More handpicked essays just for you.
Sovereignty in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan
Critical analysis of thomas hobbes concept of leviathan
The criticism of Thomas Hobbes theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Sovereignty in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan
Are humans naturally good or evil? This is a question that has been frequently asked throughout humanity. Great philosophers, such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, have debated on whether humanity is naturally selfish, greedy, and cruel or whether we are naturally reasonable and moral. In my opinion, I believe humans were born naturally good but have turned evil due to the wicked nature of society. Therefore, I agree with the idea presented by Hobbes, that humanity is evil.
“Leviathan” a book by Thomas Hobbes talks about the needs of a social contract theory and an absolute sovereign. The fact that we need a government suggests that men would be living in an absolute chaotic world if there wasn’t someone making and enforcing laws. People would have been fighting, robbing, and attacking one another without constraint or a guilty conscience. On contrary, constant wars would have been happening and life would be short, brutish, and nasty. However, not all governments are good, they can execute wicked deeds and can be corrupted. This can be seen in the Philippines where the government issue a war on drugs in order to eliminate the use of drugs among the citizens.
…show more content…
We have created these massacres because of two main reasons. The first reason is humanity is greedy for power. We have seen this in World War 1 and World War 2 where countries fought each other for power and caused a huge destruction in the world. This also can be seen in The Slave Trade where Europeans kidnapped millions of African slaves and traded them with other countries. The second reason is the hatred of a certain religion. The Ottoman Turks targeted millions of Armenian Christians in World War 1 and the German Nazi murdered about six millions Jews, more than two-thirds were babies and
Are humans naturally good or evil? This age-old question dates back to as early as the Chinese Dynasty and is still being argued to this day. Thomas Hobbes believed that all humans were born cruel, that they began cheating others to benefit themselves. Whereas, John Locke believes that humans are born good and pure, but become evil based on experiences and obstacles in life. In my opinion, all humans are born good and become cruel based on their experiences. I feel this way because when you look at a new born baby, they are seeing the world for the first time, and although they are screaming and crying, they are pure. They do not want to do anyone any harm, and you do not wish to cause them any harm. The same goes for young, growing children
Are humans naturally good, or evil? Many people argue both ways. It has been argued for centuries, and many authors have written about it. One example of this is Samuel Clemens's, more commonly known as Mark Twain, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The book follows a young boy, named Huckleberry, and a runaway slave, named Jim, as they both run away. Huck runs away to escape being civilized, while Jim runs away from slavery. Together, they talk about life, philosophy, and friends. As they travel down the Mississippi River, both Huck and Jim learn various life lessons. In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck witnesses the depravity of human nature on his journey on the Mississippi River.
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” Revolutionary Thomas Paine describes the government, which may seem evil at times, as a necessity for becoming a functioning society. A lot of responsibility is entrusted onto today’s government to create a safe, law based environment in which everyone can live and prosper. Although without the structure of a government to create laws and have the authority to enforce them, society itself would become chaotic. If a strong government ever became corrupt, it would have the ability to keep control on society by creating laws that limit people’s free-will. This creates a dystopian society for every person living under that government.
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
Whether or not humans are instinctively good or evil has been a much talked about debate for many years and is known as an unanswerable question. Determinists, such as Thomas Hobbs, have come to the conclusion that humans are naturally evil and it is within our basic instincts to be greedy, selfish and otherwise drawn to chaos. Hobbs states that “our true nature arises in times of strife and it is within us, when threatened, to self preserve.” I on the other hand disagree with this famous philosophers take on human nature. In this short essay, I will argue that human beings are born with the instinct to be good and to love one another, as well as to be loved.
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.
Through this examination of ideas, a conclusion may be made concerning the ideal form of government to preside over society today. In his famous writing, “The Leviathan”, Thomas Hobbes explains that the natural condition of mankind is when a society lives together without the rule of a common authority or power; this creates a “dog-eat-dog” world in which the citizens live in a perpetual state of utter chaos and fear. The fears experienced by the citizens are not only of the unequal distribution of the power of others, but also fear of the loss of their own power. In Hobbes’ state of nature there is complete liberty for society in the idea that each member may do whatever he or she pleases without having to worry about infringing upon the rights of the rest of society; in other words, one is allowed to do whatever necessary to pursue their own happiness. However, there is no guarantee of safety and protection from that same power which is granted to every other member of society.... ...
