Leviathan as bearer of supreme authority and nationals who posses certain inalienable rights. We should draw attention to Hobbes’ reasoning about natural law and civil or positive law. According to Hobbes they both match with scope, form and content. However, natural law, which is impartial, equitable, legitimate, and moral in natural state is not the law itself; it just disposes people to peace, mercy, and obedience. Natural law is the laws that have existed and will exist forever. Governors and judges come and go, but natural law will exist forever because it is divine law.
Natural law becomes actual law after the state had been established. It is already written about civil or positive law, which became so because of will of bearer of supreme authority. People must obey civil law as it is impartial and virtue. The state establishes this law, makes it compulsory and sets the punishment for its violation. Natural law and natural freedom can be restricted by civil law for preserving of peace between people and uniting them against common enemy.
Thomas Hobbes made an effort to formulate his own understanding of state with a view at reasons and terms of state origin. His philosophical concept of state agues a thesis about two conditions of any human society: natural, where there is no state organization, and civil. That is why he divided philosophy into two main parts: natural philosophy and civil philosophy (state philosophy). As for the determination of the basic characteristics of state it is necessary to study people inclinations, affects, rights and morals, the state philosophy itself is divided into two sections: the first one, treating inclination and morals, called ethics, and the second one, studying civil obligations, c...
... middle of paper ...
...sibilities. Thus, the ideal freedom of the person is a personal freedom from society.
As we see humanism flourished from Renaissance epoch until our own century through many significant changes, such as religious, political and social revolutions, but it is still the theory and practice which people choose as their world-view and lifestyle. This intellectual movement gave birth to many talented and great philosophers (Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus etc.) and became a background for political philosophy and theories, such as rule-of-law state, separation of powers and social compact. Humanistic tradition is still alive and develops within modern society.
References
Hilary Bok. Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat. Plato.stanford.edu. Stanford University. 20 January, 2010. Web. 16 April 2011
Although Hobbes is a liberal thinker in some respects his ideas presented in the Leviathan resemble that of a monarchy. Hobbes asserts that the commonwealth can fall under three types of regimes “when the representative is one man, then it is the commonwealth a monarchy... assembly of all... a democracy... assembly of a part only... aristocracy” (L 19.1). However despite this, Hobbes proclaims that monarchic rule is superior since “the private interest is the same with the public” (L19.4). Hobbes posits that people within the state of nature require a Leviathan in order to rein since the state of nature is anarchic. He proposes that by forming a sovereign, the people must trade their innate and natural rights for safety and peace within the state otherwise they would have to submit to a life of “continual fear and danger of [a] violent death...solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (L13.9). In his work Leviathan, Hobbes presents a system of government that is more of a principality than a republic in nature. However still the Leviathan does include some republican virtues. The following paragraphs will discuss Hobbes’ Leviathan and its resemblance to both republic and principality and finally conclude that the Leviathan does not differ from either governing style.
ABSTRACT: I want to show the importance of the notion of conatus (endeavor) for Hobbes' political philosophy. According to Hobbes, all motion of bodies consists of elementary motions he called 'endeavors.' They are motions 'made in less space and time than can be given,' and they obey the law of persistence or inertia. A body strives to preserve its state and resist the causal power of other bodies. I call this the conatus-principle. Hobbes' argument for social contract and sovereign is based essentially on this model. He proves that the natural conatus makes people (i) strive to preserve their lives and therefore to get out of the destructive state of nature; (ii) commit to mutual contracts; (iii) keep the contracts unless some external cause otherwise determines; and (iv) establish a permanent sovereign power that Hobbes calls 'an artificial eternity of life.' All this is determined by the fundamental laws of nature, essentially, by the conatus-principle. I also show that the Prisoner's Dilemma interpretation of the Hobbesian state of nature does not represent all of the essential features of Hobbes' argument.
He believes that by transferring all rights to a sovereign, the threat of the state of nature will be diminished. A sovereign elected will be able to represent and protect everyone equally, they are not a ruler of the people, but a representative. The Leviathan differs from a principality and a republic by establishing the institution of the commonwealth through the social contract. To understand how the Leviathan differs from either a principality or a republic, one must look at the principles of each to decipher how Hobbes bears resemblance to and disagrees with Machiavelli. The Leviathan state resembles a principality by giving absolute power to one sovereign.
