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.
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.
...d seek peace. In establishing a covenant and instituting a sovereign, men give up the rights they possessed in the state of nature, as well as the right to live without tyranny. However for Hobbes, those sacrifices are overshadowed by what is gained by living under a truly absolute sovereign. A sovereign, corrupt or not, guarantees order and prevents chaos and death. Those are, word for word, the reasons the social contract was initially established and therefore fully justify the creation of an absolute sovereign. Thomas Hobbes, who wrote Leviathan during the English Civil Wars, looked out his window at chaos and decided that survival should be pursued at all costs.
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 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,
This is the primary prudential “ought” for which his writing is justified. Hobbes’s concept of what is ethical & moral are solely dependant upon the laws set forth by the sovereign.
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...
Self-preservation is an important factor in shaping the ideologies of Hobbes and Locke as it ties in to scarcity of resources and how each of them view man’s sate of nature. Hobbes and Locke both believe in self-preservation but how each of them get there is very different. Hobbes believes that man’s state of nature is a constant state of war because of his need to self-preserve. He believes that because of scarcity of goods, man will be forced into competition, and eventually will take what is others because of competition, greed, and his belief of scarce goods. Hobbes also states that glory attributes to man’s state of nature being a constant state of war because that drives man to go after another human or his property, on the one reason of obtaining glory even if they have enough to self preserve. Equality ties in with Hobbes view of man being driven by competition and glory because he believes that because man is equal in terms of physical and mental strength, this give them an equal cha...
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
In his famous writing, “The Leviathan”, Thomas Hobbes explains that the natural condition of mankind is when a society lives together without the rule of a common authority or power; this creates a “dog-eat-dog” world in which the citizens live in a perpetual state of utter chaos and fear. The fears experienced by the citizens are not only of the unequal distribution of the power of others, but also fear of the loss of their own power. In Hobbes’ state of nature there is complete liberty for society in the idea that each member may do whatever he or she pleases without having to worry about infringing upon the rights of the rest of society; in other words, one is allowed to do whatever necessary to pursue their own happiness. Ho...
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
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.
Hobbes, on the other hand argues that justice is needed for people to live together in civil society. He outlines this idea down to human beings in the
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.
To highlight such differences between Aristotle and Hobbes we must first discuss the definition of virtue laid out by each. According to Aristotle virtue is a “mean between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency”. From what we already know about Aristotle’s ...
In Leviathan, Hobbes seems to underestimate the motives of mankind. His pessimistic view of human nature sheds no light on the goods that men do. While human nature may create a sense of personal survival, it does not imply that human nature will lead towards violent behavior. When left to provide for themselves, mankind will work toward a peace that benefits them all. There will always be evil in the world which will disrupt the peace, but in the end the strength of men should triumph.