“The fact that war is the word we use for almost everything—on terrorism, drugs, even poverty—has certainly helped to desensitize us to its invocation; if we wage wars on everything, how bad can they be?”- Glenn Greenwald. The use of drugs through out the United States has gotten worse and worse every year, and I know that in the U.S. it is both a health problem and a crime problem. But I feel like that we should treat the abuse of illegal drugs as a matter of public health. It should be treated as a matter of public health over a matter of criminal justice because we can help people that abuse drugs and are addicted. Also well be able to get their lives on track so they won’t have to use drugs again which makes dealers go away because no one is buying their drugs anymore.” The origins and nature of the appeal of anti drug claims must be confronted if we are ever to understand how “drug problems” are constructed in the U.S.”(pg.92) –The Social Construction of Drug Scares
A “drug-free society” has never existed, and probably will never exist, regardless of the many drug laws in place. Over the past 100 years, the government has made numerous efforts to control access to certain drugs that are too dangerous or too likely to produce dependence. Many refer to the development of drug laws as a “war on drugs,” because of the vast growth of expenditures and wide range of drugs now controlled. The concept of a “war on drugs” reflects the perspective that some drugs are evil and war must be conducted against the substances
How exactly does the human brain work? Are humans evil by nature or are they good samaritans most, if not all, the time? As studies throughout history have shown, this is not the case. Humans are inherently evil because they are always seeking as much power as they can, revert to challenging authority and selfishness in times of peril, and become intimidated easily by “authority” figures egging them on, which is reflected in The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, as well as The Zimbardo Experiment conducted by Psychologist Phillip Zimbardo.
“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.” (Eleanor Roosevelt). This is just one of the infinite examples of how human nature has been explored by so many different people. Each and every human is born with the capability of making their own choices. The decisions that they will make in the future will determine how evil they are viewed by others. Although one’s nature and nurture do affect their life, it is their own free will that determines whether or not they are evil.
Philosophers have struggled with determining the proper role of government. In the absence of government and laws, people could do whatever they wanted, and some of them would try to slaughter others and steal their property. This is the state called anarchy. People have realized that the safety of the people and the country would be in jeopardy in such a state. Thus, it is necessary for a country to have a government and/or ruler. However, a ruler must not have absolute power nor lack authority. But the protection of the people and the country alone is not enough for a country to prosper. The property and the natural rights of the people and the government must also be protected. Thus, the proper role of government is to protect the people’s natural rights, their property, and the people themselves.
Are human beings born to be good? Or are we naturally born to be evil? A person’s nature or essence is a trait that is inherent and lasting in an individual. To be a good person is someone who thinks of others before themselves, shows kindness to one another, and makes good choices in life that can lead to a path of becoming a good moral person. To be a bad person rebels against something or someone thinking only of them and not caring about the consequences of their actions. Rousseau assumed, “that man is good by nature (as it is bequeathed to him), but good in a negative way: that is, he is not evil of his own accord and on purpose, but only in danger of being contaminated and corrupted by evil or inept guides and examples (Immanuel Kant 123).” In other words, the human is exposed to the depraved society by incompetent guardians or influences that is not of one’s free will in the view of the fact that it is passed on. My position is humans are not by nature evil. Instead, they are good but influenced by the environment and societies to act in evil ways to either harm others or themself.
In conclusion, human nature is self- preservation and reproduction, which is neither good nor evil. We are later developed by nurture and diverged to behave good or evil. The essence of all human behavior is the desire to survive and pass genes. Self- preservation can also be applied to people around us. As a result, we learn to cooperate and sometimes we sacrifice ourselves to fulfill survival of the species. On the other hand, to survive is not necessarily harming or getting larger share of resources than others. Self- preservation and reproduction as human nature are neutral, without biasing to good or evil.
Whether or not humans are essentially evil or sympathetic is a question that has long left many philosophers in a state of conflict. Through the evaluation of natural human qualities, many different opinions have been formed. The so called “laws” of the world attempt to define a set of uncertain rules which are to govern society in its most raw form, dictate moral rights and wrongs, and create boundaries. Every single action can be separated into any of these three categories, depending upon the action. The Bible states that it is only through baptism that a sin may be removed from the carrier. Non-religious opinions may offer a similar opinion in a sense that humans possess the capability of committing evil acts. Human beings are in constant pursuit of their basic necessities and they are without limits to what they will do to obtain them. Since humans are individualistically driven, the ultimate desires are ones for pleasure, comfort, and contact. These can usually be found in the limits of a community environment. Our desires cross paths, since the desire of sensual experiences and close human contact in the form of community correspond with the desire for individualistic advancement and success. Competition causes holes within society, and gives rise to upper and lower classes. This causes the gap between the rich and those living in means of poverty. A truly selfless society, and one without evil would share the wealth equally, creating a level playing field for all those in the community, yet this is not the case. Friction among the classes of people results in corruption, jealousy, crime, and other small offenses. Living in a community requires trust and faith in the overall nature of others to do the right th...