The basis of natural law is that people are born with basic rights such as sovereignty, liberty and property. These rights are resulting from the ability of man to use their morals, logic and reason. Natural law starts with the idea that our rights come from God or nature. These rights are endangered by the development of positive law. Positive law can be seen as the opposite of natural law. With positive law, the government has the power to decide what is legal and what is not. (http://www.libertyforlaymen.com/2010/03/reactivating-liberty-natural-law-vs.html)
According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, human beings are bestowed with the blessings of freedom during their individual genesis on this fruitful planet, but this natural freedom is immensely circumscribed as it’s exchanged for the civil liberties of the State. He indicated that the supplanting of natural freedom is necessary for the obtainment of greater power for the greater collective community, but the prospect of obtaining superlative capabilities comes with the price of constraints. Yet this notion of natural freedom conflicts with Thomas Hobbes rendition on the state of nature because he illustrates that nature, interface through savagery. According to Hobbes, mankind has endorsed and embraced natures temperament, because this system of truculency and servility that nature orbits adversely affects the nature of mankind, resulting in mankinds affinity for greed, and brutal ambition. Inspite of their conflicting perspectives on the state of nature, both support and explicate on the idea that the preservation and proliferation of mankind as a whole is best achieved through their belief, and withholding the policies of a social contract. The intention of Leviathan is to create this perfect government, which people eagerly aspires to become apart of, at the behest of individual relinquishing their born rights. This commonwealth, the aggregation of people for the purposes of preventing unrest and war, is predicated upon laws that prohibit injustice through the implementation of punishment. Essentially in the mind of both Rousseau and Hobbes, constraints are necessary for human beings to be truly free under the covenants and contracts applied to the civil state at which mankind interface through.
Fundamentally, Aristotle’s and Hobbes’s principles represent two contradictory interpretations of the philosophy of human nature and why men gather and constitute government. For Aristotle, man is naturally a social and political animal, structured toward living in a community; whereas for Hobbes, it is natural for man to live for himself, and the state is an artificially created concept to prevent war. In the following essay, I will argue that Hobbes’s claim that the state of nature is a state
Above anything else, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is a creation story and an investigation of human nature. The story begins in a time of chaos and death and through a journey of human development culminates in the establishment of a sustainable and rational society—the commonwealth—led by a sovereign. At a first casual glance, Hobbes’ reasoning of the transformation from the state of nature to the commonwealth is not airtight. A few possible objections can be quickly spotted: the contradictions of natural law with suicide and the civil law to honor even harmful covenants. Hobbes deals with some of these issues and seems to ignore others, but he does address in detail the most significant objection to his theory: the unlimited and unchecked power given to the sovereign. The establishment of the commonwealth culminates in a covenant that grants the sovereign absolute power in enforcing the civil laws of the state, but also guarantees the sovereign’s status as above the law. How does this ensure peace and survival, as is the point of the commonwealth? Hobbes provides many convincing reasons why it would be difficult, counterproductive, and impossible for the sovereign to not be above the law, but in the end, disorder and chaos are worse than any tyranny.
Hobbes explanation of the state and the sovereign arises from what he calls “the State of Nature”. The State of Nature is the absence of political authority. There is no ruler, no laws and Hobbes believes that this is the natural condition of humanity (Hobbes 1839-45, 72). In the State of Nature there is equality. By this, Hobbes means, that there is a rough equality of power. This is because anyone has the power to kill anyone (Hobbes 1839-45, 71). Hobbes argues that the State of Nature is a violent, continuous war between every person. He claims that the State of nature is a state of w...
