal rival to his own. To demonstrate the existence of such a formative engagement, a close reading of Oakeshott’s essay The moral life in the writings of Thomas Hobbes is undertaken. Not only is Oakeshott found to have absorbed much of Strauss’s interpretation (surprisingly including Strauss’s distinction between esoteric and exoteric doctrines), the key impetus of the essay is shown to be a refutation of Strauss’s characterization of Hobbes as a ‘moralist of the common good’.

'The Elements' and Hobbesian moral thinking

It is easy to read Hobbes's moral thinking as a deviant contribution to 'modern' natural law, especially if Leviathan (1651) is read through a lens provided by De Cive (1642). But The Elements of Law (1640) encourages the view that Hobbes's argument is 'physicalist', that is, that it requires no premises beyond those required by his physics of matter in motion. The Elements included a draft De Homine and its argument is intimately connected with De Cive's; it shows how such concepts as 'reason', 'right', 'natural law' and 'obligation' can be understood in physicalist terms. But Hobbes's decision to print the latter work in isolation has led to serious misunderstandings

Unwritten law in Hobbesian political thought

In Hobbesian terminology, ‘unwritten laws’ are natural laws enforced within a polity, by a non-sovereign judge, without some previous public promulgation. This article discusses the idea in the light of successive Hobbesian accounts of ‘law’ and ‘obligation’. Between De Cive and Leviathan, Hobbes dropped the idea that natural law is strictly speaking law, but he continued to believe unwritten laws must form a part of any legal system. He was unable to explain how such a law could claim a legal status. His loyalty to the notion, in spite of all the trouble that it caused, is a sign of his belief that moral knowledge is readily accessible to all.