Hobbes's "War of All Against All": Absolutism over Monarchy

The question of whether Thomas Hobbes was advocating for monarchy or absolutism in his "war of all against all" gets to the heart of his political philosophy. The precise answer is that Hobbes was advocating for absolutism, not necessarily monarchy. He believed that to escape the horrific state of nature, people needed to submit to a single, absolute sovereign power. While he personally thought a monarchy was the most efficient form for this sovereign, his theory is fundamentally about the powers of the sovereign (absolute and undivided) rather than its form.

The State of Nature: The "War of All Against All"

Hobbes's entire philosophy starts from the premise of the "state of nature," a condition without a common power to enforce rules. In this state, human life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." It is a state of constant competition and fear, devoid of concepts like justice, injustice, or property. The driving force to escape this condition is the fear of violent death.

The Solution: Absolute Sovereignty and Awe

The escape route is a social contract. Individuals mutually agree to give up their natural rights and liberties to a single sovereign power, creating the "Leviathan." The key to Hobbes's argument is that this sovereign power must be ABSOLUTE. This means it must be indivisible, unaccountable to the people, the sole source of law, and in control of public doctrine.

Critically, the fundamental mechanism that makes this system work is that there must be a common power to keep them all in awe. This "awe"—the universal fear of the sovereign's overwhelming and certain punishment—is what forces individuals to uphold their covenants and cooperate, thereby ensuring peace and security. Without this common power to hold them in awe, society would instantly collapse back into the war of all against all.

Monarchy vs. Absolutism: The Crucial Distinction

Hobbes defines sovereignty by its powers, not its title. He personally preferred monarchy, arguing it was more efficient and stable than aristocracy or democracy. However, the core of his logic demands absolutism in any form. Any sovereign—whether a single monarch, a ruling council, or a democratic assembly—must have absolute power to be effective. A limited power, in Hobbes's view, would be too weak to prevent a return to the state of nature.

Conclusion

In essence, Hobbes was not simply advocating for monarchy. He was advocating for a system of absolute sovereignty as the only logical solution to the human condition. He saw monarchy as the most effective type of absolute sovereign, but his primary concern was order and security. He believed that the horrors of chaos were so terrible that any absolute ruler was preferable to no ruler at all. The necessity of a common power to keep them all in awe is the non-negotiable centerpiece of his entire argument for absolutism.