On the one hand, Hobbes could not resort totally to the existence of a natural law for this avowed to the acceptance of a transcendental principle and its superiority to any possible human arrangement. Contrarily, he had to depart from the status quo of the given legal situation and political scene. Thus obligation required from an extra-systematic legitimation but it had to be the completely incorporated to the civil system.
The necessity of a commonwealth was justified in natural law. This general right of nature encompassed a series of laws whose axiom comes down to the conservation of life, “… a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life…”(1) Life is to be preserved, a relapse into immanence stemming from a purporte metaphysical principle. The transcendental order necessitated the safeguard of life, but only as a principle, not as a foundation. Next, an instrument was required to eradicate the bellium omnis ad omnia from the state of nature, to surpass this morbid condition, whose cause is to be found in the aius ad omnia. The bulimia of desire had to be tempered, every member of a commonwealth had to “…lay down this right to all things…”(2) Men had to renounce to their absolute right, to their extreme capacity. They had to transfer part of their natural liberty to an external entity with the faculty to enforce its compliance in case of disobedience. The remission of the transcendental to the immanent is reached, and thus the plane of construction rendered entirely immanent, consistent with the resurrection of the body and God’s insertion in nature. In the last resource, the conservation of life became the point of departure and no further fundament was necessitated. Life was to be the foundation of politics.
(1) Leviathan I, 14, 3.
(2) Leviathan I, 14, 5.



