There is an ongoing debate around the world about whether laws should be based on wisdom or authority. Many argue that statutes created through a democratic process have more legitimacy than those decided by a single authoritative figure. However, others believe that having ultimate authority is necessary for effective governance. This article will examine Thomas Hobbes’ quote, “It is not wisdom but authority that makes a law,” and discuss whether authority or wisdom should take precedence when creating laws.
Thomas Hobbes and the Social Contract Theory
Thomas Hobbes was a 17th-century English philosopher best known for his work Leviathan, in which he first proposed the social contract theory of government. According to Hobbes, life in a state of nature without government would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To avoid this, people agreed through an implicit social contract to relinquish some freedoms and abide by an authoritarian sovereign who would impose peace and order through the enforcement of laws. For Hobbes, the authority of the sovereign, not wisdom, gave laws their power and ensured people would obey them for their own self-interest and protection.
Counterarguments in Favor of Wisdom over Authority
While Hobbes’ social contract theory helped shape modern political philosophy, not all agree that authority makes a just law. Many argue laws should be based on rational consideration and public welfare, not blind adherence to a sovereign’s wishes. For example, John Locke believed people established governments primarily to protect natural rights like life, liberty, and property. If governments fail to do this, the people can alter or abolish them. Plato also felt that those who govern should be wise philosophers who follow reason and not mere wielders of power.
Laws established through open democratic debate that consider citizens’ input and aim to promote general welfare have more legitimacy than arbitrary decrees from an absolute ruler. Wisdom seeks the common good and justice for all, while authority may be abused to exert control.
Balancing Wisdom, Authority and Legitimacy
Most modern democratic governments acknowledge that wisdom and authority are needed to create compelling and legitimate laws. Elected representatives balance public opinion and expertise and aim to pass laws furthering the general welfare. However, the ultimate authority still rests with the government as a sovereign lawmaker. Majority rule alone does not guarantee just laws – some individual rights are entrenched even against popular will. Conversely, allowing one person or small group total authority risks the oppression of minorities and the degradation of citizens’ fundamental rights and consent.
The wisest system balances authority with democratic mechanisms, ensuring representation and channels for repealing unpopular or harmful laws over time. Both elements are required – laws must further the interests of all under wise consideration and command obedience through a recognized authority maintaining stability and order.
Practical Challenges of the Wisdom-Authority Balance
While balancing wisdom and authority makes for the soundest system in theory, challenges remain in real-world practice. Public opinions and values are diverse and shifting, making policy consensus difficult. Elected leaders have incentives to act more in self-interest or out of practicality than impartial wisdom. Authoritarian governments may ignore citizens’ interests to serve narrow elite interests. Ensuring diversity of viewpoints and limiting money’s influence in politics helps address these issues but has also been controversial.
New communication technologies amplify fragmentation versus fostering broader understanding. Maintaining stability while allowing space for progressive reform is an ongoing balancing act. But most agree that shuttering either wisdom or authority risks losing legitimacy and just governance over time.
Conclusion
In summary, wisdom and authority play essential roles in establishing legitimate and just laws, though striking the right balance still needs to be improved. While Hobbes was correct in saying that mere authority gives laws force, laws seen as oppressive or unjust will not garner enduring public consent. Conversely, majority opinion alone does not guarantee the protection of minority rights or long-term stability. The soundest systems recognize that laws must balance citizens’ input and general welfare with ultimate state sovereignty and maintain order.
No government perfectly exemplifies this balance, but aims toward both wisdom and authority remain crucial components of democratic governance serving all peoples’ interests. Maintaining open and inclusive societies where both can continuously evolve remains an ongoing challenge.
