Have The Right To Decide Or To Decide

Hobbes is often regarded as the founder of political science. The theory of natural state is very impressive, and it is based on his skepticism. We can see that Hobbes’skepticism is represented in the following several levels:firstly, Hobbes doubt that whether we have the same linguistic use habits; secondly, whether we can have consensus on some objects beyond our reason ability;thirdly, Hobbes thought there is a conflict between private reason and public reason; fourthly, Hobbes thought we can never know others’mind by watching his or her behavior. The four levels above of skepticism, explain why we stay at the natural state. In Hobbes’opinion, the only solution is the establishment of a sovereign. The sovereign gives us a way to use one only reason to judge and rule other people’s judges. In this way all those disputes would be resolved.The common law scholars believe that there are two sources of law: the sovereign and legal reason. The legal reason is not shared by any of us. It is an artificial reason and only belongs to the common law scholars. Under this circumstances, the sovereign is not the only law source, therefore it is limited. From this point, we may see that there is a conflict between the common law scholars’ theory and Hobbes’theory. Hobbes’ doubt is against the human beings’ reason ability, therefore there is no exception. The legal reason is not another way to save people from the natural state, but only to obstacle the power of the sovereign, to weaken it, and to destroy it. This dilemma reminds us of Charles I, who was limited by the legal reason, lost his power and finally died, and the civil war persisted long after his death. While the sovereign has no power, the King himself has no prestige, and he can do nothing afterwards. In Hobbes’ view, this is a profound lesson. This paper is a reflection on legal reason in Hobbes’view. In this view if the readers may have a better understanding of legal reason, my work would be meanful.