Essay On State Of Nature By Thomas Hobbes

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

Through Hobbes’ idea of the state of nature, people begin to understand that human nature is not as civil as most people are led to believe. This leads to there having to be another force acting on the people to create a state of peace. Human nature is not enough for there to exist peace within society. Hobbes hinted at this extra force. This force would be considered a form of government. Hobbes’ opinion on government is that “This agreement sets up both rules and a governing force: The rules create an atmosphere of peace, and the government ensures that we follow the rules out of fear of punishment” (Pojman & Fieser, 2015, 64). Hobbes explains that this overlying force of a government sets standards to limit how what acts can be precisely classified as peaceful acts of human nature. Hobbes believed in the idea that a government is needed to avoid there from being a state of nature. He philosophized the need for there to peace in the world rather than hostility because hostility leads there to be a society based off of wars between people. The theory of state of nature is a scary thought if this is to occur within society. There are already disputes through society and without governments, there would be many more disputes. Hobbes is trying to teach others that governments are needed to limit the type of human

Hobbes states that with this singular rule to abide leads to three characteristics of outcome. That man first looks to invade and conquer through competition. He will look to go to war with anyone that gets in the way of a successful end. “Man is enemy to every man..(therefore) men live without other security” (Hobbes, 1994, page 76). The need to define man as a savage individual leads Hobbes to the Laws of Nature, and will help define the need authorizing an absolute sovereignty.

Locke and Hobbes are both famed political philosophers whose writings have been greatly influential in the development of modern political thought. In addition, the two are similar in that both refer to a “state of nature” in which man exists without government, and both speak of risks in this state. However, while both speak of the dangers of a state of nature, Hobbes is more pessimistic, whereas Locke speaks of the potential benefits. In addition, Hobbes speaks of states of nature theoretically, whereas Locke points out examples where they exist.

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).

In Hobbes….he reveals how firmly he disagrees with traditional natural law theorists, Hobbes sates that, “I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceases only in death.” In other words, Hobbes reveals that he believes that men cannot be satisfied by the “cultivation of virtue” as a political end; man will fight for more power until the fight itself kills them. According to source Hobbes states that, “All men have in common is the continual fear and danger of violent death” (Hobbes, 1956: Ch.13, 107-108). Hobbes is basically stating that because death is less likely to occur when there is peace, men will therefore desire a peaceful society only because it is in their best interest. Source , Hobbes states that, “The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such tings are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them.” These are prime examples of where the tradition view towards natural law contrasts with Hobbes theory. Natural law tradition generally believes it is human nature to have peace, and avoid evil, where Hobbes on the other hands believes man is only interested in having peace because it is for his own benefit. In current terms, Hobbes has a more realist view on natural law tradition.

This leads us to Hobbes’ view on the natural state of humans. He believes that without a common power to govern them, men are in a condition of war. In this state, all men are other men’s enemies. This brings rise to the idea ‘Everyone is governed by his own reason…in preserving his life against

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.

Hobbes after seeing the abundance of fighting and violence the occurred in the late 16th and early 17th century, he decided that the source of all the problems in the world come from the Church and State (King). Therefore, he concluded that government must only exist to serve its most basic purposes. According to Hobbes, those purposes were to provide safety and happiness. Hobbes’ political theory has three key concepts to it. The first is without any sort of society or government the state of nature is war, where everyone is against everyone. Meaning that without rules or standards to live by people will always be conquering each other no matter how many people group together. The second key concept for Hobbes is that since the above is true then in order for people to achieve their ultimate goal of natural rights (safety and happiness) there must be a government. In addition, it is the government’s main goal to provide its people with a safe place to live where the citizens can pursuit happiness. Hobbes final key concept is that it is in the best interest of everyone to agree to contractually surrender certain rights in order to maintain the society’s (country’s) natural rights and liberties. In line with all of his three key concepts Hobbes believes that people should have the

Thomas Hobbes was a divisive figure in his day and remains so up to today. Hobbes’s masterpiece, Leviathan, offended his contemporary thinkers with the implications of his view of human nature and his theology. From this pessimistic view of the natural state of man, Hobbes derives a social contract in order to avoid civil war and violence among men. Hobbes views his work as laying out the moral framework for a stable state. In reality, Hobbes was misconstruing a social contract that greatly benefited the state based on a misunderstanding of civil society and the nature and morality of man.

The law of nature essentially forbids humans from committing an act that would be reprehensible to his well being. This left humans to act in a way that was enforced by the a law. Hobbes analyzed both of these human natures and came to the conclusion that the ideal way for humans to exist within a peaceful environment would be be through the law of nature. In order for humans to live by the standards of the law of nature, humans must surrender their rights to a supreme leader (or small assembly)- this surrender is known as a social contract. Hobbes explained that people would would simple put their “Right[s] aside, either by simply renouncing it, or by transferring it to another” The social contract would involve all of the members of society to transfer their power to the all mighty leader. This all mighty leader would have complete control over the society, with no input from the members of societies.

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;

In the beginning, there was a darker side to the preservation of life. Man lived a life of kill or be killed, without any regard for other than his own. Life was solitary, poor, brutish and short. This barbaric and primitive state is what Thomas Hobbes believed to be the State of Nature. Practical reason dictates that when threatened you either act, give up your property, or anticipate for a sign of weakness to act. This means that all have a right to everything so long as it can be attained. People cannot be trusted to follow the Golden Rule, or the ethic of reciprocity, seen in many religions as stating that one must do unto others as one would like to be treated themselves.