All Thinkers

Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was an English philosopher who lived through one of the most turbulent periods in British history — the English Civil War, the execution of King Charles I, and the Interregnum. He spent years in exile in France and worked as a tutor to the future King Charles II. His most famous work, Leviathan (1651), is one of the foundational texts of Western political philosophy. In it he argued that without government, human life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short — and that people therefore have a rational self-interest in submitting to the authority of a sovereign state. He is considered one of the founders of modern political science and social contract theory.

Origin
England, United Kingdom
Lifespan
1588–1679
Era
early-modern
Subjects
Philosophy Politics History Ethics Sociology
Skills
Critical Thinking Critical Literacy Collaboration
Why They Matter

Hobbes matters because he asked one of the most fundamental questions in political thought: why should anyone obey a government? His answer — that without political authority human life would be unbearable, and that people therefore rationally consent to be governed — laid the groundwork for nearly all subsequent political philosophy, including thinkers who disagreed with him profoundly, like Locke, Rousseau, and Rawls. He matters for students today because his questions are directly relevant to contemporary life: What is government for? What do we give up when we submit to political authority, and what do we get in return? When, if ever, is it legitimate to disobey? His bleak but honest view of human nature also raises questions that connect to psychology, history, and ethics — about whether human beings are fundamentally self-interested, whether violence is our natural state, and what civilisation actually costs.

Key Ideas
1
The state of nature — life without government
Hobbes asked a thought experiment: what would human life be like if there were no government, no laws, and no authority to enforce them? He called this the state of nature. His answer was deeply pessimistic. He argued that without government, every person would have the right to take whatever they needed to survive — which means everyone would be in constant competition and conflict with everyone else. There would be no property, no industry, no arts, no culture — because no one could be secure enough to invest in building anything. Life in the state of nature, he famously wrote, would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
2
The social contract — why people submit to government
Hobbes argued that rational people would choose to escape the state of nature by making a social contract — an agreement to give up some of their unlimited freedom in exchange for security and order. They hand power to a sovereign — a ruler or government — who has the authority to make and enforce laws. In return, the sovereign protects them from violence and chaos. This is not a contract people sign; it is a logical argument about why submitting to government is in everyone's rational self-interest. The key point is that government is not natural or divinely ordained — it is a human creation, justified by its usefulness.
Key Quotations
"The life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
— Leviathan, Chapter 13, 1651
This is Hobbes's most famous phrase — his description of what human life would be like in the state of nature, without government or law. It is one of the most quoted lines in the history of philosophy. The five adjectives are carefully chosen: solitary because there would be no sustained community or cooperation, poor because without security no one could build wealth, nasty because violence would be constant, brutish because life would be driven by animal fear and desire, and short because death would come early. The phrase is worth examining word by word with students: do they agree with each of these adjectives? Is Hobbes right about human nature?
"Covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all."
— Leviathan, Chapter 17, 1651
Hobbes is making a practical argument here: agreements and promises — covenants — mean nothing without enforcement. If there is no power to punish people who break their promises, people will break them whenever it suits them. This is why government is necessary — not because people are evil, but because rational people will not keep agreements that require them to sacrifice their interests unless there is a credible threat of punishment for breaking them. This insight connects directly to game theory, to international relations, and to questions about why treaties, contracts, and laws need enforcement mechanisms to work.
Using This Thinker in the Classroom
Philosophy / Critical Thinking When introducing political philosophy and the question of why governments exist
How to introduce
Start with the thought experiment: imagine there is no government, no police, no laws, no courts. What happens? Give students two minutes to think and then share. After discussion, introduce Hobbes — he asked exactly this question in the 1640s while England was tearing itself apart in civil war. His answer: life would be terrible. And therefore, he argued, we should be very grateful for government and very reluctant to destabilise it. Ask: Do you agree with his description of what would happen? Is he too pessimistic about human nature, or is he realistic?
History / Social Studies When studying the English Civil War, the development of the modern state, or the history of political ideas
How to introduce
Introduce Hobbes as someone who was watching England collapse into civil war as he wrote. The English Civil War killed approximately 200,000 people — more, as a proportion of population, than World War One killed Britain. Hobbes's fear of political chaos was not abstract — he had lived through it. Ask: How does living through a political crisis shape a person's political ideas? Does knowing that Hobbes wrote Leviathan during the Civil War change how you read his argument? Connect to contemporary examples: are there places in the world today where people face the kind of situation Hobbes was describing?
Further Reading

The best accessible introduction to Hobbes for students is A.P.

