Compare Aristotle’s Claim That Man Is a ‘Political Animal’ with Hobbe’s Claim That the State of Nature Is a State of War.

Hobbes’ theory of human nature begins with him stating that all men are created equal. With all men being created equal, this means that everyone is equally capable of killing each other, because while, “there may be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body,” the weaker may be compensated for by his “quicker mind.” This equality of ability produces equality of hope for the attaining of our goals, and that when two or more men desire the same thing which they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies and attempt to destroy each other. Hobbes called this time when men oppose each other “war,” and said that there were three basic causes for war: competition, distrust, and glory. Hobbes also maintains the belief that in this state of nature, humans have a natural tendency to obtain as much power as they can, and that the only way they will ever be satisfied with their power is by acquiring more power, going so far as to harm or kill others in order attain what they desire. Thus, the state of nature is a “war of every man against every man,” where humans live in perpetual fear

In Hobbes’ version of the state of nature there are no restraints, no standards of morality and justice, and everyone is uninhibited, which ultimately results in a “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Ch. 8 pg 78). Hobbes bases his belief that humans are equal in the assertion that all human beings have equal opportunity and potential in mental and physical strength because “equal time equally bestows on all men in those things they equally apply themselves unto” (Ch 8, pg 76). Even though one man may be stronger than other, the weaker man still has the capabilities to utilize his mental strength and use other strategies. This equality in potential of power extends to the equality that everyone desires the same things. In the state of nature “if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end endeavour to destroy or subdue one another,” eventually resulting in a continuous state of war (Ch 8 pg 76). This notion of competition is the key that further highlights why humans are equal: linking the state of nature with the state of war causes everyone to exist in an equal, perpetual state of conflict with one

Hobbes, on the other hand, does not foresee this case but only seems capable of enforcing a strong power. At this point, it is pertinent to point out the ambiguity that Locke shows in his "state of war," a state that is generated when natural law is placated by the willpower of certain men. The fundamental difference between Locke and Hobbes lies therefore in the conception of man in the state of nature; one sees him as a wolf for other men, and the other sees him as a born follower of the precepts of natural law until it is corrupted by their passions or by the actions of other men. The solution in both cases is to seek a reliable external power that limits the freedom of people and eliminate the "state of war." Unlike Hobbes, for Locke, the state of nature is not identified with the state of war. On the contrary, the state of war constitutes a violation, a degeneration of the state of nature, through the imposition of force in the absence of any right; a devaluation of what the state of nature must

Aristotle and Hobbes present two fundamentally distinct doctrines about the conception of politics, human affairs, and the nature of man. Specifically, both philosophers express vying interpretations of human nature. Even though Aristotle and Hobbes similarly use their understanding of human nature to conceptualize their politics, they both express differing views about the aims for which they believe human beings act and exist. In a rather preliminary interpretation of their views, it can be said that, for Aristotle, man is inherently social, and thereby is naturally inclined towards the community. Whereas, for Hobbes, man is innately individualistic, and is naturally inclined towards self-interest. The distinction between the Aristotelian and the Hobbesian philosophies about human nature rests in their respective explanations of what means and ends drive human action and existence. In the first half of this paper, I will discuss the ways in which Aristotle’s and Hobbes’ conception of human nature differ from one another. In a discussion of equality, I will compare Aristotle’s view of the flexibility of man’s nature, to Hobbes’ view of the intransigence of man in the state of nature, while also comparing Aristotle’s view of collectivity, to Hobbes’ view of individualism. The second half of my paper will argue that Aristotle’s teleological view of human nature presents a more superior and accurate account of human

This quote from Thomas Hobbes ‘Leviathan,' summarizes his opinion of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity and misery. He basically suggests a natural impulse for war embedded in the souls of men who do not have a ruler, or a king. They are without bounds, and without limits. It is a state of anarchy that he envisages.

