Hobbes Happiness

Thomas Hobbes was born in 1588 in England. Hobbes survived through the English Revolutionary era, and his perspective of human nature built up negatively. He believed that all men were innately bad and evil. Hobbes stated, “... yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves” (Hobbes 1). This quote shows his thought, that all men are selfish and they always think they are better than anyone. Hobbes believed that humans didn't know how to cooperate because same desire would only cause them to be an enemy. Also, Hobbes said that it was the human who limits the development due to their constant war with each other.

Hobbes chose to examine the political society and broke it down to its basic parts of individual men. He understood the nature of man and thus was able to further examine the forces that drive humanity and came to understand the real role of politics in our lives rather than the role predetermined by the elite, who dictate what is good for man. Hobbes sought to answer an overall question what can be said about the overall nature of man?

The Commonwealth is a voluntary intergovernmental association between many different states that are mostly ruled by the Britain

A commonwealth is a constitution of the entire people. Hobbes says that the only way to erect such common power is to confer all the power they have and strength they have to an unto will (Source 2).Many people have different views

There are two questions I would like to elaborate on in terms of what the philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Joseph Butler thought human nature was.

Human nature is defined by Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher whose view was pessimistic on the natural state of humans. “The natural state of man's life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". The villagers of Salem, falsely believed the innocence of these sinful children. The adults quickly set out to accuse the persons of witchcraft. The accused had no “real” evidence to provide to the court. Evidence was only by word of mouth. People began to think only for themselves and the worst came out

Both Hobbes and Locke looked to nature as the basis for how social and political systems should be understood (Berlin 94). Hobbes had a rather dim view of the state of nature, believing that people were inherently flawed and would fight and struggle without a strong ruler to form laws and force them to conformity. Despite this dim view, Hobbes

In summary, Hobbes’ assumptions on human nature are not fool proof, and even if they were, it does not follow that the State of Nature would be as terrible as he thinks. He does not take into account the positive characteristics of human nature, which would let us counteract the negative ones and avoid violence. Moreover, it is unclear what he defines as society breaking down. Indeed, his argument seems to rely on an apocalyptic scenario.

To begin, Hobbes uses his most recognized work called the Leviathan to discuss several issues relating from the natural state of humans to more complex arguments about the equality of human beings. When observing Hobbes it best to start by examining his definition of appetites and aversions. For Hobbes appetites and aversions are outlined to be, “This endeavor, when it is

In order to analyze Hobbes’s work of moral and political philosophy, one must first understand his view of human nature. Hobbes’s was greatly influenced by the scientific revolution of the early 17th century, and by the civil unrest and civil war in England while he wrote. Hobbes views the nature of man as being governed by the same laws of nature described by Galileo and refined by Newton .He writes in Leviathan “And as we see in the water, though the wind cease, the waves give not over rowling (rolling) for a long time after; so also it happeneth in that mation, which is made in the internall parts of a man” . From this, he concludes that man is in a constant state of motion. Being at rest is not the natural state of man, but rather a rarity.

He saw human nature was to be tamed by politics, not exercised. According to Aristotle, The nature of human was to be completed and flourished through community and politics (SEP, 2002). In contrast, Hobbes claims that the state of human nature was war. In his book of Leviathan, he states, “…there is no way for any man to secure himselfe, so reason-able, as Anticipation; that is, by force…till he see no other power great enough to endanger him…” (Leviathan, XIII). Since we cannot reach agreement over what is right and wrong, it is rational to think that we have no choice but to attack other people and that is the state of nature.

We will give Hobbes’ view of human nature as he describes it in Chapter 13 of Leviathan. We will then give an argument for placing a clarifying layer above the Hobbesian view in order to

Hobbes articulates a “materialist” view of man, which asserts “life is but a motion of limbs,” (Leviathan 3) and that all men are composed of the same materials. It thereby follows that men, or simply matter in motion, desire the same things because they are composed of the same things. Man’s similarities go beyond merely his composition. Man relies on certain necessities in order to maintain life. These necessities, such as the need to eat food and drink water, correspond to all of mankind. Therefore, in order to preserve life,

The first idea that has to be discussed is; what actually is a commonwealth?” This is basically the ideal form of government that would function perfectly in a utopian society. Cicero describes this as, “...a commonwealth is a constitution of the entire people.” (Cicero XXV). Cicero is saying that a commonwealth is a decision of the entire people, where everyone has an equal voice as to what happens to them under the rule of the government. According to Hobbes, “This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a commonwealth…”

Hobbes believes that in the state of nature, humans have no laws, morals, police force, property, government, culture, knowledge, or durable infrastructure. Within this state of nature, people have no morals and do as they please without any consequence. As