Hobbes Leviathan
Thomas Hobbes thought that all human beings were equal in the state of nature, but all equally greedy, violent, vengeful and brutal. As he argued in Leviathan, this was a universal trait of humanity and that the purpose of contracting to form a state and civil society was basically to keep order. As he put it in his famous formulation in Chapter 13, the state of nature was a stake of chaos and war that made life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Only by transferring their natural rights of self-defense to a higher authority could they end this state of nature and find peace, order and security. Hobbes did not particularly care what form the government took after the contract, since its task was to maintain control over the instruments of violence and coercion and provide security. His sovereign state was highly authoritarian rather than democratic, and ideas like justice, freedom and equality did not exist in his version of the social contract, but Hobbes thought that the alternative was much worse, and that even a bad government was worse than none.
The first section of the paper will consider the empirical and materialistic basis of human nature in the political philosophy of Hobbes, who was basically an atheists and skeptic about the existence of God and the souls. Human beings were corrupt, self-interested animals, made up of atoms, and programmed to seek out pleasure and avoid pain. In his state of nature no rules or morality existed, but a state of war of all against all. This leads to the next section of the paper, where Hobbes asserts that even though these brutes are engaged in perpetual violence, feuding and aggression, their fear of death forces them to contract together to form a government. This was the type of fear that all could share equally, whether they had property or not, since death was the great equalizer. Since Hobbes had doubts about God, he could not advocate the divine right of kinds, but only humans contracting together to form a state and a legal system that would secure their lives and property against others. As noted in the next section, these basic assumptions about God, the soul and humanity led Hobbes to insist that the main purpose of government is to have a monopoly on the means of violence so that it can maintain order. This would hardly be a democratic state, but it would be very effective and efficient at using force and punishing disorderly persons with death.
Main Body
Hobbes's views about human nature and the type of government he advocated were quite pessimistic (or realistic) given the circumstances of the 17th Century world as he experienced it. Given his doubts about God, he could only regard religion as a means to maintain order and social control. He could hardly support the divine right of kings, though, in the absence of any divinity, and did not believe that natural rights or a moral sense existed at all beyond the right of self-defense. In the state of nature, "the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by a confederacy," and all believe they are at least as cunning and clever as the others (Hobbes Chapter 13). Some enjoy conquest, rape, murder and plunder, while others are content to exist within their modest bounds, defending themselves only if attacked. The causes of war in this state of nature are desire for gain, the need for security, or the defense of honor and reputation, but ultimately "every man is enemy to every man" and human beings are wolves toward each other (Hobbes Chapter 13). Those with money and property are armed, hire guards and live behind locked doors, for with no sovereign or common power to control and overawe them all, and in this state of perpetual civil war "notions of right and wrong, virtue and injustice, have…no place" (Chapter 13). In the Hobbesian state of nature, there are no laws, rules or natural rights, and therefore everything is permitted. Without a contract...
Philosophical Work: Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan Chapters 17, 19, 29 At the beginning of the first chapter of the second part of his monumental philosophical treatise upon the nature of government, entitled Leviathan, the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes stated that "the final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths,
Nicomachean Ethics and Leviathan In every society, there are tens of hundreds of individuals whose personal value system leads them to leading a life based on principles of honesty, trust, fairness and compassion. To that extent, justice, as a concept can and does exist quite separate from any system of government given any number of citizens who ensure that justice is done in their dealings with their fellow humans. However, viewed
These ideas run in separate directions, but each seeks to provide a better understanding of what a human life is and why we should or should not serve a greater power than ourselves. In conclusion, we see that the Leviathan is an important piece of work for man to understand his place in society and the role or lack thereof his life plays in the creation and maintenance of this
The traits of the character are regular male traits from the society of that time. The character does not seem to be someone in particular (such a as a well-known knight or king), but a general representation of authority. And his name is Leviathan. The expression on his face is rather neutral, although the look in his eyes might transmit how heavy ad difficult the burden of authority is. This implies
That artificial institution would be "endowed with enough power to deter violence and promise-breaking among it's subjects." But, in conclusion, if that "artificial" institution uses violence or repression to "keep disorder at bay" then, according to what I have gained from reading Hobbes, individuals like myself will have the natural right to disobey those unfair orders, and create an alternative "artificial institution" to be truly free and express absolute liberty.
Therefore, the welfare of others cannot be relevant to judging what one ought to do. This is a very interesting argument, but it does not establish its conclusion. Although it may be that every human being has a right to preserve his own life, one would like some evidence in support of this key premise. Even if there is a human right to self-preservation, it does not follow that
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now