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.
Through Hobbes’s writing we can determine his views on humans are rather pessimistic; humans according to him are naturally evil. Hobbes states that humans in their essence seek their own self-interest; as well as that humans are not guided by reason but by passion. In a state of nature, humans are licensed to do and take as they yearn or need, depending on each individual self-interest; thus natural law, which is regarded as a constant state of conflict and war. Humans in a state of nature are inclined to see each other as potential inflictor of pain—each is seen as a potential murderer, in extreme cases. That been the case, each individual seeks more power, this is their self-interest, out of fear of each other; this then leads to the surrounding individuals to seek more power themselves, again, concerning their self-interest, for their own salvation. The mightiest of the passion’s embraced by humans are the fear of death and the desire for power. So the contest for power that was mentioned ultimately leads to death—warfare—because it is impossible to establish a harmonious permanence. This leads to the cycle and struggle for ...
... middle of paper ...
...ests. Hobbes forgets to see the depth that the subjective nature can achieve, the same depth he himself enacted through his books.
Although he states that religion is the foundation of morality, Hobbes sees human nature as the source of morality—that is a strength that his writings possess. Fundamentally because it gives more control to humans over their individual will. This isn’t such a good thing in Hobbes’s mind perhaps—he claims that humans are naturally evil. I appreciate this idea in a different sense; humans are the sole creator of religion and any idea or superstition they fallow, therefore they must be the source of morality. Another strength of self-interest as the measure of right action is that it connects the aim and the standard of morality, because the individuals self-interest must be connected to both the aim and the standard.
In the state of nature, equality creates a state of war amongst men. Hobbes’ believes that the cause of the state of war is the nature of man, perfect equality and self-preservation. The idea self-preservation in Hobbes’ state of nature consents to man to harming one another in the name of survival, because it is also in man’s nature. The definition of self-preservation and survival is different for each individual. No man in the state of nature has the authority to judge or question any individual’s acti...
that is derived from our helpless selfishness that causes this environment of destruction and constant fear. The reason that Hobbes is separated away from other psychological egoist is in his belief that man has as opportunity to ascend out of the barbarous state of nature to a higher plane of security and society. According to Hobbes this can only happen when the aforementioned “natur...
His first assumption is that people are physically and mentally similar to one another, and this similarity means that “no individual has the capacity to overpower or influence another” (Hobbes). A flaw, however, that I realize in this assertion is that there do exist in society persons of deficient physical and mental ability. For example, people with severe physical or mental handicaps would not fare well in Hobbes’ state of nature because they would be easily dominated. Hobbes’ second assumption is that people generally want to protect their own lives, “shun[ning] death” (Hobbes). This proclivity for self-preservation does not translate to an innate malevolent nature of humans; however, it does imply that humans tend to be more indifferent towards each other than benevolent. I tend to agree with this second assumption because in my experience, individuals think of themselves in an elevated manner, and if someone does not agree with this view, the individual becomes offended. Individuals tend to judge others based on swift observations, dismissing others if they do not align with one’s personal preferences. The final assumption Hobbes asserts is that individuals have a penchant for religion. This penchant stems from the curious and anxious nature of individuals. Hobbes thinks that these aspects of human nature cause individuals to “seek out religious beliefs” (Hobbes) in order to quell the curiosity and anxiety that dominates their lives. In addition to these various normative assumptions regarding the state of nature, Hobbes outlines the right of nature, which is “a liberty right to preserve the individual in the state of nature” (Hobbes). In essence, this
The first assumption is that nature has created man to be equal in their capacity to use their body and mind. With equal capacities in body, every man is vulnerable to attack from every other man and no single man has a superior advantage. For Hobbes this bolsters his claim that there is no man in the State of Nature with the power to maintain authority. Hobbes’s second assumption is that man has three principal desires, which drive conflict. These desires are competition, diffidence, and glory. All three of these desires involve man being involved in situations where only one man can come out victorious. For Hobbes these desires perpetuate the cycle of fear and v...
