According to Hobbes, there are two contrary results from the Law of Nature. With the leading of the reason of soul, the Law of Nature, which is to protect ourselves from getting hurt, can end up with either war or peace. In other words, the reason of soul is the main source of both war and peace. In Leviathan, Hobbes states that the Law of Nature is to preserve ourselves and keep ourselves alive. This desire for security is the human nature, security here is to live our own life with our fear of somebody comes and destroys it. From his view, human is the creature of desire, desire rules the human nature, and people act to satisfy desires. So people always desire many things because their nature tells them to desire. For example, a little …show more content…
Based on the three-step Law of Nature, people would generate peace from the conflict desires. By the Law of Nature, everyone should endeavor peace, laying down their Right of Nature when other people do so too, and most importantly, keep the covenants that they made. Firstly, people ought to pursue peace, as far as he or she has hope of obtaining it. It brings out a question that why people should make peace and quiet war. Although reason can make the human law of nature, which is preserve ourselves end up with war, it is also reason that tells people to keep themselves away from war and to make peace. Desire rules human nature, but reason which serves desire could lead human nature to different results. In this case, reason tells people that preserving ourselves may cause war, and war makes people dead. Death is what is contrary to our desire of safety, so war is bad, and people ought to pursue peace instead of go to war. Secondly, the way to make peace is to lay down right of nature, which is doing whatever is necessary, when others do so too. But this second Law of Nature has a practical problem, the uncertainty of human nature. If a person is laying down his Right of Nature, how can he be sure about other people will lay down their rights too? That brings out the third Law of Nature, making a covenant and keeps that covenant. The covenant should increase the certainty, and when people keep their covenant, they are able to make peace. In a word, the reason of soul tells people to lay down their right of nature and keep their covenant to make
Mankind needs only to look at Simon’s example as a guide of how to do it. Reason and virtue will always conquer over rage and violence. Wars are not the answers to every global conflict. Every war we have, we have to pass on to our children. In the end mankind is saved by the nature of reason not the use of war.
According to Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature is a brutal one. Every person is rigidly individualized, with a personal idea of what is right and what is wrong. Humans are innately asocial, and because of this, the state of nature is coincident with the state of war (Hobbes, 1968: 185). Although this “state of war” does not necessarily mean direct fighting, but rather the disposition towards violence, the lack of security is enough to keep people in constant fear of death (186). This constant fear of violation is exhausting, and so people, as stated in Hobbes’ fundamental law of nature, seek a more peaceful way of life (190). Locke, however, completely disagrees with Hobbes’ pessimistic perspective of the state of nature. He states that humans are inherently social creatures, and that the state of nature is one of community and cooperation (Locke, 1980: 13). This could not be farther from Hobbes’ view, which is why the soc...
Hobbes theorizes what humanity would be like in the state of nature, “where every man is enemy to every man”. The state of nature is also a state of war because without the security that comes from the mutual exchange of human rights, every human is essentially living in fear of everyone else. There would be no laws to
In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes has many different things to say about human nature and what drives men to commit certain actions. All of the actions committed by men and Thomas Hobbes theories revolve around two central ideas, competition and desire. And because of competition and desire, people can never reach true happiness. Man’s own desires and need to be better than the next person will stop true happiness. But in order to understand why Hobbes believes this, his view on human nature has to be looked at first. In Chapter 11 of the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes places great emphasis on desire. Hobbes says that mankind always does whatever it needs to in order to accomplish its desires. When we accomplish one desire, we simply move on to whatever we want next. The progress that is made in accomplishing one desire and moving on to the next one is what he calls Felicity (Leviathan Ch.11). The reasons that men have desires in the first place are because we have a life style that we love and enjoy. So naturally, humans want to do everything they can in order to keep that lifestyle.
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.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...
What is the natural condition of human beings? How does the natural condition of human beings lead to war? What is the remedy of the natural condition of human beings? In his book, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes states that human beings are equal and thus there is no greater good in life. Hobbes analyzes the natural condition of human beings by examining their desires and behavior. He further examines how the natural condition of human beings, if left to rule itself without the existence of the law, leads to conflict and war. Because the natural condition of human beings leads to war, he provides a suggestion that will enable them to live peacefully and co-exist. Hobbes explains that by nature, human beings are equal and they have an equal hope to
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
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.
Thomas Hobbes begins Leviathan with Book 1: Of Man, in which he builds, layer by layer, a foundation for his eventual argument that the “natural condition” of man, or one without sovereign control, is one of continuous war, violence, death, and fear.
If wars were declared, innocent people would be threatened; therefore, some may argue that wars are unfogivable. Given the devil destruction of wars, those conflicts carried on by arms are conditional. Only defensive war should be righteous, but even the defensive war should be considered as the last resort. According to various religious views, though peace is usually the mainstream from different religious perspectives, defensive wars seem to be a moral exception.
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.
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.
The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists’ discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke’s description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation”. Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which “teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions,” are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke’s Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful.
He claims that acts of kindness, charity and benevolence are always actions that the performer believes will result in a beneficial consequence for himself. Hobbes’ basis for this argument lies in the concept of reason. He writes that human beings are logical creatures and unlike other animals, use reason to make all of their decisions (Leviathan 2, 17). A law dictated by reason that will benefit a man is called a law of nature. Hobbes lists three fundamental laws of nature that promote the primary motivation of men, which is self-preservation.
The purpose of this essay will be to discuss whether human nature is good, or evil, or both good and evil, or neither good nor evil. To facilitate the following discussion, human nature here would be defined as the distinguishing characteristics we born with, that we tend to have naturally without the influence of external factors. The definition agrees to Xunzi’s, that nature is what is given by Heaven: one cannot learn it; one cannot acquire it by effort. This essay will explain that the deepest essence of human nature is self-preservation and reproduction, which cannot be truly classified into good or evil. It is followed by how we are diverged to behave goodly or badly, argument against the “good nature theory” and different between self-preservation with greed and aggression.