Hobbes' Leviathan
These are the reasons that I felt reading Hobbes' Leviathan could help me gain some understanding and insight into these issues. Hobbes' Leviathan: Analysis of its Impact on the Framing of our Democracy Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, written against the backdrop of the horrors of the English Civil War, in the mid 1600's, is a discussion about the principles of man's basic need for peace, unity, and security, in both nature and civilization. Essentially arguing in favor of a sovereign monarchy, Hobbes writes in such a manner as to present these basic principles so they could apply to any political system, including that of a democracy. To achieve this, Hobbes presents several questions in this novel. What kind of being is man? What is the nature of man? What comprises a commonwealth that can successfully govern man? These are the pivotal questions presented in Hobbes' Leviathan. According to Hobbes, man is a creation of God not dissimilar to that of man manufacturing watches. Both have moving parts; a spring or heart to keep them alive, strings or nerves to hold them together, and wheels or joints to give motion to the whole body. But it is more than just this that Hobbes says makes up man. Man has, or at least should have sense, imagination, speech, and reason. Sense is an instrument for conception in man's mind. Without the senses, man cannot see the "Representation or Appearance of quality" (85). Imagination is the remembering of things once perceived by the senses, and the ability to compound different memories into one, as with compounding the sight of a man and a horse into that of a Centaur. Speech by far is "The most noble and profitable of all inventions", for speech is the means "Whereby men register th...
... middle of paper ...
...dgement, more than consent or concord. It would be a real unity of all men, focusing on one and the same man. Similar to every man saying "I authorise and give up my right of governing my selfe, to this man, or to this assembly of men, on the condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner" (227). If this state of mutual consent can be achieved, you can then call it a commonwealth, or in more modern terms a civilization. Through reading the text of Leviathan, I began to understand Hobbes' views of a commonwealth and how this creation we call "Man" must live within it. These insights have encouraged me to start taking greater note of politics, and while doing so, to keep in the back of my mind, Hobbes' view that "He that is to govern a whole Nation, must read in himself, not this, or that particular man; but Man-kind" (83).
...y will consent to this, and bring in a sovereign that will also operate under the law. Also, that sovereign will have to operate with checks and balances, under a government with divided powers. The difference with Hobbes is that if any powerful invader that takes over the land that you reside with the intent to be the sovereign is not allowed. As mentioned, such an action permits the people to declare war with this presumed authority. That also extends to the situation in which those citizens were unsatisfied with the government that they had initially consented to.
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.
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.
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,
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed.
The final sentence of that passage, “And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short,” seems to sum up what Hobbes has been leading up to in the first twelve chapters of Leviathan: that without a sovereign power, without Leviathan, the natural life of man is simply horrible. It is a life in which people naturally and constantly seek to destroy one another.
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.... ...
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
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.
promote their self-interests, democracy wouldn’t be a great idea because he wrote that “All mankind is in a perpetual and restless desire for power which can only stop in death,” so giving power to the individual would be creating a dangerous situation which would start a “war of every man against every man, “and life will be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Despite all this, Thomas Hobbes still believed a diverse group of representatives that can present the problems of the common person to king, so prevent them from being cruel and unfair but the monarch has the final
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.
The main critics of Thomas Hobbes’ work are most often those with a more optimistic view of human nature. However, if one is to really look at a man’s actions in depth, a self-serving motivation can always be found. The main problem with Hobbes’ claims is that he does not account for the more Darwinian perspective that helping one’s own species survive is at the same time a selfish and unwar-like act. Thus his conclusion that without a governing body, we are essentially at war with one another is not completely true as years of evolution can help disprove.
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.
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.
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.