‭Brouwer‬‭1‬

‭Lleyton Brouwer‬

‭HU 201‬

‭Second Essay Assignment‬

‭11/13/2023‬

‭Seeing Kleist’s Kohlhaas Through the Hobbesian Lens‬

‭When discussing the philosophy of the inner workings of society, it is hard to not mention‬

‭Thomas Hobbes, an English thinker of the seventeenth century, whose unique understanding of‬

‭the social contract and the role of government in controlling individuals helped shape the‬

‭authoritative role of many global political institutions today. However, because of Hobbes’‬

‭strong belief in a powerful central authority, his thoughts on government reform can be‬

‭complicated in situations that pit the rights of the individual against the power of the‬

‭government. In the story “Michael Kohlhaas” by Heinrich von Kleist, a German dramatist of the‬

‭early nineteenth century, the themes of the necessary evils when battling corruption within‬

‭government are explored, which conflict and are yet required when thinking through the lens of‬

‭Hobbesian philosophy.‬

‭In Kleist’s story, the character of Michael Kohlhaas experiences corruption firsthand‬

‭when his horses are seized unlawfully, but when he attempts to solve the issue via legal avenues,‬

‭he is denied by the amoral authorities. In response, Kohlhaas eventually resorts to violence,‬

‭carrying out vigilante actions in an attempt to reform the government. This action would surely‬

‭confound followers of Hobbesian philosophy, as Hobbes' perspective on the social contract and‬

‭authority doesn't consider the possibility that the authoritative figure isn't working as it should.‬

‭That is, Hobbesian philosophy prioritizes the power of the government, even in cases where‬

‭individual rights are jeopardized. Hobbes believed that the role of the government was made up‬

‭of five main pillars: to determine what is morally right, to protect citizens from one another, from‬
 ‭Brouwer‬‭2‬

‭outside forces, from economic downfalls, and from anything that could jeopardize the‬

‭individual's natural rights: life, liberty, and property. Due to Hobbes’ belief that citizens enter the‬

‭social contract of society purely for personal gain and the purpose of self-preservation, if the‬

‭government is not providing these protections to its citizens, they must be left with no choice but‬

‭to give up on the social contract and reform the government to fulfill its purpose. On the other‬

‭hand, however, Hobbesian philosophy’s greatest priority is the strength of the central‬

‭government, in order to keep society from falling into total anarchy. In the case of Michael‬

‭Kohlhaas, Hobbes would simply see a citizen violating the social contract by taking vigilante‬

‭action, and therefore be opposed to the action that Kohlhaas takes, regardless of the fact that‬

‭Kohlhaas’s individual rights were violated before he broke the social contract between man and‬

‭government. The most important question to answer is, if legal redress wouldn’t work, and‬

‭violence and vigilantism were completely out of the question, what would Hobbes have done in‬

‭the position of Michael Kohlhaas?‬

‭In contrast with Kohlhaas’s actions, Martin Luther of the Reformation would be much‬

‭more in line with what Hobbes would have believed would be the correct course of action. When‬

‭Luther was faced with corruption within the Roman Catholic Church, he famously participated in‬

‭a form of peaceful protest, by nailing his essay, the Ninety-five Theses, to the door of the church.‬

‭In the eyes of Hobbes, Luther would have been within the rights of his social contract to criticize‬

‭authority in a peaceful manner. That is, while Hobbes was extremely supportive of a powerful‬

‭central government, he was not strictly opposed to the criticism of such a government, if it‬

‭wasn’t doing its job of providing necessary protections to its people. It is important to remember‬

‭that while Hobbes did prioritize authoritative control, he was still aware that the purpose of the‬

‭authority itself was to protect and serve its people, as he did argue that people only form and‬
 ‭Brouwer‬‭3‬

‭obey the government with their own interest of self-preservation in mind. Hobbes’ problem with‬

‭Michael Kohlhaas, therefore, wouldn’t have been with his disagreement with the government‬

‭over its blatant corruption, but rather with the fact that Kohlhaas resorted to vigilantism and‬

‭violence when his attempts to legally redress the government were stopped short.‬

