At the core of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan rests one fundamental value of a society, from which
Hobbes derives all other laws: the duty to self-preservation. At the same time, many of Hobbes’ claims
rest on his assumption that there is very little difference between men in their physical and mental
abilities. By these two ideas, Hobbes asserts that it is to the advantage of every individual’s duty to self-
preservation to seek peace with all other men (Hobbes Ch. 13, p. 2). But, in reading this text we must
ask ourselves: Does Hobbes consider what would happen if a person were both confident and skilled
enough that he or she could subvert the confederate power of all other men? What difficulties might
such a person present to the ethical solidarity of the Hobbesian state? To answer these questions, I will
first deliver a short story that brings the ethical trustworthiness of the Hobbesian state into question.
With this story I will then illuminate the flaws of the Hobbesian state, which can be traced back to its
fundamental principle of self-preservation. Finally, I will present a different fundamental principle for
the laws of a state, equal and fair love, enumerating its advantages.
To begin, imagine the following story. In a time very similar to the current one but not our own,
the state exists exactly as Hobbes had presented in The Leviathan. The Sovereign rules absolutely; every
citizen holds the right of self-preservation as the fundamental value of their society; and Hobbes is
remembered as a national hero. However, the nation currently suffers from a great recession, and
many live in terrible poverty. Trusting all their rights to the state, the citizens cling to a hope for a better
future.
But among these citizens, no one is more passionate or more devout for the state than Aminta1.
As a criminal investigator for the state police, Aminta has received plentiful training and experience
which distinguishes her as an above-average individual in terms of general intelligence. However,
Aminta possesses one great idiosyncrasy that sharply distinguishes her from the rest of her people. She
1 From the Greek word for “protector” or “defender” (English-Greek Dictionary)
holds no fear or belief in God and believes there is only this life and its punishments. Aminta deems
belief in the divine as the folklore...
... middle of paper ...
...obbesian state.
For one, there is nothing inherent to the preservation of one’s own freedom that would enable a man to
have regard for another man’s well-being. Just like the duty to self-preservation, this principle may
permit the American citizen to disregard the needs of his fellow man, so long as his freedoms have not
been infringed. Thus, we begin to see the incredible influence Hobbes’ work has had in much of today’s
political theory. If a state were to decide to alter its fundamental principle, it appears it would take years
of pulling up bricks to lay the groundwork for a new fundamental principle. Equal and fair love may be
more advantageous, but it would take incredible amounts of energy to implement in a state today.
Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas. The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury; Now First Collected
and Edited by Sir William Molesworth, Bart. Vol. 3. London: Bohn, 1839-45.
Electronic.
Locke, John. The Works of John Locke in Nine Volumes. 12th ed. Vol. 4. London: Rivington,
1824. Electronic.
“Defender,” “Protect.” English-Greek Dictionary. 2nd ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Ltd., 1959. Print.
The foremost aspects to consider from the Leviathan are Hobbes’s views on human nature, what the state of nature consists of, and what role morality plays. Hobbes assumes, taking the position of a scientist, that humans are “bodies in motion.” In other words, simple mechanical existences motivated solely to gain sati...
In his Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes outlined his views on law, the individual and the state. It is the first and foremost pieces on social contract theory. Hobbes explains the emergence of a sovereign, as “an embodiment of people’s individual and collective will to live in conditions of security, peace and some minimal prosperity” .
All citizens apart of the Leviathan yield their right to the sovereign. This resembles a principality because the authority of the sovereign is ruled by one person. Hobbes believes that "A kingdom divided in itself cannot stand" (Hobbes, 136). Therefore, the authority of the government must not be divided and there can only be one sovereign in control.... ...
Hobbes and Locke both present states of nature in which the human race exists prior to, or without the formation of civil society. These states of nature present stark differences between one other that emphasize the different views the two author’s have on the natural human state. The states of nature each give rise to their own distinct and separate reasons for forming a civil society and, consequently, giving up rights in order to form a civil society. I will begin my essay by presenting both Locke’s and Hobbes’ state of nature and outlining their differences. Then I will analyze the ways in which Hobbes’ state of nature may be seen as more plausible, as well as considering some possible objections to Hobbes’ view. Next I will examine Locke’s view and why it may be considered more plausible in addition to looking at some arguments against it. In this paper I intend to argue that Hobbes’ state of nature makes the acceptance of a civil society more plausible, but that Locke’s state of nature presents more plausibility in commonly held views or intuitions people may hold today.
