Comparison of Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes Essay

Hobbes believed that people each have their own ideas of right and wrong, and that there is no way to tell if a person’s version of right and wrong is universally right or wrong. Practically, that each person will create their own rationalization and will even kill another person for physical safety or securing

Contrasting Hobbes and Locke Nearly two-hundred and twenty-five years ago the United States of America chose to fight a Thomas Hobbes government, with the hope of forming a John Locke institution. The ideas of these men lead to the formation of two of the strongest nations in the history of the world: Great Britain followed by the United States. Thomas Hobbes viewed the ideal government as an absolute monarchy, due to the chaos of the state of nature in contrast, John Locke’s ideal government was a democracy due to his beliefs of the equality of men. These men have shared a few of the same beliefs, but mainly contrast each other.

Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes are two of the most influential political theorists in history. Each philosopher has shaped mankind’s political thought and both have earned the title of a “Father” of political thought. Aristotle and Hobbes contributed to the world of political thought with differing dogmas. They both stand on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Aristotle claims that man is naturally a social being and therefore a political animal. Furthermore, he understands man as controlled towards the community. Hobbes claims the exact opposite. Man is naturally ordered towards the individual and that individual is himself, according to Hobbes.

Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying both, do give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties. Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for the promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; … It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they know only their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.[MillJS:1863]

Change is in the inevitable byproduct of society. As societies evolve they change according to the life style of the people who inhabit them. Without change, society would never progress and thus would be frozen in a single moment in time. Thomas Hobbes and John Lock were two English philosophers who observed tremendous changes in English politics between the years of 1640 and 1690. In closely examining the views of both of these philosophers in subject areas such as the nature of man in society, the relationship between a society and its government, and the affect that both philosophers’ novels had on the government, it can be concluded that both Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies created prominent change in the methods of government.

The formation of government is one of the central themes for both Hobbes and Locke. Whether or not men naturally form a government, or must form a government, is based on man’s basic nature. According to Hobbes, a government must be formed to preserve life and prevent loss of property. According to Locke, a government arises to protect life and property. Governments are born of inequality and formed to administer equality.

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

It is said that great minds think alike, but history has proven time and time again the flaw in that statement. Two men, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, both had arguably great minds yet their opinions were vastly different in certain areas, perhaps most obviously in the political realm. Both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes advocated different beliefs on government and politics during the seventeenth century. Thomas Hobbes saw the human soul as inherently evil, and believed that an absolute government was the only way to contain and suppress its darkness, while John Locke held a positive and optimistic of the human soul, and believed in a governmental system that benefited and protected those living underneath it; these two men, although they held different ideals, were both very influential to the world in which we exist today.

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right;

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were Enlightenment thinkers that were highly influential in their views on political, social, and religious aspects of life. Both were philosophers, but Locke worked as a physician where Hobbes was solely focused on science, specifically, metaphysics. The two believed that God was the cause of life in both the physical and intangible spheres, but wished to prove it on less of a faith basis, but rather through the scientific process. Physically, the two believed that God created man and the natural world, and intangibly that God interacted throughout the social aspect of people’s lives. With the political strife surrounding a civil war and the Puritan uprising, Hobbes and Locke filled the void of the people’s political

“Everyone is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies (Hobbes, 120).” Thomas Hobbes, who is a considered a rational egoist, makes this point in his book Leviathan. Hobbes believes that the means of person’s actions can only be amounted to how it ultimately affects that person. Our moral duties that we perform in the end, all stem from self-interest, rather than being justified as morally right or wrong. Hobbes states that our desires pit us against one another, and the only way to protect our self-interests is to create a common power that protects the people who consent to it.

Aristotle vs. Hobbes, constitutes a debate between two great thinkers from two profoundly different periods of time. Whereas Aristotle (384 - 322 BCE) had been a part of the Greek's and more precisely, Athens's Golden Age, Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) had lived through the English Civil War of 1640s to become one of the most influential philosophers. Based on their own personal experiences and surroundings, both Aristotle and Hobbes had developed a view of what human equality should sustain. However, Hobbes' understanding of natural equality is preferable, as he provides society with the extra room for equality and opportunity that the subjects of a good sovereign would experience to be available to them, in comparison to Aristotle's

Compare and contrast Hobbes’s and Locke’s views of the state of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society. Whose view is the more plausible? Why?

Throughout history there have been many movements and great thinkers that have impacted society and the way that we perceive life and the human being. Thinkers such as Augustine, Hobbes, Aristotle, Kant, etc., have all developed theories of how they perceive the human being and their ethos as well as how a good life should be. Philosophical thinkers like Augustine and Hobbes differ in their beliefs of the human being. Augustine believes that the human being is a god seeker and a being of desire that wishes to find meaning and purpose in life. A good life is a life devoted for god and loving him. Unlike Augustine, Hobbes believes that the human being is a self-seeker of preservation and pleasure, and the perception of a good life is one in which stability is found by civil society. Augustine perceives the human being to be one that contributes to stability and growth in society. We learn how to find fulfillment in the right way unlike a human being that is perceived by Hobbes. Augustine’s perception is more accurate than the perception of Hobbes because individuals can achieve peace and happiness and contributes to growth and stability for society.

This statement itself explains us to an extent that there is a difference in Aristotle’s and Hobbes reason of treatment. Where Hobbes is treating it as very pragmatic and earthly concept but at the same point Aristotle is using it as very idle concept in comparison to Hobbes. Hobbes argument is very much earthly and natural whereas Aristotle is using it in a vague term. Of course, we aim at happiness but obviously after knowing that we have what we need for our basic needs. For this statement here an argument can be, is knowing that we have what we want for our basic need, is not happiness? That may not be for some people. That’s where Aristotle forgets to introduce the concept of greed, with need. Fulfilling need and greed can be a happiness but if we look at this argument other way around, what about those people who struggle for a two square meals per day. Is getting food make them happy or they are just satisfied that they will not die of hunger or after getting food they start thinking constantly about next day without celebrating happiness, if they get happiness through that? If they are not celebrating happiness, so are they really aiming for happiness at all? This is where Aristotle is not using reasons to make clear his argument where at the same point Hobbes is making it clear through his reason for every point and also through his central concept of his text, which is ‘self-preservation’. As an example given earlier about needy man getting food is obviously for self- preservation more than happiness. But is not getting your self-preserved makes you happy? The answer to this question would be, to enjoy or to feel our happiness me must be alive. So, our first and basic aim should be to preserve ourselves. At places, Aristotle argument is not logical but rather psychological and ontological. Hobbes reason behind every action is ‘power’ which is very natural and universally accepted because