Hobbes and Goldman: The Good Life and Political Legitimacy

947 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Hobbes’ view of human nature

The nature of a good life and its relation to political legitimacy is a subject which both Thomas Hobbes and Emma Goldman examine in their writings. Hobbes claims that only basic survival is necessary to live a good life because ultimately life is more valuable than comfort. Goldman on the other hand claims that freedom is far more important than simply living and a good life can only be lived by someone who is free to do as they please. In order for a political theorist to understand how legitimate governments and communities aught treat their citizens these theories are essential. For example, if a community holds a Hobbesian view than they will have a strong authoritarian leadership, whereas in a Goldman inspired community would have no coercive government except in times of crisis. Of the two views of a good life Goldman presents a more compelling answer to the question of what makes a good life and her theories regarding political legitimacy are sounder than those of Hobbes.

According to Thomas Hobbes a good life is lived free from fear of war and the threat of violence. According to Hobbes, the most fundamental right that a person has is the right to live and therefore it is essential to have a guarantee of a life without fear of death in order to have a life considered “good”. Another aspect of a good life, according to Hobbes, is the assurance that contracts will not be broken. In a nation where contracts are not guaranteed citizens would fear that one party may not follow through with their end and potentially harm the other party. Hobbes also claims that comforts, property and even spirituality are not important for the living of a good life. These, while desirable to many individuals, are less valuable to a pers...

... middle of paper ...

...n effect, Goldman is the opposite of Hobbes in both her view of the idea of a good life and political legitimacy.

Between these two views of political legitimacy Goldman’s is the more accurate. First, Hobbes’ view of a good life would be alien to nearly every other human. People measure a good life by the things that they have done and experienced and not by how long someone lives. For instance, a person who sacrifices himself to save someone else could be said to have had a good life. Second, Goldman recognizes that freedom is essential to having a good life. Without freedom a man is naught but a mere automaton and he cannot truly decide his own fate. Lastly, because freedom is an essential right and coercion violates that right, governments cannot be legitimate, since they all use coercion. In sum, Goldman’s theories are more accurate than those of Hobbes.

Show More
Related

  • Comparison of Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    The foremost difference between Aristotle and Hobbes, and in turn classical and modern political philosophies’, with regard to a good life and happiness is that of normative judgments about the good life. While Hobbes rejects normative judgments about the good life and discusses human actions without attributions of moral quality, Aristotle offers the exact opposite. In Ethics, Aristotle differentiates between good and evil actions along with what the best good, or summum bonum, for all humans while Hobbes approach argues that good and bad varies from one individual to another with good being the object of an individuals appetite or desire, and evil being an object of his hate and aversion. In addition, Aristotle makes it clear that individuals have an ultimate purpose—that of political animals—that they should strive to become through trial and error throughout their life. Hobbes on the other hand rejects the idea of life having an ultimate purpose, “for there is no such finis ultimus (utmost aim) nor summum bonum (greatest good) as is spoken of in the books of the old moral philosophers…Felicity is a continual progress of the desire, from one object to another, the attaining of the former being still but the way to the latter”. Hobbes defines felicity as the satisfaction of one’s passions as stated in Leviathan “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desireth, that is to say, continual prospering, is that men call felicity.

    Read More

  • Hobbes’ Leviathan: A Principality? A Republic? Or Something New?

    931 Words  | 2 Pages

    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 of 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.

    Read More

  • Hobbes And John Locke Comparison Essay

    890 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had some similarities in their beliefs about human nature. They both claimed that humans would always be willing to give up some of their freedom or rights to have security and feel safe. When John Locke says “The enjoyment of rights in the state of nature is unsafe and insecure. Hence, each man joins in society with others to preserve life, liberty, and property.” it is showing that he thinks the state of nature is unsafe, so people give

    Read More

  • Human Nature as Viewed by Thomas Hobbes and David Hume

    1952 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Hobbes' Perspective on Nature and Sovereignty

    1422 Words  | 3 Pages

    People often think nature supports our value judgments or claims about the goodness of human life. People argue that God has intended for all things to be good, nature will lead us towards the ultimate good. Hobbes will argue differently about nature because nature causes scarcity among resources along with competition, distrust and glory which causes violence and conflict. Hobbes does agree with the fact that the state of nature does make us all equal. Hobbes is not talking about equality in the sense that God made all people equal but in the sense that we all have the ability to kill one another. Also nature causes all men and women to have self-preservation. .According to Hobbes, despite nature not supporting justice and the greatest good does not mean people can never live under a sovereign entity that implements laws and punishments. The sovereign implements laws through fear. When there is no sovereign, people will always live in a state of war. Since nature does not provide a foundation for us to live by, the sovereign has to create it through fear of a punishment of a violent death. Since there is no greatest