Martinich's Hobbes

A Biography (1999) which covers both his life and his ideas clearly. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Hobbes is freely available online and is one of the best short academic introductions to his thought.

For a highly accessible classroom treatment

Michael Sandel's Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (2009) places Hobbes in the context of other political philosophers in a very readable way, and Sandel's Harvard lectures on justice are freely available on YouTube.

Key Ideas
1
The Leviathan — what kind of government Hobbes favoured
Hobbes named his most important book after the Leviathan — a great sea monster from the Bible — as a metaphor for the state. He believed the sovereign needed to be powerful enough to prevent the chaos of the state of nature. He favoured a strong central authority — what we would today call an absolute or authoritarian sovereign — who could not be checked, divided, or overthrown by subjects without destroying the order that made civilisation possible. This is one of the most uncomfortable aspects of Hobbes's thought: his logic seems to justify very strong, even tyrannical government as preferable to the alternative of no government at all.
2
Human nature — selfish, fearful, and equal
Hobbes's political philosophy rests on a specific view of human nature. He believed that human beings are fundamentally motivated by self-interest and fear of death — not by altruism, community spirit, or natural sociability. He also argued that human beings are roughly equal in the state of nature — equal enough that even the weakest can kill the strongest, through alliance, cunning, or surprise. This equality is actually part of what makes the state of nature so dangerous: because no one is so powerful that they can dominate everyone else, conflict is constant. This view of human nature has been deeply influential and deeply contested — Rousseau and many others have argued that Hobbes fundamentally misunderstood human beings.
3
The limits of Hobbesian obligation — when can you disobey?
Despite his argument for strong sovereign authority, Hobbes did identify one limit on the obligation to obey: the sovereign's fundamental purpose is to protect your life. If the sovereign orders you to do something that directly threatens your own life — to kill yourself, to confess to a crime you did not commit under pain of death, or to fight in a war — Hobbes argued you retain the natural right of self-preservation. This is a narrow and personal limit, not a general right of revolution or civil disobedience. But it is important: even Hobbes recognised that the social contract has a foundation in the individual's interest in survival.
Key Quotations
"The condition of man is a condition of war of every one against every one."
— Leviathan, Chapter 13, 1651
Hobbes is not saying that the state of nature is a condition of actual constant fighting. He clarifies this: war does not consist only in battle, but in a known disposition to fight when there is no guarantee of the opposite. The state of nature is a state of permanent readiness for conflict — of mutual suspicion and insecurity — even during periods of relative peace. This distinction is important: Hobbes is describing a structural condition, not just a series of violent events. It connects to modern discussions of security dilemmas in international relations, where states arm themselves not because they want war but because they cannot trust that others will not attack them.
"It is not wisdom but authority that makes a law."
— A Dialogue of the Common Laws, 1681
This quotation captures one of Hobbes's most important and controversial ideas: that laws derive their validity not from their content — whether they are wise, just, or good — but from the authority of the sovereign who enacted them. A bad law issued by a legitimate authority is still a law; a wise rule issued by no legitimate authority is not. This is a form of legal positivism — the view that law and morality are separate systems — that has been enormously influential in legal theory and enormously controversial. It raises the question that students should grapple with: should we obey laws simply because they are laws, or only when they meet some standard of justice?
Using This Thinker in the Classroom
Citizenship / Civic Education When discussing why we obey laws and what we owe the state
How to introduce
Ask students: Why do you obey laws? List the answers — fear of punishment, habit, agreement, fairness, because they are right. Then introduce Hobbes: his answer is essentially rational self-interest. We obey because the alternative — no laws, no enforcement — would be worse for everyone, including us. Ask: Is this a satisfying reason to obey the law? Does it matter why we obey, as long as we do? And does Hobbes's argument give us any basis for disobeying unjust laws — or does his logic require us to obey even laws we find deeply wrong?
Politics / International Relations When discussing international relations, the United Nations, or why there is no world government
How to introduce
Introduce the idea that Hobbes's state of nature describes not only individual human beings but also the relationship between states. Nations exist in something like a state of nature in relation to each other — there is no world government to enforce agreements between them, so they must rely on power and negotiation. Ask: Does this help explain why international law is often ineffective? Why countries break treaties when it suits them? Why powerful countries can sometimes act without consequences? What would Hobbes say about the United Nations — is it a genuine solution to the international state of nature, or just a covenant without a sword?
Further Reading

Leviathan itself is worth attempting with strong secondary students — Chapters 13 to 15 and 17 to 18 contain the core political argument and are more accessible than their reputation suggests. A good modern edition with introduction is the Oxford World's Classics version. Quentin Skinner's Hobbes and Republican Liberty (2008) is the most important recent scholarly reinterpretation. For the comparison with Locke: John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689) — particularly Chapters 2, 7, 8, and 19 — is the essential counterpoint text and is freely available online. C.B. Macpherson's The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism (1962) places Hobbes in the context of the emerging market society of 17th-century England.