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.
Hobbes explains that if human beings do not accept government, they will not live a peaceful life and their lives will be short due to constant war and the lack of justice. He also adds that government offers human beings a better life due to the advantages it gives them. Without government, “there is no place for industry, …no culture of the earth, no navigation, nor use of commodities that can be imported by sea, no commodious building, …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” (Leviathan, 76). Hobbes’ statement shows that he argues for civilization and sees it as important to humanity. He also implies that human beings are better off being governed than by governing themselves and they should therefore give up their natural power of governing themselves to a common power to govern them. This is evident when he says, “that a man be willing, when others are too, as far fourth as for peace and defense of himself, he shall think it necessary, to lay down his right to all things, and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he will allow other men against himself” (Leviathan, 80). In other words, for human beings to live peacefully, they have to give up some of their rights as it is impossible to meet the individual rights of all of
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
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 ...
Hobbes, T. (1839-45) The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury; Now First Collected and Edited by Sir William Molesworth, Bart. Vol. 3. Leviathan. London: Bohn. Accessed via: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hobbes-the-english-works-vol-iii-leviathan
It is crucial to understanding the theories and writings of Hobbes and Aquinas in order to understand the different theories of how man can view human natures innate or survival instincts. Through understanding how Hobbes and Aquinas’ theories contrast, one can better understand how to view natural law, and the writings of any political doctrines during their time period.
The constant state of war is what Hobbes believes to be man’s original state of nature. According to Hobbes, man cannot be trusted in the state of nature. War among men is consequent and nothing can be unjust. Notions of justice and injustice or right and wrong will not hav...
����������� Thomas Hobbes is an important political and social philosopher. He shares his political philosophy in his work Leviathan. Hobbes begins by describing the state of nature, which is how humans coped with one another prior to the existence of government. He explains that without government, �the weakest has the strength to kill the strongest� (Hobbes 507). People will do whatever it takes to further their own interests and protect their selves; thus, creating a constant war of �every man against every man� (Hobbes 508). His three reasons for people fighting amongst each other prior to government include �competition,� �diffidence,� and �glory� (Hobbes 508). He explains how men fight to take power over other people�s property, to protect them selves, and to achieve fame. He describes life in the state of nature as being �solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short� (Hobbes 508). Hobbes goes on to say that if men can go on to do as they please, there will always be war. To get out of this state of nature, individuals created contracts with each other and began to form a government.
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.
Hobbes believed that human beings naturally desire the power to live well and that they will never be satisfied with the power they have without acquiring more power. After this, he believes, there usually succeeds a new desire such as fame and glory, ease and sensual pleasure or admiration from others. He also believed that all people are created equally. That everyone is equally capable of killing each other because although one man may be stronger than another, the weaker may be compensated for by his intellect or some other individual aspect. Hobbes believed that the nature of humanity leads people to seek power. He said that when two or more people want the same thing, they become enemies and attempt to destroy each other. He called this time when men oppose each other war. He said that there were three basic causes for war, competition, distrust and glory. In each of these cases, men use violence to invade their enemies territory either for their personal gain, their safety or for glory. He said that without a common power to unite the people, they would be in a war of every man against every man as long as the will to fight is known. He believed that this state of war was the natural state of human beings and that harmony among human beings is artificial because it is based on an agreement. If a group of people had something in common such as a common interest or a common goal, they would not be at war and united they would be more powerful against those who would seek to destroy them. One thing he noted that was consistent in all men was their interest in self-preservation.
Hobbes was a strong believer in the thought that human nature was evil. He believed that “only the unlimited power of a sovereign could contain human passions that disrupt the social order and threatened civilized life.” Hobbes believed that human nature was a force that would lead to a constant state of war if it was not controlled. In his work the Leviathan, he laid out a secular political statement in which he stated the significance of absolutism.