1997•The Journal of PoliticsRequires access

Liberty, Rights, and Will in Hobbes: A Response to David Van Mill

John D. Harman

Open publisher page 3 citations

Abstract

David Van Mill recently argued in this journal that Hobbes's theory of freedom in Leviathan is fundamentally confused Van Mill finds that this confusion arises from the supposed inconsistency between Hobbes's initial account of liberty as "the absence of external impediments" in Chapter 14 and subsequent uses of the term in contexts where he must necessarily have held a different concept (This occurs most notably in Chapter 21, where he discusses the "liberty of subjects") According to Van Mill, the consequence of this confusion is nothing less than the disintegration of Hobbes's whole system Against this account, I argue that Hobbes presents a consistent, if somewhat flawed, account of freedom sufficient to save him from the dire conclusions drawn by Van Mill and others.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

David Van Mill recently argued in this journal that Hobbes's theory of freedom in Leviathan is fundamentally confused Van Mill finds that this confusion arises from the supposed inconsistency between Hobbes's initial account of liberty as "the absence of external impediments" in Chapter 14 and subsequent uses of the term in contexts where he must necessarily have held a different concept (This occurs most notably in Chapter 21, where he discusses the "liberty of subjects") According to Van Mill, the consequence of this confusion is nothing less than the disintegration of Hobbes's whole system Against this account, I argue that Hobbes presents a consistent, if somewhat flawed, account of freedom sufficient to save him from the dire conclusions drawn by Van Mill and others.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

David Van Mill recently argued in this journal that Hobbes's theory of freedom in Leviathan is fundamentally confused Van Mill finds that this confusion arises from the supposed inconsistency between Hobbes's initial account of liberty as "the absence of external impediments" in Chapter 14 and subsequent uses of the term in contexts where he must necessarily have held a different concept (This occurs most notably in Chapter 21, where he discusses the "liberty of subjects") According to Van Mill, the consequence of this confusion is nothing less than the disintegration of Hobbes's whole system Against this account, I argue that Hobbes presents a consistent, if somewhat flawed, account of freedom sufficient to save him from the dire conclusions drawn by Van Mill and others.

Key concepts: Mill, Negative liberty, Confusion, LEVIATHAN (cipher), Nothing, Philosophy, Law, Law and economics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Liberty, Rights, and Will in Hobbes: A Response to David Van Mill — Research Paper | ScholarLens