In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes lays out the hypothetical principal of the state of nature, where human it-self is artificial. It is human nature that people will not be able to love permanently, everyone against everyone power between the strongest. In this nation-state you must be the strongest in order to survive (survival of the fittest). In order to survive there are laws we must follow, to insure of our security because of fear. We were able to suppress our fear, by creating order, to have more order; we must have security, so the social contract appeared.
Thomas Hobbes implies to the idea of social contract to resolve the problem of war and disorder. If social contract were not created, there would be no law. If there’s no law, the citizens would do as they please. If that’s the case, the citizens will disregard traffic sign, traffic light, restriction sign and etc. I agreed with the idea of social contract because it’s very much similar to the Declaration of Independence. It was a treaty that was passed and approved by the 13 states. It’s a proposal that was drawn up and all 13 colonies sign because they have total agreement. If this Constitution were not drawn up, I belief we will still be in a war and became a weak/corrupted nation. For a law to function, people have given away their freedom. In exchange, the sovereign will make the decision of what’s right and what’s wrong. The only freedom we get to keep is the freedom of defense. We cannot have the freedom to do as we please because if we break the law, we will become an outlaw.
Freedom leads to the idea of desire, wanting something, based on something we don’t have. Human-being is a machine of desire. If we want something, we will find a way to get what we want. Thomas...
... middle of paper ...
...o become and outlaw, it is necessary for us to judge, in order to survive. Every man defends for themselves for the sake of survival. According to Hobbes, “the agreement of these creatures is natural; that of men is by covenant only, which is artificial; and therefore, it is not wonder if there be somewhat else required( beside covenant) to make their agreement constant and lasting…”( page 109) This is not going to change because it is, what it is.
Lastly, in order to improve the law and its government we must have an established sovereign state. According to Hobbes, if there’s a war, sovereign can adjust the law, which also explains why the Bill of Right was revised constantly throughout the year. In order to become powerful and survival we must follow the ordeal of following the contract. By following the contract we are able to create peace and have a good life.
Society is civilized, and to be civilized there must be rules, regulations and policies that prevent. Individuality leads to a mess of chaos. To prevent disorder, institutions in society keep these rules strongly enforced. Man creates these institutions in order to provide convenience and stability in everyday life. Then instead of man running these institutions, the institutions begin to reverse the role of power and the institutions are running man.
Therefore the subjects cannot create a sovereign who upholds their covenant- that is a ruler who decides all questions in the commonwealth and whose reign is absolute and permanent. And it does not follow that peace and harmony in civil society can be secured and guaranteed by the adoption of Hobbes's schema, that outlines the ascension from war to peace in the first place -- making Hobbes a Social Covenant Theorist.
The social contract theory was a political foundation that underlined the distinct forms of government. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke mention the formation of governments, the main key to form a successful government is through consent such as voting, joining a military, or being allowed to be ruled by a sovereign. The contrasting ideologies by both theorists differ in human nature, Hobbes believed that man is not a social animal while John Locke opposed to this idea and stated that by nature man was a social animal. The distinction that both portrayed in the role of the government in a man's life and the perspective on the state of nature were argued in the following texts, Leviathan and Second Treatise of Government. Society consents to a government because they become aware of the idea that without an established institution the preservation of their life and rights would be in a critical condition.
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 state of war would likely occur if a civil government did not properly care for its citizens because it exists when there is conflict between citizens and “no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief. ”5 It is very likely that this could arise if a government did nothing to prevent conflict and was not invested in its citizens’ rights. Locke also has a stronger argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed. Locke’s proposal for the proper behavior of a civil government distinguishes between the law and the lawmaker, and when a legislative body creates a law, the rules of the law itself are above it. Hobbes’ proposal does not differentiate between the lawmaker and the lawmaker because the lawmaker under his system of government would have complete control of the law.
One of the most important foundations of Hobbes political philosophy is his reasoning for the importance of government. Hobbes argues that without the presence of government human life would be unbearable, in fact he even goes as far as to say that without government we would live a life of everlasting war with one another. In this paper I will support Hobbes’ claims as to why government is vital, I will also compare Hobbes’ description of the state of nature to the state of the world today.
Social contract adheres to the concept that in pre-societal terms man relied on the state of nature: life with no government and no regulation. Interpretations of state of nature from English Philosopher Thomas Hobbes and that of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau differ on the basis of development and operation of the social contract. Hobbes proposed that man lived in fear and self-interest to the point that it was in human nature to seek security and self-protection to which he [man] enters a social contract. While Rousseau argues that man’s individualism, freedom, and equality is diluted through the formation of modern civilization and is “forced to be free” (p.46). How social contract operates from perspective of Hobbes and Rousseau
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have very different views on the social contract largely based on their fundamental views of the state of nature in humanity. These basic views of natural human nature cause Hobbes and Rousseau to have views on opposite sides of the spectrum, based on two controversial speculations, that human is inherently good or that human is inherently inclined towards egotism and perpetual insecurity. Due to his belief that they are of this nature, Hobbes viewed an all-powerful sovereign of a rather totalarianistic nature to be necessary. Rousseau on the other hand, viewed that the sovereign should represent the common will of the people, the sovereign being agreed upon by all constituents. It is my assertion that Rousseau’s argument, although flawed in its own ways, is superior to Hobbes in that it has an answer for the inequalities that may arise in a society by Hobbes’ princples.
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
This mutual transference of rights is called a contract, or covenant. By adhering to the contract, a man gives up whatever rights set forth by the contract. However, man cannot give up his right to defend himself, for the entire purpose of entering the contract is self-preservation. Once the contract is formed, one must obey Hobbes’ third law of nature, which is to adhere to the contract (Leviathan 1, 14)...
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.
Thomas Hobbes? idea of a perfect government was one of small proportions. All of the citizens of a country had a ?covenant?, or promise with the ruler. This covenant with the ruler stated that the citizen would give up the right to govern his or herself, and give that right to the ruler. Hobbes? idea of society arises from an innate competition between every man. Everyone seeks their advantage, and is always at war with everyone else for that advantage. These factions negotiate, according to Hobbes, complying with whatever principles will ensure survival for its members. So according to Hobbes, war is the natural state of man. Peace is only had by our natural tendencies to compromise, and survive.
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 ...
Hobbes believes that “law is nothing more than the will of the sovereign” . A legal philosopher named John Austin later on developed this by defining law as a law simply because it is being obeyed. In his theory of legal positivism, it “saw the defining feature not as i...
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are all social contract theorists that believe in how the people should have certain rights with allows them to have individual freedom. They also believe that the people must give consent in order for the government to work and progress. Although Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have similar aspects in their theories, they differ from each other through the reason why a government should be created.