At first reading, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan can be an intimidating piece of academia. In spite of this, Part 2 of his work, ‘Of Commonwealth’, is still a core piece of political philosophy. Hobbes proposes that the only true functional, permanent and society is one of absolute authority. This essay is focused primarily on the identification and translation of Hobbes’ main doctrines against divided authority, versus the aforementioned unified state. This will be done by looking arguments about the initial construction of the state, the problems of giving each individual the responsibility of power, and benefits of the sovereign as a singular all-powerful figure versus alternatives.
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,
Proposed with the question of whether Thomas Hobbes’s manifesto was written of “oughts” constructed upon; prudential, moral or ethical foundations it is the former that prevails through his writing.
We will give Hobbes’ view of human nature as he describes it in Chapter 13 of Leviathan. We will then give an argument for placing a clarifying layer above the Hobbesian view in order to account for acts of altruism. 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.”
Thomas Hobbes derived his theories by concluding that man in and of itself was evil. In addition, he felt that if left without a government authority, life would be "nasty, brutish, and short". In a direct result of the evilness of man comes the theory that self-preservation is the most imperative component of life. At all costs, one must uphold this right and do whatever is necessary to preserve it. Because every man in a state of nature can be based on one theory, it creates a state of equal mentality. If one man basis life around self-preservation, so will the next. With a society being in this perpetual condition, it creates a state of war. One man against all others—all equal in ability regardless of size or intelligence due to circumstances and willpower that can always level the playing field.
According to Hobbes, every human being has the right to put into practice his talents for the sake of self-preservation and growth. There is a constant struggle between man and in humanity. He states, “ For such is that nature of men, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves, for they see their own wit at hand and other men’s at a distance” (Hobbes 68). This eternal state conflict leaves Hobbes to believe it is better to accept the established laws and customs of their nation. Regardless if unjustly inflicting hardship is shown in a minority or in subordinate group. For the sake of obtaining civil peace and security, we must turn away from natural and divine laws. Hobbes then states: “As if it were Injustice to sell dearer than we buy; or to give more to a man than he merits. The value of all things contracted for, is measured by the Appetite of the Contractors: and therefore the just value, is that which they be contented to give” (Hobbes 69). Here is another example in which Hobbes believes that man should stick to man-made laws and break from basically the notion of “ universal rights”. He expresses how human beings are selfish, anti-social, and competitive. The conclusion in Hobbes “ state of nature” teaching is the
According to him, “the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest” (Hobbes, 1991: 87). In other words, Hobbes introduces the concept of natural equality, which entails that each man is a mortal threat to others because one is strong enough to kill another. Moreover, he also believes that people are naturally free because they have a right to do anything, since in the state of nature there are no laws to constrain humankind. Additionally, this links with Hobbes’ assumption of “equality of hope in the attaining of our ends” (Hobbes, 1991: 87) and with the three key interests that people share in the state of nature, namely, the desire for self-preservation, for acquiring means of commodious life, and for improving one’s own position in life through industry. To explain, since humans are naturally free and equal, they tend to equally hope to fulfil these same crucial
Thomas Hobbes’ legal theory is based on “Social contract”. According to Hobbes, prior to social contract, “man” lived in the State of Nature. “Man’s” life in the State of Nature was one of fear and selfishness. “Man” lived in chaotic condition of constant fear. Life in the State of Nature was “solitary”, “poor”, “nasty”, “brutish”, and “short”. “Man” has a natural desire for security and order. In order to secure self-protection and self-preservation, and to avoid misery and pain, “man” entered into a contract. This idea of self-preservation and self-protection are inherent in “man’s” nature and in order to achieve this, voluntarily surrendered all their rights and freedoms by this contract to some authority who must command obedience. As a result of this contract, the mightiest authority is to protect and preserve their lives and property. This led to the emergence of the institution of the “ruler” or “monarch”, who shall be the absolute
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.
When looking at Hobbes’ idea of the state and its relation with the citizen, it is strikingly shocking how supportive of the authoritarian and absolutist form of monarchical government he is. His ideas are extreme for today’s democratic world however, he is seen as the founder of great liberal political thoughts such as the natural contract. Furthermore he gives great emphasis to the study of the individual in the first book of his work. Although, obviously monarchical, Hobbes also argues in favor of democracy and aristocracy: two less authoritarian forms of government. Hobbes has a historical reputation for validating absolute monarchy, and his work is often dismissed as dictatorial. But it must be remembered that, for Hobbes, sovereignty does not only reside in a king but also in sovereign congresses and sovereign democracies and ultimately the people enable any of these three forms of government to rule, according to what best suits the community.
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.