‭Hobbesian philosophy was largely influenced by Hobbes’ witnessing of the English Civil‬

‭War, which was a tumultuous conflict brought around by various factors, including religious‬

‭conflict between Anglicans and Protestants, political disputes between Charles I and‬

‭Parliamentarians, economic downfall, and political commentary from influential English‬

‭philosophers of the time, including Hobbes himself and his adversary John Locke. The war‬

‭affected the thinking of Hobbes and Locke in opposite ways - while Hobbes saw what was‬

‭happening and thought that a strong government was needed to control the people, Locke saw‬

‭the same events unfold and determined that a government was required only to protect individual‬

‭rights. These two philosophies differed due to their contrasting views on the state of nature. In‬

‭the Hobbesian philosophical view, which was extremely pessimistic, the natural state of the‬

‭world, without authoritative control, was that of chaos and anarchy, but in Locke’s perspective,‬

‭which was significantly more optimistic, the natural state of the world would protect the‬

‭individual’s natural rights - life, liberty, and property - and allow individuals to coexist‬

‭peacefully. This fundamental difference in how the two thinkers viewed the world leads to‬

‭differences in their opinions on other philosophical discussions, such as social contract theory or‬

‭the right to rebel. Due to Hobbes’ prioritization of a strong government, he did not recognize the‬

‭right to rebel as legitimate, as it would result in a return to the chaotic and anarchist natural‬

‭world, while Locke viewed the right to rebel as completely necessary, as long as the people were‬

‭justified by the government infringing upon its side of the social contract. In essence, Hobbes did‬
 ‭Brouwer‬‭4‬

‭not want to take any form of risk at all, while Locke was more willing to take risks in order to‬

‭end up with the outcome that was best for the individual.‬

‭Examining this difference between Hobbes and Locke is best done through a Hedonistic‬

‭lens. Hedonism, especially Epicurean Hedonism, is a philosophy that essentially describes the‬

‭meaning of life as the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, in the most immediate way‬

‭possible. By this definition, we would determine that taking the risk of overthrowing a corrupt or‬

‭ineffective government is the Hedonistic approach to the issue, as the immediate pursuit of‬

‭pleasure would be attempting to reform the government to suit the needs of the people. Using the‬

‭Hedonistic lens, we might make the connection that Locke is more Hedonistic than Hobbes, or‬

‭that the character Michael Kohlhaas is more Hedonistic than Martin Luther. This is a significant‬

‭revelation because it can introduce more context about where on the philosophical spectrum‬

‭Locke and Hobbes respectively lie, or at least where their stances on this particular subject lie.‬

‭Since Hobbes takes such an anti-Hedonistic perspective on the issue at hand, it seems almost as‬

‭though he is content with the situation, even though the government is corrupt and not fulfilling‬

‭its intended purpose. Because Hobbes’ actions would not revolve around the immediate pursuit‬

‭of pleasure and avoidance of pain, when placed in Kleist’s fabricated circumstances, Hobbes‬

‭would refuse to take drastic action as Kohlhaas does, in order to minimize the risk of society‬

‭falling into anarchy after overthrowing the corrupt government. Locke, on the other hand, would‬

‭approach the situation with a more Hedonistic perspective, as the actions he would take,‬

‭mirroring the Kohlhaas story, would be the same as any dedicated Hedonist, such as Epicurus. In‬

‭the pursuit of immediate pleasure, Locke would take drastic measures to ensure that the‬

‭government was overthrown and that a new one, in its place, fulfilled its purpose effectively.‬
 ‭Brouwer‬‭5‬

‭Considering Hobbes and Locke’s pessimistic and optimistic views of the natural state of‬

‭the world, respectively, they each would have had very different responses to the situation that‬

‭Heinrich von Kleist created in his Michael Kohlhaas story. While Locke, with a Hedonistic‬

‭perspective, would likely agree with Kohlhaas’s vigilante actions that abolished the corrupt‬

‭government which violated the social contract between the individual and authority, Hobbes‬

‭would have had a similar approach to Martin Luther, by using purely intellectual arguments and‬

‭not resulting to violence in order to avoid the chaotic natural state of the world.‬