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, …show more content…
he believes a peaceful society is more likely to practice political obedience than a violent one. In order to support these assertions on the reciprocal nature of political obedience and peace, Hobbes describes life in the total absence of government, also known as the state of nature. Hobbes specifies this scenario by explaining “the condition of mere nature, a condition in which there is no absolute political authority to settle disputes, make decisions, or enforce his rule upon other individuals” (Hobbes). It is a condition in which individuals exist with privacy and autonomy. In this sense, the individual decides how to act, settles disputes, makes decisions, and enforces these decisions in the manner that he sees most effective. No individual holds power or influence over another, and no individual is beholden to the authority of another. Similar to the control group in a scientific experiment, Hobbes uses this state of nature as a reference point to show how certain political arrangements would influence the actions and motives behind individuals. He philosophizes with the assumption that in a state of nature, the individual acts freely and untethered. In the Second Treatise of Government John Locke agrees with Hobbes’ assertion that life in the state of nature is preferable to submitting one’s autonomy and power to an absolute political authority. Locke argues that the will of the absolute political authority is arbitrary and is not always synonymous with the desires and needs of society. To this argument, however, Hobbes adds that a “dissolute condition of master-less men, without subjection to Laws, and a coercive Power to tie their hands from rapine, and revenge” (Hobbes) would prevent the existence of a society in which security and civilization are paramount. In a true state of nature, there would be no laws to prevent crime, no organizations to provide peace, and no structures to establish the cornerstones of civilized society. Furthermore, there would be “no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes). The state of nature that Hobbes describes is not an attractive scenario for individuals because the individual would exist “in the condition of mere nature, as private appetite is the measure of good and evil” (Hobbes). This private appetite has the potential to devolve into civil war, and the only solution is for individuals to collectively agree upon an absolute political authority to create and enforce laws. In addition to seeming like an unattractive scenario for the majority of individuals, Hobbes’ state of nature is also pessimistic in its description of innate human nature; however, Hobbes employs various empirical and normative assumptions that cause him to define the state of nature in such harsh terms.
His first assumption is that people are physically and mentally similar to one another, and this similarity means that “no individual has the capacity to overpower or influence another” (Hobbes). A flaw, however, that I realize in this assertion is that there do exist in society persons of deficient physical and mental ability. For example, people with severe physical or mental handicaps would not fare well in Hobbes’ state of nature because they would be easily dominated. Hobbes’ second assumption is that people generally want to protect their own lives, “shun[ning] death” (Hobbes). This proclivity for self-preservation does not translate to an innate malevolent nature of humans; however, it does imply that humans tend to be more indifferent towards each other than benevolent. I tend to agree with this second assumption because in my experience, individuals think of themselves in an elevated manner, and if someone does not agree with this view, the individual becomes offended. Individuals tend to judge others based on swift observations, dismissing others if they do not align with one’s personal preferences. The final assumption Hobbes asserts is that individuals have a penchant for religion. This penchant stems from the curious and anxious nature of individuals. Hobbes thinks that these aspects of human nature cause individuals to “seek out religious beliefs” (Hobbes) in order to quell the curiosity and anxiety that dominates their lives. In addition to these various normative assumptions regarding the state of nature, Hobbes outlines the right of nature, which is “a liberty right to preserve the individual in the state of nature” (Hobbes). In essence, this
right of nature translates to an individual’s right to do whatever necessary in order to preserve his own life. While Hobbes theorizes this right as a limited one in the state of nature, it can also be argued that this right is an unlimited one in that an individual can potentially justify anything he does if it helps to preserve his life. Then, in the state of nature, individuals have a right “to all things” (Hobbes). With this in mind, individuals in the state of nature, according to Hobbes, act in a rational manner that leads them to their most significant potential. While Hobbes defines the state of nature as a situation in which there is no absolute political authority, and in which individuals are want to do what they please, Locke's concept of the state of nature is one in which individuals’ “want of a lack of a common judge, with authority, puts all persons in a state of nature” (Locke). For Locke, a situation in which “men live according to reason, without a common superior on earth to judge between them, is properly the state of nature” (Locke). Similar to Hobbes, Locke’s definition of the state of nature is purported on the lack of a legitimate political authority that is able to judge disputes. Where the two philosophers differ is in their view of an individual’s drive