The State Of Nature In Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan

1446 Words3 Pages

Why does Hobbes believe that the state of nature will be so bad? I.e. what is it about our make-up as human beings that would lead to this state of nature? Do you think that Hobbes is being too pessimistic or even reductionistic about human nature? What is he leaving out, if so? If not, what evidence do you have that Hobbes got the nature of human beings right? In Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan, Hobbes argued that humans are inherently only self-interested and will do anything to benefit themselves (6). Before they formed society, humans lived in the state of nature--a brutal place governed by no laws, contracts, or power to restrict human nature. People were free to kill each other without any repercussions, forcing everyone to constantly fend …show more content…

In the mother-baby relationship, the mother takes care of the child because she expects him to do the same when she is old, crippled, and unable to fend for herself. Her child is essentially an investment to keep her safe. Another explanation for the mother’s “kindness” is that she is investing in her child to be her legacy. If her child grows up to be successful, he will brandish the family name. This will provide the “honour” that fuels ego. The most plausible explanation Hobbes would provide, is that the mother is trying to show her superiority to the world. She has the power to help not only herself but others as well. This recognition will provide pleasure. As for the transplant example, the conflict is not between self interest, duty, and love; it is simply a debate trying to figure out the best way to maximize self-interest. The person is trying to weigh if the risks of transplanting a kidney outweigh the benefits and risks of not doing so. If the person didn’t donate the kidney, the family may hold contempt and cease support. Alternatively, giving the kidney indebts the family member to helping the person in the

Open Document