Both Hobbes and Rousseau are in agreement that the idea of the state of nature existed before the inception of the political society. However, their view is very different from the concept of the natural state of man. On one hand, Hobbes believes that humans are cruel, malicious and pathetic such that everyone acts in a way that pleases them regardless of whether they pose a risk to others or not (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012). Hobbes describes men as enemies of each other and that the only thing that pushes them to make peace is the fear of death and necessities that would guarantee them a decent life. It is the passion for self-regard and reputation that necessitates the need to a political institution to govern humans (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012).

According to Hobbes the state of nature leads to a war of all against all. What Hobbes refers to when he discusses the state of nature is a state in which there are no civil powers. To reach his conclusion about how the world would be in the state of nature, Hobbes first explains what human nature is and then explains the relationship between man and civil government.

Thomas Hobbes was a philosopher from England whose work and ideas have arguably made him the founder of modern political philosophy. His most famous work is the Leviathan, which he wrote in 1651. In it he describes his view of human nature and hence his view of government. Hobbes’ view of justice is based on his view of what he names the state of nature and the right of nature. Hobbes defines the state of nature as a “war” of everyone against everyone. Hobbes describes the right of nature to be self-preservation. Justice, in order to appease both the state of nature and the right of nature, is then a human construct created out of our drive for self-preservation, at least according to Hobbes. He defines justice as the keeping of valid or enforced

Thomas Hobbes describes his views on human nature and his ideal government in Leviathan. He believes human nature is antagonistic, and condemns man to a life of violence and misery without strong government. In contrast to animals, who are able to live together in a society without a coercive power, Hobbes believes that men are unable to coexist peacefully without a greater authority because they are confrontational by nature. “In the nature of man”, Hobbes says “there are three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory” and then he goes on to list man’s primary aims for each being gain, safety and reputation (Hobbes, Leviathan, 13, 6).

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

In the reading, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes discusses what human existence is in the state of nature and the state of war. As it is described, the state of nature refers to how men were made equal in the faculties of the body and mind. To quote, “As though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himself, as well as he.” Here, Hobbes is explaining his opinion on the meaning of the “state of nature” explaining that even though one may have a strength compared to another, it all is balanced out in the end. Each of us have our individual flaws and strength that constitute our character. Hobbes also notes, how humans inherently have a state of greed and savagery. The state of war in human existence is also examined in this article. Hobbes states, “And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way

In Book I of chapter XIII, Of the Natural Condition of Mankind, as concerning their Felicity, and Misery, Hobbes talks about the three principal causes of quarrel, competition, diffidence, and glory. The first, competition, is for gain. Hobbes describes it as,” The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men 's persons, wives, children, and cattle…” (Hobbes Chapter 13). In other words, competition causes men to use violence to steal from one another, which leads to war. Diffidence is described as safety, and the final cause of fighting is glory, which is reputation. Hobbes says in the text, “the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name” (Hobbes Chapter 13).

Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to connect the philosophical commitments to politics. He offers a distinctive definition to what man needs in life which is a successful means to a conclusion. He eloquently defines the social contract of man after defining the intentions of man. This paper will account for why Hobbes felt that man was inherently empowered to preserve life through all means necessary, and how he creates an authorization for an absolute sovereign authority to help keep peace and preserve life. Hobbes first defines the nature of man. Inherently man is evil. He will do whatever is morally permissible to self preservation. This definition helps us understand the argument of why Hobbes was pessimistic of man, and

From this concept Hobbes deduces that the state of nature is thus primarily a state of war, which leads to the

In Hobbes book Leviathan, he makes the natural man out to be a self obsessed monster who is only interested in his own self preservation. This would intern leave the state of nature to be consumed with war, “...because the condition of man is conditions of war of everyone against everyone”. With out the constrain of government Hobbes states “So that in the state of nature man will find three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (Leviathan, 76). These principles would then leave men in the state of nature, with a life that Hobbes describes as “solitary, poor nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan, 76). Over all Hobbes view on the state of nature is a materialistic world where without an “absolute sovereign” the life of man would be nothing more then the “state of war”.