• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Poll: Was Thomas Hobbes Right?

Is Hobbes's idea of enacting an absolute authority (for our own good) a good idea? (see OP)

  • Yes, it is and I'd want to see it happen - please explain why!

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • It is in principle but I would not want to see it happen - please explain why!

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • It somehow makes sense to me, but no - please explain why!

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • No, it is a bad idea and makes no sense to me - please explain why!

    Votes: 5 62.5%
  • Dunno, sort of, perhaps? - please explain why!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other - please elaborate!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    8

Eddi

Christianity, Taoism, and Humanism
Premium Member
In addition to a poll I have two questions for you. Before answering the poll please consider the questions:

Question 1:
Do you think that the political community should collectively surrender its sovereignty and invest it into a benign despot who could then rule over all people in a way that is free of ideological bias or sectional interest? That takes the long-term objective perspective in its decisions and works for the common good, according to the principle of the greatest happiness for the greatest number? (In a way that tolerates minority opinions and rights) And who listens to expert opinions over various lobbies?

Basically: should the demos install a despot to rule over them?

That is more or less what Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) said should happen in his book Leviathan in which he said we should be ruled by a powerful and absolute ruler, for our own good. Having personally witnessed the destruction of the English civil war, which he saw as destructive disunity.

I agree with him to an extent, but I am however ideologically attached to democracy and elections, so perhaps I’d agree with him in some circumstances and disagree with him in others

If the right ruler came along and his or her powers were to be limited by a constitution and subject to checks and balances then I’d probably go along with it. If they had all the right answers and embodied certain virtues and had pure motivations. Especially if we were in turbulent or uncertain times.

But I would expect their continued rule to be subject to democratic review.

Of course, it could be said that this has already happened - or is currently happening!

Question 2: If we look at the COVID situation, do you think things would have been handled better if we had an elective despot, with wide, sweeping powers?

I think I do

But it would have to be a despot with power over the entire planet to co-ordinate a truly global response to the (global) pandemic, which is after all a truly global problem.

So perhaps the people of Earth should elect a temporary global despot to lead the world in the fight against COVID?

But who???

Bonus Question: Is there any living person you'd like to see as elective despot of Earth? If doesn't have to be a politician. It could be someone you know, or even someone from RF
 

Goddess Kit

Active Member
Why do people insist on making things more complicated than they need to be?

That is the answer to which I need an answer, for it seems you as the supposedly intelligent spokes-people of the planet earth seem to **** everything up more than you learn anything.
 

Eddi

Christianity, Taoism, and Humanism
Premium Member
In the poll I voted "It is in principle but I would not want to see it happen"

Because at the end of the day, I am against despots and despotism

Even if despotism is an efficient method of governance

And I am against global governance (as touched upon in Question 2) - I favour international co-operation between nations over a world government
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why do people insist on making things more complicated than they need to be?

That is the answer to which I need an answer, for it seems you as the supposedly intelligent spokes-people of the planet earth seem to **** everything up more than you learn anything.
So the unintelligent people who couldn't find Europe on a map, don't know who we fought in WWII, and don't know a Neoliberal from a Keynesian should be removed from the voting roles?
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I do think that the French Revolution (and the American Revolution of course) shows that the people can rebel against authority, if it is unjust.

A state has to exist to assure order...btw.
 

Eddi

Christianity, Taoism, and Humanism
Premium Member
No. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Link)
We've all heard that quote, but does it though??? Does it really???

I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just not sure that it necessarily does...

God is all powerful and he isn't corrupt

And I'm sure it is possible to come up with a psychological profile of a person who would not be corrupted by power, that such a person is possible
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
We've all heard that quote, but does it though??? Does it really???

I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just not sure that it necessarily does...

God is all powerful and he isn't corrupt

And I'm sure it is possible to come up with a psychological profile of a person who would not be corrupted by power, that such a person is possible
I think what you're describing is what differentiates people from God. But, that's just my opinion.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
The "noble King" is an illusion (that Hobbes shared with quite a few of his contemporaries). While democracies can be ineffective, there has never been an example of a dictator who was as selfless as this illusion would require.
 
Top