메뉴 건너뛰기




Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 63-86

Hobbes's theory of rights - A modern interest theory

Author keywords

Claim rights; Individual rights; Liberty rights; Rights; Thomas Hobbes; Transferred rights

Indexed keywords


EID: 61949164424     PISSN: 13824554     EISSN: 15728609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1015875902334     Document Type: Article
Times cited : (13)

References (81)
  • 1
    • 0039547362 scopus 로고
    • See for example, (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
    • See for example, D. P. Gauthier, The Logic of Leviathan (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969);
    • (1969) The Logic of Leviathan
    • Gauthier, D.P.1
  • 4
    • 0010666062 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Also (Oxford: Clarendon Press), although Warrender does allow for what he calls entitlements" (i.e., a right as that to which one is morally entitled which turns out, according to Warrender, to be better described by the duties it implies) these appear only in civil society when the individual "does collect some entitlements as against his fellow citizens, for the civil law does impose obligations upon them that secure him in some respects". This point is discussed in more detail below
    • Also, H. Warrender, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, His Theory of Obligation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), although Warrender does allow for what he calls "entitlements" (i.e., a right as that to which one is morally entitled which turns out, according to Warrender, to be better described by the duties it implies) these appear only in civil society when the individual "does collect some entitlements as against his fellow citizens, for the civil law does impose obligations upon them that secure him in some respects" (p. 195). This point is discussed in more detail below.
    • (1957) The Political Philosophy of Hobbes His Theory of Obligation , pp. 195
    • Warrender, H.1
  • 5
    • 0003372823 scopus 로고
    • Anarchical fallacies
    • There has been a sustained attack on theories of natural rights since Bentham's infamous characterization of such theories as nonsense upon stilts." J. Bowring (ed.), (New York: Russell and Russell) Jeremy Waldron has recently commented that the theory has now been so discredited by attacks that "no-one now uses the phrase [natural rights] except in a disparaging sense"
    • There has been a sustained attack on theories of natural rights since Bentham's infamous characterization of such theories as "nonsense upon stilts." J. Bentham, "Anarchical Fallacies," in J. Bowring (ed.), Works of Jeremy Bentham (New York: Russell and Russell, 1962), Vol.II, p. 105. Jeremy Waldron has recently commented that the theory has now been so discredited by attacks that "no-one now uses the phrase [natural rights] except in a disparaging sense"
    • (1962) Works of Jeremy Bentham , vol.2 , pp. 105
    • Bentham, J.1
  • 6
    • 77950040976 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Rights versus needs
    • [J. Waldron, "Rights versus Needs," The Journal of Ethics 4 (2000), p. 119].
    • (2000) The Journal of Ethics , vol.4 , pp. 119
    • Waldron, J.1
  • 8
    • 0347705913 scopus 로고
    • ed. C. B. Macpherson (London: Penguin Books), Chapter 14, my emphasis
    • T. Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. C. B. Macpherson (London: Penguin Books, 1968), II, Chapter 14, p. 189, my emphasis.
    • (1968) Leviathan , vol.2 , pp. 189
    • Hobbes, T.1
  • 9
    • 0004287799 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • my emphasis
    • Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 189, my emphasis.
    • Leviathan , pp. 189
    • Hobbes1
  • 10
    • 85027255343 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • ed. and trans. R. Tuck and M. Silver-thorne (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) LIBERTY (to define it) is simply the absence of obstacles to motion; as water contained in a vessel is not free, because the vessel is an obstacle to its flowing away, and it is freed by breaking the vessel . . . Obstacles of this kind are external and absolute; in this sense all slaves and subjects are free who are not in bonds or in prison. Other obstacles are discretionary; they do not prevent motion absolutely but incidentally, i.e. by our own choice, as a man on a ship is not prevented from throwing himself into the sea, if he can will to do so."