Key Ideas
1
Hobbes and religion — separating political and divine authority
One of the most important and overlooked aspects of Leviathan is its engagement with religion. Hobbes lived in a period when religious conflict was tearing England apart — Puritans, Anglicans, and Catholics all claimed divine authority for their political positions. Hobbes's response was to argue that religious authority must be subordinated to political authority in all temporal matters: the sovereign decides what religious practice is permitted, and claims to divine authority cannot override the sovereign's law. This was a radical and dangerous argument in his time. It anticipates the modern secular state and the idea that religious belief is a private matter that cannot be used to justify political disobedience or violence.
2
Hobbes versus Locke — two very different social contracts
Hobbes and Locke both used the idea of a social contract but reached very different conclusions. Hobbes argued that the contract creates an absolute sovereign who cannot legitimately be overthrown — because any government, however bad, is better than the chaos of the state of nature. Locke argued that the contract is conditional — it grants government authority only as long as it protects natural rights to life, liberty, and property. If it fails to do this, citizens have the right to revolt. Locke's version directly influenced the American and French Revolutions. The Hobbes-Locke debate is the foundational argument in political philosophy about the relationship between the individual, the state, and legitimate authority — and it has never been fully resolved.
3
Is the state of nature a real thing? Critiques of Hobbes
Hobbes's state of nature has been challenged as a historical fiction that tells us more about 17th-century European anxieties than about actual human prehistory. Anthropological research suggests that many pre-state societies were not characterized by constant violent conflict — cooperative, relatively peaceful communities existed without the kind of centralised authority Hobbes thought was necessary. Jean-Jacques Rousseau offered the sharpest early critique: he argued that Hobbes described not natural human beings but already-socialised humans, corrupted by property and inequality, and projected this onto the state of nature. Contemporary political philosophers including Philip Pettit and Quentin Skinner have also offered important reconstructions and critiques of Hobbes's framework.
Key Quotations
"The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them."
— Leviathan, Chapter 21, 1651
This quotation reveals the conditional nature even of Hobbes's seemingly absolute sovereign authority. The duty to obey is fundamentally pragmatic: you obey because the sovereign protects you. When the sovereign can no longer protect you — when the state collapses, when you are conquered, when the authority has so completely failed that it can no longer provide security — the obligation dissolves. This is a more nuanced position than Hobbes is often given credit for, and it raises important questions about the nature of political obligation: is it ultimately based on self-interest, on consent, or on something else?
Using This Thinker in the Classroom
Philosophy / Ethics When examining the foundations of political obligation — why we should obey the state
How to introduce
Present the core philosophical question: what gives a government the right to tell you what to do? Introduce Hobbes's answer — rational self-interest and the social contract — and then its main challenge: what about people who never consented? What about people born into a state they did not choose? What about people whose lives are made worse, not better, by the state? Compare with Locke, Rousseau, and Rawls: each offers a different answer to the same question. Ask students to evaluate which answer they find most convincing and why.
Sociology / Human Nature When examining competing views of human nature and what they imply for social organisation
How to introduce
Present the central disagreement between Hobbes and Rousseau on human nature: Hobbes sees humans as naturally competitive, fearful, and self-interested, requiring strong authority to live together peacefully. Rousseau sees humans as naturally good, corrupted by society and inequality. Ask: Which view do you find more convincing? What evidence — from history, from psychology, from your own experience — supports each view? And what follows from each view for how societies should be organised? Note that this is not purely an academic question: it underlies real political disagreements about how much government people need, whether people can be trusted to govern themselves, and what human beings are capable of.
Common Misconceptions
Common misconception

Hobbes believed humans are evil or wicked.

→
What to teach instead

Hobbes did not argue that humans are morally evil — he argued that humans are rational and self-interested. In the state of nature, conflict arises not because people are bad but because rational self-interest leads people into competition and mutual distrust. He was making a structural argument, not a moral one. This distinction matters: his argument does not require people to be malicious, only to be rational. People do not fight because they enjoy violence; they fight because they cannot trust others not to attack them first.