Humanism is a literary and linguistic movement cultivated during the Renaissance that was founded on revising classical Latin and Greek texts, styles, and values. Humanists encouraged looking to the past to discover what is good and how people should act including leaders. Many humanist wrote about how they believe a prince should act and what he should do to be successful in his rule. Most humanists believed that princes should be virtuous in order to be successful rulers as many ancient leaders were. However, Machiavelli in his work The Prince uses history as a part of his argument to undermine some humanist ideals such as being purely virtuous and morality being the key to good government but also uses it to promote humanist ideals such as looking to the past to discover how a leader should behave.
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.
Thomas Hobbes and John Stuart Mill have completely differing views on affairs consisting of liberty and authority. Hobbes believing that man is inherently unable to govern themselves and emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure, leading him to be in favor of authority. Throughout “On Liberty” Mill believes that authority, used to subvert one’s liberty, is only acceptable in protecting one from harm. In Leviathan Hobbes uses the Leviathan as a metaphor for the state, made up of its inhabitants, with the head of the Leviathan being the sovereign and having sovereignty as the soul of the Leviathan. Hobbes’ believes that man needs the absolute direction of the sovereign for society to properly function, deeming liberty practically irrelevant due to authority, as the government’s power is the only thing that allows society to go anywhere. The views that Mill has on liberty are not simply more applicable in modern and ancient society, but the outcome of his views are far more beneficial on society as a whole compared to Hobbes’ who’s views are far too black and white to be applied in outside of a theoretical situation and would not truly work in real world scenarios.
The State of Nature is a term utilized as a part of political reasoning to portray a theoretical state of humankind before the development of a true blue government (Mansour, 2006). Hobbes gives a disheartening record of what life would be similar to without the profits of a social contract. He depicts the State of Nature as merciless, where, without the principle of law "man exists in nonstop fear and risk of rough passing" (Hobbes 2008, p. 86) and the life of man is "lone, poor, dreadful, brutish and short" (Hobbes 2008, p. 86). Hobbes likewise guarantees that there is no right to property in the State of Nature in light of the fact that nobody manages an alternate that right. Hobbes expresses that in the State of Nature property and belonging would inexorably cause men to end up foes. Hobbes' State of Nature is in a steady condition of war, or trepidation of war, without a solid normal sovereign.
In Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, Hobbes introduces a fundamentally novel concept of the roots of politics and civic government. His ideas are based on his own views of human nature, which he believes to be disturbingly chaotic if left without structure. Hobbes believes, that the only way to guarantee society’s peace and security from such chaotic nature, is to establish a sovereign to rule over the commonwealth. Therefore, he proposes that the most practical and efficient sovereign is one that is all powerful with unlimited rights. However, although Hobbes’ mostly well-reasoned ideas create this ideal omnipotent sovereign, there are a few problems with his argument that cause it to fail; mainly because human nature does not allow for the cultivation of a covenant, the assumptions that Hobbes makes of the omnipotent sovereign is improbable if not impossible, and finally, Hobbes’ ideas regarding the rights of the sovereign are contradictory to some of his other political ideas.
Question One: Define natural law and positive law. What is the relationship between natural law and positive law? Natural law and positive law operate with similar intent yet have been developed separately, but in a manner in which they coexist. Positive law is the tangible system of “rules” in which society operates under. This form of rule abiding is set forth by two different branches, moral code and forms of law (Riddal, pg. 41). Moral obligation does not consist of a set punishing body when such rules are violated, but are subject to opposition from another party in the event of such code being breached, forcing pressure to conform. Such pressure is more explicitly present in legislative rules through various sanctions; heavily deterring
Encarta Dictionary says that Humanism is a system of thought that centers on human beings and their values, capacities and worth. Encarta also goes on the say that, in philosophy, humanism is an attitude that emphasizes the dignity and worth of an individual. A basic premise of humanism is that people are rational beings who possess within themselves the capacity for truth and goodness. I see myself as a being a humanist through everyday life. I always try to see the good in a person when he/she makes me angry or sad, and say I to myself that maybe that person has had a bad day and living life is difficult at the moment. Socrates was even an early humanist of sorts. He can be quoted as saying, "to know the good is to do the good." He believed that nobody voluntarily commits an evil act because evil comes from ignorance, ignorance being not stupidity, but having a lack of knowledge. If all people thought as humanists, would peace be spread across the globe?