    • T. Hobbes, De Cive (1647) in On the Citizen, ed. and trans. R. Tuck and M. Silver-thorne (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 111. "LIBERTY (to define it) is simply the absence of obstacles to motion; as water contained in a vessel is not free, because the vessel is an obstacle to its flowing away, and it is freed by breaking the vessel . . . Obstacles of this kind are external and absolute; in this sense all slaves and subjects are free who are not in bonds or in prison. Other obstacles are discretionary; they do not prevent motion absolutely but incidentally, i.e. by our own choice, as a man on a ship is not prevented from throwing himself into the sea, if he can will to do so."
    • (1998) De Cive (1647) in On the Citizen , pp. 111
    • Hobbes, T.1
  • 11
    • 84963075987 scopus 로고
    • The changes in hobbes's definition of liberty
    • See for example
    • See for example, F. C. Hood, "The Changes in Hobbes's Definition of Liberty," Philosophical Quarterly 17 (1967), pp. 150-163;
    • (1967) Philosophical Quarterly , vol.17 , pp. 150-163
    • Hood, F.C.1
  • 12
    • 34248985775 scopus 로고
    • Hobbes's confusing 'clarity': The case of liberty
    • and
    • and J. R. Pennock, "Hobbes's Confusing 'Clarity': The Case of Liberty," American Political Science Review 54 (1960), pp. 428-436.
    • (1960) American Political Science Review , vol.54 , pp. 428-436
    • Pennock, J.R.1
  • 16
    • 0002516125 scopus 로고
    • The elements of law natural and politic (1640)
    • J. C. A. Gaskin (ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 10
    • T. Hobbes, The Elements of Law Natural and Politic (1640), in J. C. A. Gaskin (ed.), Thomas Hobbes, Human Nature and De Corpore Politico (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), I, XIV, 10, p. 80.
    • (1994) Thomas Hobbes, Human Nature and De Corpore Politico , vol.1 , Issue.14 , pp. 80
    • Hobbes, T.1
  • 26
    • 64949121241 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Retained liberties and absolute hobbesian authorization
    • A. I. Cohen, "Retained Liberties and Absolute Hobbesian Authorization," Hobbes Studies XI (1998), p. 34.
    • (1998) Hobbes Studies , vol.11 , pp. 34
    • Cohen, A.I.1
  • 31
    • 84977723796 scopus 로고
    • Hobbes on sovereignty: An unknown discussion
    • T. Hobbes (Chatsworth) Box 1 (D), no. 5, my emphasis
    • T. Hobbes, MSS (Chatsworth) Box 1, (D), no.5, in Q. Skinner, "Hobbes on Sovereignty: An Unknown Discussion," Political Studies XIII (1965), pp. 213-218, my emphasis.
    • (1965) Political Studies , vol.13 , pp. 213-218
    • Skinner, Q.1
  • 45
    • 77950025394 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Hampton refers to the following passages in Hobbes, De Cive, and Chapter 14 of Hobbes, Leviathan: . . . each man is drawn to desire that which is Good for him and to avoid what is bad for him, and most of all the greatest of natural evils, which is death; . . . It is not therefore absurd, nor reprehensible, nor contrary to right reason, if one makes every effort to defend his body and limbs from death and to preserve them. And what is not contrary to right reason, all agree is done justly and of right."
    • Hampton refers to the following passages in Hobbes, De Cive, and Chapter 14 of Hobbes, Leviathan: . . . each man is drawn to desire that which is Good for him and to avoid what is bad for him, and most of all the greatest of natural evils, which is death; . . . It is not therefore absurd, nor reprehensible, nor contrary to right reason, if one makes every effort to defend his body and limbs from death and to preserve them. And what is not contrary to right reason, all agree is done justly and of right."
  • 68
    • 0004287799 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • my emphasis
    • Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 190, my emphasis.
    • Leviathan , pp. 190
    • Hobbes1
  • 69
    • 77950027281 scopus 로고
    • trans. E. M. Sinclair (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Midway Reprint, 1984). Strauss argues that Hobbes was the first to place the rights of the individual at the centre of political theory, According to Hobbes, the basis of morals and politics is not the 'law of nature,' i.e., natural obligation, but the 'right of nature.' The 'law of nature' owes all its dignity simply to the circumstance that it is the necessary consequence of the 'right of nature' ". "Hobbes, and no other, is the father of modern political philosophy. For it is he who, with a clarity never previously and never subsequently attained, made the 'right of nature,' i.e., the justified claims (of the individual) the basis of political philosophy, without any inconsistent borrowing from natural or divine law" (p. 156). This strikes me as a great insight into Hobbes's theory; that for Hobbes it is always the individual and his right to preserve himself that drives the political theory
