From what we have covered in class and in the readings, it would appear that Hobbes’ faith was correct and that the inner workings of politics can be discovered and understood scientifically. I will make my argument by analyzing Hobbesian theory, Dawkins’ Selfish Gene theory, related class discussion, and modern technological breakthroughs discussed in the readings and beyond, all of which strongly hint at a fundamental scientific foundation for politics and government. Such a foundation would not only allow us to make progress in politics through science, but allow vast strides in field though modeling, simulation, and prediction of real life outcomes in government and politics.
Early in the class, we covered the Hobbesian view of a sovereign, particularly, Hobbes’ idea of yielding power to form a greater umbrella of protection in what he called “The Social Contract Theory”. This theory is a key proponent in the argument for a scientific model for us to describe politics.
The concept of a sovereign was very much relevant in Hobbes’ time and show to be just as valid in today’s society as a general framework for how people equilibrate towards peace. Intuitively, one can accept this idea of safety and progress when individuals cooperate. We see thousands of examples of social animal species in nature,
…show more content…
The most blatant example of this can be seen in how every human society discovered to date has had some sort of religious belief, i.e. all-power, supernatural sovereign. This is a fact that has been well discussed and verified through artistic artifacts left behind by ancient civilizations. There seems to be a nested hierarchy of sovereign rule in human society, with religion at the root. This strongly implies a fundamental science behind the Hobbesian Theory regarding the formation of
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.
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.
2. What is the difference between Hobbes’ and Locke’s conception of the state of nature, and how does it affect each theorist’s version of the social contract?
Above anything else, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is a creation story and an investigation of human nature. The story begins in a time of chaos and death and through a journey of human development culminates in the establishment of a sustainable and rational society—the commonwealth—led by a sovereign. At a first casual glance, Hobbes’ reasoning of the transformation from the state of nature to the commonwealth is not airtight. A few possible objections can be quickly spotted: the contradictions of natural law with suicide and the civil law to honor even harmful covenants. Hobbes deals with some of these issues and seems to ignore others, but he does address in detail the most significant objection to his theory: the unlimited and unchecked power given to the sovereign. The establishment of the commonwealth culminates in a covenant that grants the sovereign absolute power in enforcing the civil laws of the state, but also guarantees the sovereign’s status as above the law. How does this ensure peace and survival, as is the point of the commonwealth? Hobbes provides many convincing reasons why it would be difficult, counterproductive, and impossible for the sovereign to not be above the law, but in the end, disorder and chaos are worse than any tyranny.
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”
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.
Is the purpose of government today, similar to that of philosophers of the past, or has there been a shift in political thought? This essay will argue that according to Machiavelli’s The Prince, the purpose of government is to ensure the stability of the state as well as the preservation of the established ruler’s control, and that the best form of government should take the form of an oligarchy. In contrast, in his book, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that the purpose of government should be to preserve the peace and security of men and, that the best form of government would be an absolute monarchy which would sanction such conditions. This essay will utilize themes of glory, material advantage, peace and stability to illustrate
Hobbes and Locke consider the formation of government from man’s own nature, whether or not government is formed because man is a social animal or if government is formed to preserve society. According to Locke, man must not "think that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts" (page 1). "To understand political powe...
Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have very different views on the social contract largely based on their fundamental views of the state of nature in humanity. These basic views of natural human nature cause Hobbes and Rousseau to have views on opposite sides of the spectrum, based on two controversial speculations, that human is inherently good or that human is inherently inclined towards egotism and perpetual insecurity. Due to his belief that they are of this nature, Hobbes viewed an all-powerful sovereign of a rather totalarianistic nature to be necessary. Rousseau on the other hand, viewed that the sovereign should represent the common will of the people, the sovereign being agreed upon by all constituents. It is my assertion that Rousseau’s argument, although flawed in its own ways, is superior to Hobbes in that it has an answer for the inequalities that may arise in a society by Hobbes’ princples.
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.
The concept of justice has been a crucial factor in determining governments and the structure of society. In this essay I will argue two thinkers, Thrasymachus and Hobbes, as represented in the writings of The Republic, by Plato and Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes divergent ideas on justice.
Thomas Hobbes is the English philosopher, which is improved Western political philosophy and its terms like civil society, absolutism for the sovereign, right of the individual, legitimate power’s representativeness etc. In his famous book of Leviathan, he showed sovereign’s political order’s artificial character and what life would be without government which named as state of nature by the Hobbes. In this state like all people in the world also they will try to survive for their life and avoid their acts which can cause their death. According to Hobbes, the best possibilty for diminishing the possibilty of danger coming from another people is having social contract for establish civil society. According to Hobbes, the causes of conflicts are human’s innate behaivour like competitors for materials, feeling insecurity etc. In addition, thir fear of death can be advantage on the obeying their social contract for the peace. Law of nature’s rules are fundemental contract between people to avoid war which is the worst situation in the state. So to understand reasons of conflict and the solutions for long term peace firstly person should understand the law of nature’s requirements and Hobbes’ ideas reason for permanent peace monarchy is the best form of government mechanism.
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher from the 17th century who in now considered one of the greatest political philosophers. Hobbes is best known for his elaborate and early development of the social contract theory. The social contract theory is “the method of justifying political principles or arrangements by appeal to the agreement that would be made suitably situated rational, free and equal persons.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) In other words it is a rational agreement between men. Hobbes is notorious for using this theory to come to the conclusion that man should give in to the command of an absolute power.