Common misconception

The social contract is an actual historical agreement that people signed.

→
What to teach instead

The social contract is a philosophical thought experiment — a logical device, not a historical event. Hobbes did not claim that there was a moment in history when people gathered together and agreed to create government. He was offering a rational justification for why government makes sense — why rational people would choose to submit to authority if they were in the state of nature. Later social contract theorists like Locke and Rousseau use the idea similarly, as a theoretical tool rather than a historical claim. John Rawls's 20th-century version makes this even more explicit.

Common misconception

Hobbes was a supporter of tyranny and believed governments can do whatever they like.

→
What to teach instead

Hobbes argued for strong sovereign authority, but this is not the same as endorsing tyranny. He believed the sovereign's power was justified by its function — providing security — and that when a sovereign completely fails to protect its subjects, the obligation to obey dissolves. He also argued that sovereigns should not be cruel or arbitrary, because instability and resentment undermine the security that is the whole point of government. Many readers find Hobbes's argument uncomfortable, but calling it a defence of tyranny misrepresents his actual position, which is closer to a defence of effective and stable government.

Common misconception

Hobbes's ideas are purely historical and have no relevance to the modern world.

→
What to teach instead

Hobbes's core questions — why do we obey governments? what are the limits of that obligation? what happens when states fail? — are as relevant as ever. His analysis of the state of nature applies to international relations, where states exist in something like a Hobbesian condition relative to each other. His insight that covenants without enforcement are just words applies to international agreements, corporate contracts, and social norms. His argument that security is the primary function of government remains central to political science. Contemporary political philosophers continue to engage with Hobbes seriously and critically.

Intellectual Connections
Influenced By
Thucydides
Hobbes translated Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War into English — his first major intellectual project. Thucydides's realist account of power politics between city-states, his analysis of how fear and interest drive political behaviour, and his scepticism about idealistic claims in politics all deeply influenced Hobbes's own thinking about the relationship between power and political order.
Influenced By
Francis Bacon
Hobbes briefly served as a secretary to Bacon, the philosopher of scientific method. Bacon's empirical approach — the commitment to grounding knowledge in observation and evidence rather than tradition or authority — influenced Hobbes's ambition to put political philosophy on a scientific footing, analysing human nature and political society with the same rigour that Galileo brought to physics.
Influenced
John Locke
Locke engaged directly with Hobbes — often without naming him — in developing his own, very different social contract theory. Where Hobbes argued that the sovereign's authority was effectively unlimited as long as it maintained order, Locke argued that government authority is conditional on protecting natural rights, and that people have the right to rebel against governments that violate those rights. The Hobbes-Locke contrast is the foundational debate in liberal political philosophy.
Influenced
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract are in many ways sustained responses to Hobbes. Rousseau rejected Hobbes's account of human nature — arguing that natural humans are peaceful and that conflict arises from society and inequality, not from nature itself. He also developed a very different social contract in which sovereignty belongs to the people collectively, not to a ruler. His general will concept is in direct contrast to Hobbes's sovereign.
Influenced
John Rawls
Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971) — the most influential work of political philosophy of the 20th century — operates in the tradition of social contract theory that Hobbes founded, though its conclusions are very different. Rawls uses a thought experiment (the original position and veil of ignorance) that is structurally similar to Hobbes's state of nature, asking what principles rational people would choose for their society if they did not know their place in it. His answers are more egalitarian than anything Hobbes would have endorsed.
Influenced
Hans Morgenthau
Morgenthau, the 20th-century theorist of international relations realism, applied a Hobbesian analysis to the relations between states — arguing that in the absence of a world government, states exist in something like a state of nature relative to each other, pursuing their national interest in a world of power and insecurity. Realism in international relations is the most direct contemporary descendant of Hobbes's political analysis.
Further Reading

The scholarly literature on Hobbes is enormous. The most important recent works are Quentin Skinner's Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes (1996) and the Cambridge Companion to Hobbes's Leviathan (2007). For Hobbes and international relations: David Boucher's Political Theories of International Relations traces the Hobbesian tradition in IR theory. For the contemporary relevance of social contract theory: John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism (1993). For feminist critiques of Hobbes and social contract theory: Carole Pateman's The Sexual Contract (1988) argues that the social contract conceals a prior sexual contract that subordinates women. For the state of nature as political philosophy: Jean Hampton's Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition (1986) is the most rigorous philosophical analysis of the argument.