to action. While Hobbes states that individuals’ actions are propelled by self-preservation, Locke argues that reason is the driving force behind individuals’ actions. In this sense, Locke’s state of nature is not necessarily a political society, because in a political society there is a legitimate form of government. Furthermore, Locke distinguishes his state of nature from a state a war because in a state of war, individuals generally act without reason. As in the state of nature of Hobbes, there are contradictions that exist with the state of nature of Locke as well. The first contradiction I notice is in regards to the settlement of disputes. An individual can attempt to settle a dispute between other individuals and still exist within Locke’s state of nature. This contradiction is possible because the negotiator would not have any legislative authority in society. An additional contradiction that exists within Locke’s state of nature relates to consent. There are various groups of individuals who can exist in a society where there is an absolute political authority while simultaneously living in Locke’s definition of a state of nature. There is no literal geographic definition to Locke’s state of nature; rather, it describes the rights and responsibilities that exist between the individuals in society. In this sense, individuals who cannot act with the highest sense of reason are not able to consent to existing in a society that is governed by an absolute political authority. These individuals, for example children, theoretically remain in the state of nature while literally living in a society that is governed by a legitimate entity. The final contradiction that I observe in Locke’s state of nature is that it is limited by its definition. His state of nature describes the “rights and responsibilities that exist between individuals in society” (Locke), but Locke’s state of nature does not take into account any additional characteristics of the individual. The individual’s socioeconomic status, race, gender, and propensity for violence are not addressed, and I think all of theses factors are important to address when one imagines an ideal society. Locke’s theory of the state of nature relates directly to his theory of natural law. His theory of natural law “establishes the rights of the individual…and asserts that all individuals are free and equal” (Locke). If one accepts his characterization of individuals as free, equal, and independent, one can realize that his theory of the state of nature represents individuals fairly. Locke wants society to view his theories on the state of nature not as concepts, but as proven models. He argues that there are realistic societies that exist in the state of nature that he outlines in his works. To support this argument, he points to the social contract, an imaginary contract that all individuals passively abide by simply by living in given society. In this sense, all governments are legitimate because they have the implied consent of its constituents; however, it is clear that there are scenarios in which governments exist without the unanimous consent of its citizens. Locke would argue against this particular scenario. Locke’s political philosophy strongly emphasizes the concept of consent. Again, Locke states that the state of nature is one in which individuals are not beholden to an absolute political authority. No individual has the power to rule or judge over another because each individual exists in a state of freedom and independence. For this reason, in order for political organizations to arise, the individual must make the conscious decision to form said political organizations. The individual’s consent not only creates these organizations, but it also legitimizes them. Similarly, obligations and rights that exist outside of Locke’s natural law are only legitimized when the individual makes the conscious decision to adopt them. Locke clearly states “one can only become a full member of society by an act of express consent” (Locke). Locke’s intention is to stress consent as the defining factor in the state of nature, as it evolves from the individual’s ability to act with reason and rationality.
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.
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.
Hobbes views human nature as the war of each man against each man. For Hobbes, the essence of human nature can be found when we consider how man acts apart from any government or order. Hobbes describes the world as “a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...
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.
Sadly, I think Hobbes is correct, though clearly he was writing in the abstract. While all people do have within them elements of both good and bad, as The Osmond Brothers said so succinctly in the 1970’s, “one bad apple can spoil the whole darn bunch.” Even if 99.99% of the population was good, pure, philanthropic, and just, it only takes one “evil” individual to upset everything. As Hobbes pointed out – everyone must make a singular commitment to have freedom from the natural condition.
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.
For centuries, political theory was dominated by the idea that people are not equal. This idea that some were good for some things and not for others massively shaped the theories that grew from them. However, in Thomas Hobbes Leviathan we see a departure from this inequality. The argument of people being equal and the state of man that he develops from that belief are central not only to his own theory but to the world of political science today. It is his examination of people being equal, followed by the state of nature and war, and finally his look at various laws of nature that lead a natural path to his political solution.
