Hobbes's political philosophy is notable, among other things, for its complete amorality. In writing Leviathan, Hobbes wanted to turn politics into a science, based on the same kind of unchanging mathematical principles as geometry. Inevitably, this meant that, in Hobbes's ideal political system, there would be no place for morality as commonly understood. There was no morality in a geometrical treatise, and so a political tract based on the same mathematical principles would have none either.

Of course, Hobbes does accept that there's such a thing as right or wrong. But scandalously, from the point of view of many of his contemporaries, he argues that notions of right or wrong are not timeless standards partaking of some higher law. Instead, they are purely a matter of social convention. What is considered immoral in one part of the world—say, child sacrifice—would be moral in another, such as Mexico under the Aztecs.

Such moral relativism ensures that what counts as right, and wrong in an individual territory is largely determined by custom. And in Hobbes's ideal state, it is the sovereign, endowed with absolute power, who is the custodian of custom. Through his total control of state religion and through the power of censorship, he determines what is right and wrong within his realm.

The supreme goods, for Hobbes, are peace and stability, and anything which conduces to those ends is itself good while anything that detracts from them is bad. But of course it is the sovereign who ultimately gets to decide what does or does not conduce to peace and stability within his realm.