Thomas Hobbes, through a dark view on human psychology, was undoubtedly ahead of his time with his novel ideas. Hobbes saw that moral obligation relied on consent through a covenant and the authority of the sovereign rather that God, a radical view of the time. Instead of God directly providing moral principles, Hobbes argues that, since the laws of nature are God’s commands, that we ought to seek peace through the obedience to the sovereign, resulting in his Leviathan figure as a quasi-god. Whilst straying away from the traditional religious focus on morality Hobbes’ argument is still flawed, which is evident by analysing his view on the significance of consent and fear of death as a necessary moral motivation.
To understand the role of consent in Hobbes’ Leviathan, it is important to not why people need to obey the sovereign in the first place. Hobbes
…show more content…
On account of this brutality, Hobbes believed we needed to follow the first law of nature and seek peace, and the achieve this we have to escape the State of Nature (See Hobbes 1651: chapter 14). This requires us joining a covenant, or social contract, by laying down our rights to all things (See Hobbes 1651: chapter 14). Here is where the role of consent is vitally important to Hobbes’ claims. It is interesting to not that Hobbes isn’t concerned about how the subject should consent and the act of consent does not need to be formal (See Newey 2008: page 91). Here Newey points out that Hobbes himself wrote “silence is sometimes an argument of consent” (Hobbes 1651: chapter 26). Instead consent follows from this submission to the sovereign (See Newey 2008: page 91). In Hobbes’ government the subject consents to be ruled, regardless of who is ruling them (Lloyd, S A. and