In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern
����������� Thomas Hobbes is an important political and social philosopher. He shares his political philosophy in his work Leviathan. Hobbes begins by describing the state of nature, which is how humans coped with one another prior to the existence of government. He explains that without government, �the weakest has the strength to kill the strongest� (Hobbes 507). People will do whatever it takes to further their own interests and protect their selves; thus, creating a constant war of �every man against every man� (Hobbes 508). His three reasons for people fighting amongst each other prior to government include �competition,� �diffidence,� and �glory� (Hobbes 508). He explains how men fight to take power over other people�s property, to protect them selves, and to achieve fame. He describes life in the state of nature as being �solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short� (Hobbes 508). Hobbes goes on to say that if men can go on to do as they please, there will always be war. To get out of this state of nature, individuals created contracts with each other and began to form a government.
Hobbes believes that all men are equal insofar as that the weakest man has the power to kill the strongest man. Thus given that every man is vulnerable to any other man, all men have a very strong desire to escape the state where killing each other is acceptable, escape the state of nature. This can be done, simply put by endeavoring peace which coupled with not making war except to defend oneself, is the first law of nature (Leviathan 1, 14).
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.
Hobbes believed that human beings naturally desire the power to live well and that they will never be satisfied with the power they have without acquiring more power. After this, he believes, there usually succeeds a new desire such as fame and glory, ease and sensual pleasure or admiration from others. He also believed that all people are created equally. That everyone is equally capable of killing each other because although one man may be stronger than another, the weaker may be compensated for by his intellect or some other individual aspect. Hobbes believed that the nature of humanity leads people to seek power. He said that when two or more people want the same thing, they become enemies and attempt to destroy each other. He called this time when men oppose each other war. He said that there were three basic causes for war, competition, distrust and glory. In each of these cases, men use violence to invade their enemies territory either for their personal gain, their safety or for glory. He said that without a common power to unite the people, they would be in a war of every man against every man as long as the will to fight is known. He believed that this state of war was the natural state of human beings and that harmony among human beings is artificial because it is based on an agreement. If a group of people had something in common such as a common interest or a common goal, they would not be at war and united they would be more powerful against those who would seek to destroy them. One thing he noted that was consistent in all men was their interest in self-preservation.
Hobbes was a strong believer in the thought that human nature was evil. He believed that “only the unlimited power of a sovereign could contain human passions that disrupt the social order and threatened civilized life.” Hobbes believed that human nature was a force that would lead to a constant state of war if it was not controlled. In his work the Leviathan, he laid out a secular political statement in which he stated the significance of absolutism.
Hobbes wrote the Leviathan during the civil war where he had experienced horrendous visions of violence. “Thomas Hobbes lived during some of the most tumultuous times in European history -- consequently, it should be no surprise that his theories were thoroughly pessimistic regarding human nature.” This may support his view that he would rather have any higher authority rather than none no matter how corrupted the government actually is. He wrote that the people “should respect and obey their government because without it society would descend into a civil war ‘of every man against every man’.” However, this may have been the cause for a bias view. To elaborate, a war is an extreme depiction of the potential volatility in human nature. Therefore making one aspect of humanity seems pre-dominant.
He compares the state of nature to a state of constant war, long term community was impossible. (Hobbes p. 3) In this state men would fight each other because of competition over resources, fear and self-preservation, as well as for personal glory. (Hobbes, p. 3) According to Hobbes, even though man desires things like praise, in the state of nature “men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all.” (Hobbes. P 3) Without some greater power to enforce order, there can could be no trust in the state of nature, and therefore no community; man would live in a state of isolation. Hobbes wouldn’t say that all men couldn’t be trusted. He simply believed that there were different types of man. Some men desire knowledge, ease or, sensual delight and are more disposed to peace, but there are other men who desire competition and glory which can lead to conflict, “because the way of one competitor to the attaining of his desire is to kill, subdue, supplant, or repel the other.” (Hobbes, p.1) Due to this, man in Hobbes’s state of nature lives in constant fear. He does not know whether other men wish him harm, and therefore long-term community is nonexistent; man lives in fearful isolation while in this