More handpicked essays just for you.
Argument between Aristotle and Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes theory, advantages and disadvantages and criticism
Similarities of Hobbes and Aristotle
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Two of the most influential political theorists in history were Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes. Each man created his own school of thought which would shape the way men viewed politics thereafter. However, both men held vastly different views on the actions of man and for which end man exists and acts. They differed on how states came into being and why they existed in the first place. Aristotle holds the theory that man, by nature, is a social animal and that a political state exists for the common good of man. Hobbes believe the opposite—claiming that man is naturally individualistic and so political society exists to keep men from killing each other. Aristotle believes the man works for virtue and that the state helps him achieve this virtue. …show more content…
Thus, Hobbes asserts that societies are not natural and that men are not social and/or political animal. He argues that political communities and states are not natural. The state, according to Hobbes, is just a way for men to live with other men and escape a state of nature in which he lives in perpetual fear of death. Thus, the state of nature is one of extreme individualism. Hobbes argues that all men are equal in the way that any man can kill another man. There is a war for the acquisition of limited resources and since all men are considered equal, each person can hope to get what he wants. However, this “equality” creates competition since when two people both want the same thing, the opposing parties become enemies. This can be see in Chapter 13 of Leviathan when Hobbes asserts that “every man is an enemy to every man” (87). Hobbes continues in that same paragraph to claim that sometimes, men may come together to achieve a common goal but this association in not motivated by cooperation, but out of self-interest. Each man is hoping to gain something out of this relationship. Therefore, the alliance is not real since each individual is driven by self-interest and there is no way to enforce whatever agreement the parties involved have agreed upon. Additionally, each man still fears the other as there is no guarantee that the …show more content…
He states that “[f]or whatever is constituted is constituted out of a number of things—whether continuous or discrete—and becomes a single common thing always displays a ruling and ruled element” (Politics 1254a28-30). Just like an army needs a commander to be successful in war, humans need a ruling authority to establish the necessary order to function as a whole society. However, Aristotle claims that this is done in order to to achieve the end goals desired by those who are governed. He believes that the government should rule for the good of people and not to benefit those in power. This is seen in Politics 1252a1–7 when Aristotle writes
Aristotle purposed his theory through a way of stating how political community is best of all for
Aristotle and Hobbes have different views on what is good, which results in contrasting moral theories. These philosophers both have different views on what is good, how to act, and how to be. The way in which Aristotle defines happiness, is opposed in the views and beliefs of Hobbes. Aristotle believed that there was a final good and opposing him was the belief that Hobbes had which was that there was no final good. They both believed that being moral wasn’t only good for you but also good for others. Although both philosophers believe that you have to be moral in order to be good, their definitions of both happiness and moral virtue differ.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state.
“ They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer the injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than good”- Glaucon. Between Plato and Hobbes they have very different views on how justice and unjust can be served. Plato disagrees with what Glaucon has said about it but does say how it has reason. Hobbes refer to the justice as laws within the human nature and life. I will be showing the contrast between Plato and Hobbes views that are against or for Glaucon.
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...
The foremost difference between Aristotle and Hobbes, and in turn classical and modern political philosophies’, with regard to a good life and happiness is that of normative judgments about the good life. While Hobbes rejects normative judgments about the good life and discusses human actions without attributions of moral quality, Aristotle offers the exact opposite. In Ethics, Aristotle differentiates between good and evil actions along with what the best good, or summum bonum, for all humans while Hobbes approach argues that good and bad varies from one individual to another with good being the object of an individuals appetite or desire, and evil being an object of his hate and aversion. In addition, Aristotle makes it clear that individuals have an ultimate purpose—that of political animals—that they should strive to become through trial and error throughout their life. Hobbes on the other hand rejects the idea of life having an ultimate purpose, “for there is no such finis ultimus (utmost aim) nor summum bonum (greatest good) as is spoken of in the books of the old moral philosophers…Felicity is a continual progress of the desire, from one object to another, the attaining of the former being still but the way to the latter”. Hobbes defines felicity as the satisfaction of one’s passions as stated in Leviathan “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desireth, that is to say, continual prospering, is that men call felicity.
On the similarities and dissimilarities of the theories of human nature by Aristotle, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, there is a single common denominator that resonates throughout all of their works: in some way, shape, or form, they all attempt to outline and convey to the reader a sense of political understanding derived via a methodical approach to the interpretation of human society. Thomas Hobbes, author of The Leviathan, argues that mankind cannot be readily trusted to uphold the terms of certain covenants, and from this one can derive that Hobbes believes men to be fickle and capricious in their decisions, and that they should generally not be trusted. Hobbes also asserts that there exists a natural law that dictates that man will adhere to the policy of self-preservation above all else. These two arguments form the basis for what Hobbes refers to as the state of nature, in which the “will to contend by battle is sufficiently known” (Hobbes Ch. 13). The renowned Greek philosopher and author of Politics, Aristotle, contradicts Hobbes’s theory of human nature with his assumptions of man and the the polis. Aristotle’s belief that “man is a political animal”
Aristotle’s emphasis is on the city-state, or the political world as a natural occurrence. He says “every city-state exists by nature, since the first communities do.” (Aristotle 3). Aristotle continually reiterates the notion that the creation of a community comes from necessity; individuals aim at the highest good of all, happiness, through their own rationality, and the only way to achieve happiness is through the creation of the city-state. Aristotle follows the creation of a household and a village to the creation of the city-state in which citizens are able to come together to aim at the “good which has the most authority of all,” (Aristotle 1) happiness. In turn, this necessity for the formation of a city state comes from the idea of man as a rational being. “It is also clear why a human being is more of a political animal than a bee or any other gregarious animal… no animal has speech except for a human being.” (Aristotle 4). For Aristotle, human beings are political animals because of their ability to speak, their ability to communicate pleasures and desires, and their ability to reason. Aristotle’s state com...
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
����������� 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 view of human nature lead him to develop his vision of an ideal government. He believed that a common power was required to keep men united. This power would work to maintain the artificial harmony among the people as well as protect them from foreign enemies.
In Leviathan, Hobbes states that a state of war will ensue that will put every man against himself. Eventually the state of war will lead the people towards peace and the only way to achieve the peace is through social contract. Hobbes continues further saying, social peace and civil unity are best achieved through the establishment of a commonwealth through a social contract. This social contract insists that a sovereign power be granted absolute power to protect the commonwealth. This sovereign power will be able to control the powers of human nature because its whole function is to protect the common man.
Hobbes and Machiavelli both had revolutionary ideas about government and the essence of Man. Hobbes grew up in England, and had ideas concerning a freer type of government. His main work was ?Leviathan?. Machiavelli was raised in Italy, and had other ideas. Machiavelli focused on how a prince should act in governing his country. Machiavelli?s main work was entitled ?The Prince?. Ironically, neither Machiavelli nor Hobbes suggests a total democracy or a republic, like we use today. As much as Machiavelli and Hobbes are considered great philosophers, the modern government of the United States has proved to be the best.
An ideal society is in practice a rather difficult aim and even an impossible aim to achieve. Politics implies measures which could and should, in the views of their devisor, be implemented in the hope to create a better society, than that which is already present. The very fact that Plato and Aristotle saw imperfections in the societies in which they lived, prompted them to write their political philosophies. These philosophies provided the first written recognition of politics. In his writings his "The Politics", Aristotle states that "Man is by nature a political animal"(The Politics, 1) in another words, it lies deep within the instinct of man.