Compare Aristotle's Claim That Man Is A Political Animal?

Compare Aristotle’s claim that man is a ‘political animal’ with Hobbes’s claim that the state of nature is a state of war. How would you summarize their respective views of the relation between nature and politics? Which is the more persuasive and why?

Fundamentally, Aristotle’s and Hobbes’s principles represent two contradictory interpretations of the philosophy of human nature and why men gather and constitute government. For Aristotle, man is naturally a social and political animal, structured toward living in a community; whereas for Hobbes, it is natural for man to live for himself, and the state is an artificially created concept to prevent war. In the following essay, I will argue that Hobbes’s claim that the state of nature is a state

This is cited in Aristotle, The Politics Book 1 Part 1, 1253a1, pg.59: “Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal.” This argument is somewhat logical because our skilful deployment of reason enables us to comprehend concepts such as justice and injustice, dubbing us political animals. As political animals, this higher level thinking would inevitably ensue into the creation of a political society and political rule. This is because we are naturally hierarchical (Aristotle, The Politics, Book 1 Part 2, 1252a24, pg.56). In a political society, there would naturally be a hierarchy of power, with a sovereign at the top to govern the populace. A sovereign is needed, to keep order and peace within the population; otherwise, there would be a state of chaos. If what Aristotle says is correct, that we are all political animals, then it would be logical that the establishment of political rule would naturally ensue. However, this is not the case. As discussed above, man is not a political animal but an individual only concerned with survival. On the other hand, if the concept of mastery over animals (e.g. ox plow farms) and master and slaves were established, what would be stopping mankind from creating the concept of sovereignty? Following this logic, a

He argues that a state or commonwealth is where all men surrender their natural rights to the state in order to escape the state of nature where they live in perpetual fear for their life. I agree with this because man’s primary aims are for safety and security (Hobbes, The Leviathan, Chapter 13 part 1, pg.186). The concept of government was established as a means of protection, for which individuals were prepared to submit to a greater power.

One might argue that it is only logical that man would create a system where their rights and property are being protected. Since man’s first desire is self-preservation, wouldn’t it be in man’s best interest, and hence, a natural culmination, that governments are established to maintain a peaceful way of life? Nevertheless, politics and the government are man-made concepts. There is no authority that exists naturally in the environment as all men share natural rights to self-preservation.

As seen in the above arguments, it is clear that Hobbes’s assertion that man is in a state of war and that politics is artificial is a significantly more persuasive claim than Aristotle’s argument that man is by nature a political animal and that politics exists as a natural culmination. This conclusion is based on man’s equality in nature and their innate desires for