Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.advisorSlomp, Gabriella
dc.contributor.advisorRengger, N. J. (Nicholas J.)
dc.contributor.authorBoyd, Jonathan A.
dc.coverage.spatial265en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-15T15:39:44Z
dc.date.available2012-10-15T15:39:44Z
dc.date.issued2012-06-19
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/3178
dc.description.abstractThis thesis will inquire into the practicable strategies that Thomas Hobbes described in his major works of political philosophy, on the one hand, to allow his sovereign to ensure civil peace, and on the other, to enable his sovereign to defend the commonwealth. In terms of civil peace, the exercise of Hobbes’s sovereign’s ‘absolute’ authority is tempered by, and contingent on, its practical efficacy for securing and maintaining a peaceful commonwealth. To that end, I will argue that Hobbes’s sovereign is obliged to rule according to the natural laws, and entailed in this obligation are coinciding liberties which Hobbes believed that subjects must perceive themselves to possess, and which sovereigns must respect, in order for peace to be realised. However, rather than situating the purpose of Hobbes’s project in terms of civil peace alone—as the vast majority of his interpreters have—I consider alongside the purpose of civil peace, and contrast it with, the purpose of defence. Evident from this comparison is that the means by which Hobbes’s sovereign must ensure the capability of the commonwealth to defend itself from foreign nations simultaneously undermines and counteracts his otherwise proto-liberal system. Distinct from other prominent interpretations, I will argue that this ambivalence is not a result of an imbalance between subjects’ rights contra sovereign’s rights, nor yet of an unsupervised agonistic counter-balance between the two. Instead, the affirmation of subjects’ inalienable rights are depicted by Hobbes as a practically ineffective means by which to ensure defence. There exists a necessary ambivalence within Hobbes’s theory of sovereignty itself and is to be managed solely according to the sovereign’s ideally prudent and practicable judgment. Ultimately, I will characterize Hobbes as arguing that the unfortunate necessity of preparedness for foreign defensive wars is best mitigated by the sovereign’s prudent and minimal exercise of the commonwealth’s power in carrying out this intended purpose.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of St Andrews
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
dc.subjectThomas Hobbesen_US
dc.subjectSovereigntyen_US
dc.subjectCivil peaceen_US
dc.subjectDefenceen_US
dc.subjectNatural lawen_US
dc.subject.lccB1248.S7B7
dc.subject.lcshHobbes, Thomas, 1588-1679--Criticism and interpretationen_US
dc.subject.lcshSovereigntyen_US
dc.subject.lcshPeaceen_US
dc.subject.lcshMilitary readinessen_US
dc.subject.lcshNatural lawen_US
dc.titleA clash of swords: civil peace and the counteracting role of defence in Thomas Hobbes's theory of sovereignty.en_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.type.qualificationlevelDoctoralen_US
dc.type.qualificationnamePhD Doctor of Philosophyen_US
dc.publisher.institutionThe University of St Andrewsen_US


The following licence files are associated with this item:

  • Creative Commons

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
Except where otherwise noted within the work, this item's licence for re-use is described as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported