Hobbe's Laws of Nature

702 Words2 Pages

Based upon the assigned segment of Thomas Hobbes’ The Leviathan, I find that it contrasts very strongly with my own perception of humanity and our motivations. I consider his conclusions to be both ignorant and uninformed (ironic, considering I’ve only ever read one segment of his works…) at least in regard to human nature. Hobbes takes the position that in a “state of nature” there are no laws and as such the concept of justice and injustice is null, because there is no law to violate or enforce. Which, in the most basic, factual and literary sense, is true. But in application, I don’t believe that the theory holds much merit.

Hobbes’ basis for the state of nature is that in such a state, there is no authority, and without authority, there are no laws. That being said, Hobbes comes up with the “laws of nature.” These laws are what he believes are what men naturally would do in such a situation. The laws essentially state that all men desire peace, but also will invade for gain, then safety, then reputation. For me, the theory of the state of nature and justice/injustice being non...

Open Document