    • L. Strauss, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, Its Basis and Genesis, trans. E. M. Sinclair (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952, Midway Reprint, 1984). Strauss argues that Hobbes was the first to place the rights of the individual at the centre of political theory. "According to Hobbes, the basis of morals and politics is not the 'law of nature,' i.e., natural obligation, but the 'right of nature.' The 'law of nature' owes all its dignity simply to the circumstance that it is the necessary consequence of the 'right of nature' " (p. 155). "Hobbes, and no other, is the father of modern political philosophy. For it is he who, with a clarity never previously and never subsequently attained, made the 'right of nature,' i.e., the justified claims (of the individual) the basis of political philosophy, without any inconsistent borrowing from natural or divine law" (p. 156). This strikes me as a great insight into Hobbes's theory; that for Hobbes it is always the individual and his right to preserve himself that drives the political theory.
    • (1952) The Political Philosophy of Hobbes Its Basis and Genesis , pp. 155
    • Strauss, L.1
  • 74
    • 0038223981 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Hobbes's political philosophy
    • and T. Sorell (ed.), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), who says that Hobbes gives "no suggestion that the sovereign's political self-control reflects the subject's rights. Indeed, Hobbes is at pains to deny it . . . , the subject, having given up his rights, cannot now appeal to them. Moreover, the one area in which Hobbes breaks entirely with later writers on human rights is his insistence that we have no right to have a share in the sovereign authority."
    • and A. Ryan, Hobbes's Political Philosophy," in T. Sorell (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 235, who says that Hobbes gives "no suggestion that the sovereign's political self-control reflects the subject's rights. Indeed, Hobbes is at pains to deny it . . . , the subject, having given up his rights, cannot now appeal to them. Moreover, the one area in which Hobbes breaks entirely with later writers on human rights is his insistence that we have no right to have a share in the sovereign authority."
    • The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes , pp. 235
    • Ryan, A.1
  • 75
    • 0040202832 scopus 로고
    • Introduction
    • J. Waldron (ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press), my emphasis
    • J. Waldron, "Introduction," in J. Waldron (ed.), Theories of Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 8, my emphasis.
    • (1984) Theories of Rights , pp. 8
    • Waldron, J.1
  • 78
    • 5944245253 scopus 로고
    • Natural rights
    • See in J. Waldron (ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
    • See M. MacDonald, "Natural Rights," in J. Waldron (ed.), Theories of Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 24.
    • (1984) Theories of Rights , pp. 24
    • MacDonald, M.1
  • 79
    • 0007155301 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • First philosophy and the foundations of knowledge
    • See T. Sorell (ed.), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), who says that Hobbes "excludes knowledge of God's nature from the scope of philosophy."
    • See Y. C. Zarka, "First Philosophy and the Foundations of Knowledge," in T. Sorell (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 64, who says that Hobbes "excludes knowledge of God's nature from the scope of philosophy."
    • (1996) The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes , pp. 64
    • Zarka, Y.C.1
  • 80
    • 0040258148 scopus 로고
    • For an interpretation that does see Hobbes as a natural law theorist see, trans. D. Gobetti (Chicago: University of Chicago Press)
    • For an interpretation that does see Hobbes as a natural law theorist see Norberto Bobbio, Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law Tradition, trans. D. Gobetti (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).
    • (1993) Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law Tradition
    • Bobbio, N.1
  • 81


* 이 정보는 Elsevier사의 SCOPUS DB에서 KISTI가 분석하여 추출한 것입니다.