Freedom And Freedom In Hobbes's Leviathan

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 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

English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes’, leviathan consists of three parts. The second part, titled “Of Commonwealth”, describes a government Hobbes refers to as the “leviathan”; which is simply defined as “something that is very large and powerful”. Biblically, “leviathan” is defined negatively, as a devilish sea monster. On the contrary, Hobbes uses the term to portray his version of the ideal government.

Firstly, we have the question, “Should individual citizens be free to do what they want”? Hobbes, in this case, would say that citizens should not be free to do as they please and that they should follow the “king”. He believed that a society could only function properly if the all-powerful Leviathan dictated the rules. This king or Leviathan, should be the one that creates all the laws and everyone else with absolutely no doubt must follow them, to create peace and order in society; ultimately avoiding chaos. He thought this way because he lived in a time that was chaotic, where he explored the nature of humans during the English revolution, resulting in a pessimistic yet realist view of his world.

Thomas Hobbes was an enlightened thinker who lived in the 17th century and through the upheaval that was the English Civil War. While observing the Civil War, Hobbes concluded that people are “naturally cruel, greedy, and selfish” (Ellis 183). Hobbes argued that a strict government was the only way to control people because, without it, they would fight, steal, and oppress each other. He said the only way to keep the people at bay was to have them obey strict laws. His favored government was an absolute monarchy because it “could impose order and compel obedience” (Ellis 183). In an absolute monarchy, the citizens give up all of their rights in order to be protected by their leader.

Hobbes’ Leviathan is a sustained argument for why individuals ought to prefer a sovereign—any sovereign—over the state of nature. How does Hobbes understand both the state of nature and sovereignty, and what are his reasons for preferring the latter to the former?

Thomas Hobbes published his most famous work, Leviathan, during the height of the English Civil War. This was possibly the most violent and chaotic time in all of British history, and is certainly reflected in Hobbes’ writing. He introduces his view on the state of nature, that is, society without government, as a state of war, in which the lives of men are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes 89) From this state of nature he describes natural laws, which help to form the purpose of government in his eyes. The first, and “Fundamental Law of Nature” is that men “seek peace, and follow it” (92) This fundamental law is also what he believes a sovereign is meant to uphold. He argues that the Sovereign must do everything in their power to preserve the commonwealth. Hobbes strongly advocates for an authoritarian form of government.

Hobbes ' view in Leviathan aims at ensuring civil order, which means for him the absolute power of the government, or the Leviathan, which power the people have given him through the social contract. Locke, on the other hand, keeps much more power in the hands of the people through the legislature, which means, in effect, majority rule. Locke was also deeply concerned with maintaining the rights of the people, especially the right to own property. Locke 's political view produces a much more democratic system, while Hobbes ' produces a much more authoritarian, if not totalitarian, system. Both Locke and Hobbes start their political analysis with reference to the state of nature. However, their definitions of this state of nature stand in stark contrast to one another. The differences on their perception of the state of nature correspond to the final conclusions of what is important in a civil society. The contrasting perceptions of the state of nature on the part of these two philosophers are crucial, because they use those perceptions as the foundations for the political

Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan explores the idea of “right of nature,” by going through a number of laws and explaining the necessity of a sovereign government. Hobbes believes that the natural right of human beings to preserve their own lives necessitates the first law of nature, which compels them to seek peace to fulfill that right; similarly Hobbes’ belief that humans posses a natural right to all natural things necessitates that they give up certain rights to a sovereign in order to preserve the peace.

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.

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes attempts to set up the stage for the understanding of the nature of freedom. The account holds much significance, because, what people understand freedom to be matters a great deal to their past and present life. According to Hobbes, freedom implies “the absence of opposition (by opposition I mean external impediments of motion) …” (Hobbes, 2005, P157). However, Hobbes understood this to have had political implications and he talks of liberty (freedom from legal constraints) in contrast with obligations that act as constraints. He suggests that legal constraints do not make it physically impossible to do something, thus, he denies that there is anything more to freedom within a state than this absence of legal restrictions. Having argued this, he emphasizes the duty to obey the laws issued by the sovereign. However, Hobbes’s account has rightly been challenged in a number of ways. Suitably, in this paper, I will confront and critically assess the argument to show how it is ineffective in its attempt to provide an account for the nature of freedom.

Hobbes was primarily intent on the creation of an impartial, theoretical science of government, 'stressing the priority of truth above the delights of rhetoric or the utility of propaganda [6]. He focuses his attention on basic principles rather than changing institutions or forms of government. Leviathan can therefore be seen as a political creature or persona and that creature can exhibit aristocratic, republican, monarchical or, even, democratic features [8].

Thomas Hobbes primarily expresses the idea of liberty using sovereignty as a model. According to him, sovereignty was established by agreement initially, but he goes on to say that sovereignty established by force incorporates the same rights and requirements of the social contract. The difference lies in the way the sovereign is retained, installed and thought of. A sovereign coming into power by universal consent is supported by the masses, as people fear each other. In contrast to this, a sovereign that comes into power by force gains support as the people fear the sovereign himself. Both of these sovereigns are mutually consented to by social contract, which is driven by fear in either case. In the state of nature, liberty was non-existent as actions were influenced by fear of death and fear of the power held by others. While fear and power are present in The Leviathan, the person has acquired absolute liberty as he handed over fear and power to the sovereign to use as tools consentingly making him responsible for his own fate should the sovereign

According to the view Thomas Hobbes presents within the selected passaged in the Leviathan, we live in a narcissistic society where man’s condition is primarily driven by ego and where the achievement of personal goals is deemed paramount. Within the State of Nature that is, outside of civil society we have a right to all things ‘even to one another’s body’, and there would be no agreed authority to ensure the moral grounds of our decisions. Therefore since there are no restrictions and no shared authority; man is naturally un-guarded and prone to conflict and each individual is deemed a potential threat to our resources.

Thomas Hobbes believed that the government should essentially limit itself to the protection of property and persons. Hobbes thought that power derived from the office, not from the people. Things like virtue, social equality, and welfare were not important. To protect themselves and their government Hobbes believed that it was imperative, natural and rational for people to give up some liberty in order to gain security of self-preservation. This is called the Social Contract. The concept of the Social Contract Theory is that, in the beginning, man lived in the state of nature where life was, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (page 619). In this state every