Citizens rebel against a Hobbesian sovereign, claiming the sovereign has 'violated the social contract' by acting tyrannically. According to Hobbes's own theory, what is the structural flaw in this argument?
ARebellion is prohibited only in peacetime; citizens may rebel during war
BThe sovereign is not a party to the original contract, so the sovereign cannot have 'broken' it
CThe sovereign may only be removed by a supermajority of citizens, not by rebellion
DCitizens may not rebel because the social contract was made with God, not with each other
The Hobbesian sovereign is not a party to the social contract — the contract is between subjects, who agree *with each other* to transfer authority to the sovereign. The sovereign therefore has no contractual obligations that could be 'violated.' Citizens also cannot coherently say the sovereign acted against the contract because they *authorized* the sovereign's actions when they contracted; the sovereign acts as their agent. Rebellion on grounds of contractual breach is self-defeating — there is no breach because the sovereign was never bound.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Why, according to Hobbes, must sovereign power be indivisible — that is, why is dividing authority between a king and a parliament insufficient to maintain peace?
ADivided government is inefficient and cannot respond quickly enough to external threats
BA king and parliament will naturally agree on most issues, making division redundant
CWhenever two bodies each claim authority, disputes between them have no higher arbiter — recreating the state of nature at the level of institutions
DDivision of power works in theory but has been shown empirically to produce instability
Hobbes's argument is logical, not empirical. If king and parliament each claim sovereign authority, there is no higher power to adjudicate their disputes — each body judges its own claims supreme. This recreates the fundamental problem of the state of nature: equal claimants with no common authority. The English Civil War, which Hobbes witnessed, was the empirical instantiation of this theoretical prediction. The logic is that sovereignty, to do its job (preventing the war of all against all), must be concentrated in a single undivided locus.
Question 3 True / False
In Hobbes's social contract theory, the agreement is made between subjects and the sovereign, who accepts obligations in exchange for obedience.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
False. This is a common but critical misreading. The Hobbesian social contract is made *between subjects*, who agree with each other to transfer their rights to a sovereign. The sovereign is not a party to the contract and accepts no obligations. This is why Hobbes's sovereign cannot 'violate' the contract — the sovereign was never bound by it. It also explains why rebellion is incoherent: citizens cannot revoke a contract they made with each other, not with the sovereign. (Compare Locke, who does make the contract between citizens and the government, which is why Lockean theory permits rebellion.)
Question 4 True / False
According to Hobbes, subjects retain the absolute right to disobey any command they judge to be unjust, even under a legitimate sovereign.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
False. Hobbes explicitly denies subjects any right to disobey on grounds of perceived injustice. When subjects contracted, they authorized the sovereign's actions — the sovereign is, in Hobbes's phrase, the 'author' of whatever the sovereign does, and subjects are the authors who granted that authority. Claiming the sovereign acted unjustly is self-contradictory because *you* authorized those actions. The only exception Hobbes allows is direct self-preservation: if the sovereign personally threatens your life, you may flee or resist. But this is a biological necessity, not a political right, and it does not extend to disobedience over questions of justice.
Question 5 Short Answer
Why is rebellion against a Hobbesian sovereign, in Hobbes's own terms, a form of self-contradiction rather than a legitimate exercise of political rights?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: When subjects contracted to form the commonwealth, they authorized the sovereign to act on their behalf — the sovereign is their representative and agent. In Hobbes's language, subjects are the 'authors' of the sovereign's actions, and the sovereign is the 'actor' who performs them. To rebel against the sovereign is to revoke the authorization you irrevocably granted. It is self-contradictory in the same way that claiming an actor wronged you when you scripted every action would be contradictory. You cannot coherently protest the sovereign's actions as violations of your rights when you transferred those rights in the original contract.
Hobbes also notes that allowing any subject to judge the sovereign unjust and rebel would restore everyone to being their own judge of what is just — exactly the condition of the state of nature. Any right to rebel would immediately dissolve the sovereignty, because every subject would claim that right whenever they disapproved. This is why the logic of absolute sovereignty is so tight: any exception undermines the entire structure.