Comparing Machiavelli And Hobbes ' Political Writings And The Leviathan

With these natural causes of quarrel, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear (p.45). He believes that humans have three motivations for ending this state of war: the fear of death, the desire to have an adequate living and the hope to attain this through one’s labor (p.47). These beliefs become valid because of the use of his examples. One example suggests that people are barbaric to each other. With the absence of international law, strong countries prey on the weakness of weak countries. I believe that his views of moral behavior are very true. Like Hobbes said, people are out for their well-being. If I were to do a favor for someone, I may think I am helping someone out, which I am, but I am probably doing the favor because it is going to make me feel better. It is going to benefit my well being. Hobbes is a famous philosopher whose views were very controversial. But the fact that he lived in a time when the monarchy was the “divine right of kings” (p.42), makes his views valid today. With a different government and new laws, his views appear to be true.

Hobbes states that the proper form of civil government must have a supreme ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. He believes that the goal of the people is to escape the state of war, and that they are willing to transfer their rights in order to leave it. “Whensoever a man transfers his right, or renounces it; it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself; or for some other good he hopes for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself.”3 He believes that all men are equal in the state of nature despite any preexisting differences between them because they are ultimately powerful enough to defend themselves and their resources. “Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of the body, and mind; so that though there be found one man sometime manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet

Thomas Hobbes then begins to explain that what any one man has another may take at will. Some men take pleasure in the conquest of what belongs to another and will take more than they need, while others are content with the bare essentials. Hobbes states that, because it is in man's nature to increase his own power it should be “allowed.” Hobbes states that there are three causes for quarrels between men, the first being competition and the want for man to gain from another through violence. The second is diffidence, or a lack of confidence in one’s own ability of worth which in turn causes men to fight for safety, perhaps to distract another from his insecurities. The third is for the sake of glory, or to secure his reputation. Thomas Hobbes says that, because all men have a natural animalistic inclination to fight for what we want and believe we deserve, a “common power”, a government or hierarchy of some sort, is vital to maintaining a semblance of peace. Hobbes muses that, without security outside of us there will be no industry or commodities, no modern comforts, no society. Without someone to lord over us in some way our future will be one of “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short…” (pg. 48). And, while we enjoy the

First, Hobbes says that nature is chaos. There are no rules, and the only means of protection are the strengths of each individual. There is no trust among anyone, and each individual only cares about his or herself. Hobbes develops the right of nature, or self-preservation, out of these circumstances. Each individual has a right to think of self-preservation in a world where no one can be trusted. One might think that this wouldn’t fix the problem of the natural chaos. However, Hobbes explains that the focus on self-preservation will be so powerful that individuals will make covenants that will be adhered to because they preserve everyone and hence oneself. This is in accordance with Hobbes’ concept of the laws of nature. He explains the laws of nature to be: seek peace, forfeit rights, and keep covenants. Humans pursuing self-preservation would realize that by seeking peace and forfeiting rights such as taking what one wanted from others as one saw fit self-preservation is easier and more achievable. This also requires the formation of governments to enforce the covenants made. Otherwise, there would be no way to know for certain that the covenants would be respected and upheld. With the formation of government come concepts such as justice. Hobbes bases his definition of justice on the very thing that created the government: covenants, and the keeping of those valid or

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

To begin with, an important theme to discuss is what the modern thinkers believe is the purpose of politics. Machiavelli believes that the purpose of politics is the glory and stability of the state, in which we will refer to as “statecraft”. Hobbes believes in the security of the population to be the purpose of politics. Hobbes wants ensure that the people’s lives are secure and that there is no opportunity of leaving them vulnerable to each other. Locke wants to protect certain natural rights: life, liberty and property. However, when Locke discusses in protecting and engaging people into politics who own property, it excludes the people who do not harbor property; which, at that time, was a majority of the population (234). Hobbes and Machiavelli are both interested in imposing order and avoid chaos. On the other hand,

"But my hope is to write a book that will be useful . . . and so I thought it sensible to go straight to a discussion of how things are in real life and not waste time with a discussion of an imaginary world; for the gap between how people actually behave and how they ought to behave is so great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself, not preserve himself."

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

Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race

Hobbes suggests three causes of the nature of man. First, competition; Second, Diffidence; third, glory. Human exercise violence first to gain their desire, and secondly to defend their gains, and lastly for one’s own reputation. On the ground that we are all in a state of war, Hobbes states, “In such conditions, there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain…no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, NO SOCIETY, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death…” (Leviathan, XIII). Therefore, the idea of justice or injustice cannot have a place in our society where there is no power.

Thomas Hobbes claims that in a state of nature, people are constantly fighting against each other, and the only way to overcome this is to form a commonwealth. He does this by going over the conditions that describe a state of nature, certain rights that all people have in nature, and the method for transferring these rights, by way of a pledge to a sovereign, whether it to the one person, or a group of people in order to achieve a state of peace. While Hobbes makes a very clear argument, it does contain some faults when examined. Hobbes addresses these issues and tries to convince the reader that a commonwealth is the only way a society will experience lasting peace.

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;

Essentially a royalist and a belief in the selfishness and vanity of the       individual, he espoused that men should join together in the formation of       a commonwealth, one with a sovereign, to whom all responsibility for       social order and public welfare would be entrusted to (Kemerling). He felt       that investing power in a single natural person who can choose advisors       and rule consistently without fear of internal conflicts is the best       fulfillment of our social needs (Kemerling). Hobbes had two reasons why a       sovereign was needed: to protect the citizens from themselves and to       protect the nation from other nations. When men are together, without a       master, they tend to be aggressive and malicious towards each other. The       causes of this are usually competition, diffidence, and glory (Blanchard).

For almost every word, all philosophers have their own notion towards it’s meaning. This is especially true for the term “justice”. The philosophers Hobbes and Plato both exhibit their own beliefs towards its interpretation through their respective stories, the Leviathan and the Republic. Instead of simply stating his view, Plato takes it to another level. He brings up a multitude of possibilities for the meaning of justice, arguing with himself and shooting down his own theories. The purpose of his Republic is to find the best and most logical definition of justice through discussion. Hobbes discusses various topics in his piece on top of justice; he addresses sense, imagination, dreams, speech, names, understanding and reason. Using these other subjects, he cultivates his own definition of justice. Similar to Plato, Hobbes creates counter arguments to many of the ideas that he presents and supports. Hobbes views justice mostly as a societal norm, while Plato has his own set of perspectives. Among their views on justice there are a surprising amount of similarities, yet still many differences.

Relationship Between the Sovereign and the Subjects in More's Utopia, Machiavelli's The Discourses, and Hobbes' The Leviathan