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Locke

    869 Words  | 2 Pages

    In many ways Hobbes and Locke’s conclusions on man and society create a polarizing argument when held in comparison to each other. For instance the two make wildly conflicting assertions concerning mankind’s capacity to foster and achieve organized society. Hobbes asserts humans cannot be trusted to govern themselves lest they fall into war and chaos; Locke, on the other hand concludes almost the exact opposite. Despite the polarity in each man’s train of thought, both philosophies share a common ancestor: a state defined by total equality where no human is superior or holds dominance over another. Although this is the base of both theories, it is the only similarity between the two. This commonality can be illustrated when tracing each argument deductively from their conclusions, the comparison reveals that the heaviest and most base opposition in each mans philosophy is his assertions regarding the nature of human beings.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes Research Paper

    782 Words  | 2 Pages

    Self-preservation is the most fundamental desire in humans. Without laws or governance no one would be able to tell how or how not to try to stay alive. Hobbes argues that all humans are by nature equal in body and mind; therefore, everyone is naturally willing to fight each other if needed to. Every person has a natural right to do anything that they think is necessary for preserving their own life. For example: If in order for you to stay alive means you must shoot your friends who have become sick by a contagious plague, then that is the means necessary for your own self-preservation. Shooting your friends to protect your own life is not seen an unjust act. According to Hobbes, there is no room for morality because in a state of nature there is no space for the unjust. Everything is somehow justifiable. Hobbes calls this the Natural Right of Liberty. Furthermore, anything can be seen as a necessity in order to preserve one’s life. For example: If one doesn’t eat, then they won’t have enough sustenance which could then lead to death due to starvation. Eating is seen as a necessity needed to take in order to preserve ...

    Read More

  • Hobbes's Theory Of Political Nature And The Theories Of Human Nature

    1286 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • The State of Nature: Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury

    1681 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Purpose Of Government In Machiavelli's The Prince

    1192 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2170 Words  | 5 Pages

    Hobbes’ basic view of nature can be described as cynicism towards how a human is naturally composed. The very nature of his argument is that humans in the state of nature live in a constant state of fear and unhealthy competition. Hobbes goes as far as to use the word anarchic to describe the state of nature, implying that human beings were naturally worried about themselves, so there was no state of order to check this natural desire. A driving reason behind the nature of Hobbes’ contract is because he believed that humans naturally had a “perpetual and restless desire for power after power, that ceaseth only in death”. He claims that part of this perpetual desire is “love of Contention from Competition”, the nature of humans to compare powers and then war over this competitive nature. Another reason he believes his social contract is ideal is that he believes that due to human beings natural want to live the easiest life possible, civil obedience would come naturally. Aside from that reason he believes that the natural and continual insecurity of each man from harm of another man would be a strong enough motive for man to buy into the contract. He states that the egotism from competition leads man in the state of a nature into a war of all men against all men. He called those lives in the state of nature short and barbaric and consisted of little else other than self-sustaining. He then postulated that this state was so horrible and that man y...

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1044 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli

    2258 Words  | 5 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes? idea of a perfect government was one of small proportions. All of the citizens of a country had a ?covenant?, or promise with the ruler. This covenant with the ruler stated that the citizen would give up the right to govern his or herself, and give that right to the ruler. Hobbes? idea of society arises from an innate competition between every man. Everyone seeks their advantage, and is always at war with everyone else for that advantage. These factions negotiate, according to Hobbes, complying with whatever principles will ensure survival for its members. So according to Hobbes, war is the natural state of man. Peace is only had by our natural tendencies to compromise, and survive.

    Read More

  • Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes

    733 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes undertakes the endeavor, in his writing, to constitute a state of order and peace. In his book Leviathan—where we find the foundation of the ideas we have studied by Hobbes—Hobbes attempts to build an understanding of what is the purpose of the state, civil society, and the nature of every one with in it. Hobbes was born in England during a time when English society thrived in discord —both civil and international wars engulfed England in that point in time. So it is almost as if Hobbes’s war time experience has led him to his attempt to constitute a state of order and peace.

    Read More

  • Hobbes' View of Human Nature and his Vision of Government

    446 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Hobbes and Goldman: The Good Life and Political Legitimacy

Open Document