Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The emergence of terrorism as a dominant specter in the contemporary world has turned the eyes of many back to Thomas Hobbes. Indeed, the ability of terrorists to strike either by “secret machination or by confederacy with others” (Leviathan, 13.1) is the ultimate manifestation of Hobbesian equality. We are in this sense truly in his state of nature. Further, American efforts to thwart the terrorists can be described as an attempt to establish a Leviathan who can “overawe them all” (Leviathan, 13.5), thus bringing us out of a state of nature. Hobbes indeed has a great deal to say to both the terrorists and the American predicament.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: When engaging a text in political theory, two basic issues to consider are the type of government and the theory of leadership advanced by the political theorist. However, the extensive secondary literature on Hobbes only adequately addresses the first of these questions. The problem is not that the secondary literature fails to note Hobbes’s statements about the qualities of the sovereign. The trouble is his comments on sovereign leadership are typically treated as anomalies in his theory that are, at best, advice. In general, the conventional reading leaves one with the impression that it is the sovereign institution, not the actual character and leadership qualities of the individual or group that is sovereign, which matters.
To balance out the institutional-oriented analyses, the focus of this essay is on Hobbes’s comments about the sovereign. Such a task has been particularly fruitful, as a three rather plausible and competing theories of sovereign leadership are uncovered. It is possible to read Hobbes as providing a) a rather democratic conception of leadership as open to any Hobbesian man so long as he rules, b) an elite theory of leadership that sees the sovereign as one of the ambitious members of the more exclusive aristocratic class, or c) there even is a more classical, Platonic view that the sovereign should be the most politically capable or qualified member of society, one who has mastered Hobbesian political science. While the work concludes with one attempt to determine which theory is most likely intended by Hobbes, it encourages the reader to make his/her own decision of who Hobbes intended to rule.

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Many wars are fueled by the conviction of each side that it is fighting for justice. This problem tends to elicit two opposite diagnoses. On one view, the problem is the persistence of injustice, and the solution is injustice's defeat. On another view, the problem is the very idea that injustice should be violently resisted, and the solution is the suppression of this idea. Locke expresses sympathy for the first of these views; Hobbes for the second. However, they both reason their way toward an intermediate position, symbolized by the impartial judge in Locke's theory and the arbitrator in Hobbes' theory. Peace is possible when we create a process that resolves disputes according to widely intuitive principles of equality and reciprocity. This requires, however, that we refrain from imposing our particular interpretations of justice, and that we tolerate the possibility of unjust outcomes. We can do so if we learn to control the urgings of pride.