Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critiques of thomas hobbes political philosophy
Critiques of thomas hobbes political philosophy
The view of Hobbes on the state of nature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critiques of thomas hobbes political philosophy
Political theory places a large focus on Thomas Hobbes and his concept of the Leviathan. This theory is that existing in the “state of nature” creates a life that is “poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, so people should instead give up part of their liberty and join a leviathan (state) that will serve their best interests. This concept places an utmost importance in the state and calls for the necessity of citizens to have blind faith in said institution while dispelling anything that lies beyond. It also creates an inherent othering and moral hierarchy that labels everything that is not “in” as evil. This dichotomy is a colonial ideology. It creates a paradox that the concepts of “uncivilized” and “civilized” cannot inherently exist without …show more content…
He assumes that they no grasp of agency and thus is surprised when they manage to pull a prank on him, coordinated by the whole tribe. His response is childish and embarrassing and speaks for the mindset that Americans have about cultures and the harmful consequences of labeling as the other. This also reflects the harmful ways in which American society educates their leaders if he still had this reaction despite being a distinguished ethnographer. “Christmas in the Kalahari”, the Ted Talk, and “the Heart of Darkness” provide a foundational insight for why Americans have their beliefs about other countries in such a distancing way. Thus having this knowledge about baseline assumptions and stereotypes will allow me to effectively examine the more concrete and absolute ways in which this behavior affects peace and conflict and lived experience on a more global …show more content…
The United States, afraid of the domino effect and losing other nations to communism, used Latin America as a place to fight a proxy war with the Soviet Union. Othering these countries and using their populations as chess pieces in their Cold War stalemate, the United States created a significant amount of unsolved problems throughout Central America. The effects of this othering and blatant disregard for actual human life and experiences are still seen today. Latin America is the only region of the world where homicides are rising. The region constitutes 8% of the world’s population but contains ⅓ of the homicides. In the case of El Salvador as documented by the documentary La Sierra, the country was struggling a lot due to the post Cold War legacy. Salvadoran immigrants moved to Southern California where on the fringes of society due to difficulty integrating into “mainstream American culture” they were exposed to gang culture and became indoctrinated with ideas of violence. When many of these immigrants were sent back to El Salvador, they brought the ideas learned in their “criminal finishing schools” with them, perpetuating violence. This notion of inequality also relates to racism by the United States by the war on drugs, declared by Nixon in 1971. Steeply criminalizing drug use and distribution created an institutionalized form of inequality in patrolling and policing. The
There is a diverse amount of themes that could be compared in Republic by Plato and Leviathan by Hobbes. Through these books the two authors each construct a system in which their ideal state can thrive. Both writers agree that government is necessary for the good of the people, however what that government entails drastically differs. Their images of a utopian society are largely based on their perception of human beings. Seeing as how their views on human nature are quite opposite from the other’s, it is understandable that their political theories have many dissimilarities.
By the end of the 2000s, while it seemed to many that there was no end in sight to the violence, behind the scenes senior gang leaders in El Salvador admitted to having grown tired of the gang warfare. Many of them, reflecting on the destruction the inter-gang violence had wrought on the communities in which their mothers, wives, children and grandchildren lived, felt compelled to look for a solution.... ... middle of paper ... ... Having grown increasingly frustrated with these rampant displays of impunity by gangs, the Salvadoran public pressured its government to prioritize public security above all else.
Machiavelli divides all states into principalities and republics, principalities are governed by a solitary figure and republics are ruled by a group of people. With Hobbes’ Leviathan a new model for governing a territory was introduced that can no longer be equally divided into Machiavelli's two state categories. Hobbes combines the concepts for governing principalities and republics into a new type of political thought that is similar to and different from Machiavelli. Hobbes, unlike Machiavelli, is on the side of the people and not the armed prophets. Hobbes believes that the function of society is not just merely living, but to have a safe and comfortable life. 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 principalities and a republics by establishing the institution of the commonwealth through the social contract.
Thomas Hobbes believes that the optimal form of authority is one that has absolute power over its people, consisting of just one person who will retain the exclusive ability to oversee and decide on all of society’s issues. This Sovereign will be constituted by a social contract with the people. With that, the Sovereign will hold all of the citizens’ rights, and will be permitted to act in whichever way he or she deems necessary. The philosopher comes to this conclusion with deductive reasoning, utilizing a scientific method with straightforward arguments to prove his point.
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.
European philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan in which he conveyed his beliefs that people were innately evil, and need the assistance of sovereign control because they were unfit to govern themselves and if they did it would solely result in violence
Is the purpose of government today, similar to that of philosophers of the past, or has there been a shift in political thought? This essay will argue that according to Machiavelli’s The Prince, the purpose of government is to ensure the stability of the state as well as the preservation of the established ruler’s control, and that the best form of government should take the form of an oligarchy. In contrast, in his book, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that the purpose of government should be to preserve the peace and security of men and, that the best form of government would be an absolute monarchy which would sanction such conditions. This essay will utilize themes of glory, material advantage, peace and stability to illustrate
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
War and violence in Central America is a result of governmental injustice due to the United States’ foreign policies. The United States supported El Salvador with weapons and money throughout the civil war. As a result of enforcing these policies, El Salvador’s poverty, population and crime rate increased. The books “.After.” by Carolina Rivera Escamilla and “The Tattooed Soldier” by Hector Tobar give us a glimpse of the issues Central Americans face.
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.
In this essay, I will present three reasons as to why the absolute authority of the sovereign in Hobbes’s state of nature and social contract is justified. The three reasons Hobbes uses are: the argument from contract, the argument from authorisation and the argument from weakness of mixed or divided sovereignty. Firstly, I shall explain Hobbes’s understanding of human nature and the natural condition of humanity which causes the emergence of the social contract. I shall then analyse each argument for the absolute authority of the sovereign being justified. I shall then consider possible objections to Hobbes’s argument. I shall then show why Hobbes’s argument is successful and the absolute authority of the sovereign is justified.
In The Leviathan Thomas Hobbes argues for the establishment of a society that does not contain the elements of its own demise. Hobbes views civil war as a society’s ultimate demise, and the only way to avoid it is for the citizens initially to submit to an absolute political authority. For Hobbes, civil war is inevitable in every type of government except an absolute government. In order to sustain this absolute government, the citizens not only must submit to the absolute political authority, but they must also not partake in activities that actively undermine the absolute political authority’s power. For these reasons, it is clear that Hobbes believes in political obedience and its ability to influence the peace of a society. Furthermore,
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.
In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.
Different schools of thought have generated arguments since the beginning of civilization. They represent different perspectives of every part of life, whether its religion or politics. The realist school and the humanist perspectives offer people different views in many different aspects.