Political Authority : A Need For Authority

Hobbes held a rather pessimistic view of human nature, writing in Leviathan that, in the state of nature, the lives of all humans would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” He believed that, in the state of nature (ie without a without a central power), every man is in constant war with every other man. This constant battle arises from the fact that no one can trust anyone else not to harm or steal from them. You may tell me that you won’t steal my horse, but there’s nothing stopping you from murdering me in my sleep and making off with all of my possessions. Thus, I must expect an attack – to prevent it, it would be wise for me to act first, killing you before you kill me. We see how the natural state of war arises.

What makes a political authority legitimate? A legitimate political authority, in this essay, will be taken to mean that there is a justification for an individual or a body to have power over other people in determining such things as laws and protection of freedom. To consider this question, three theories shall be looked at – Hobbes’, Rousseau and finally Locke and determine which gives the most persuasive account of legitimate political authority. To begin with, their hypothetical starting point, the state of nature, shall be discussed to establish the foundations of their political authority. Secondly, the reasons that shall lead man to get out of the state of nature will be examined in order to see if these logically follow on from

This quote from Thomas Hobbes ‘Leviathan,' summarizes his opinion of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity and misery. He basically suggests a natural impulse for war embedded in the souls of men who do not have a ruler, or a king. They are without bounds, and without limits. It is a state of anarchy that he envisages.

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 The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes believes that men are equal in nature and that people have the same hopes and desires, including universally immoral thoughts (Hobbes, p. 183). In terms of equality in desires, Hobbes makes the assumption of scarcity, where people cannot have everything they want. Hobbes stresses the importance of a mutually recognized public authority (Lloyd & Sreedhar, p. 1). Without this common authority, there will be serious disputes as everybody tries to please their own private appetite. Civilians need this common authority because the state of nature for humans is a condition of war that needs to be controlled. Without the authority, there will be chaos, as every individual will attempt to accomplish their private desires without regards for other people.

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.

Leviathan is an organic metaphor in which the leviathan; a biblical sea monster represents the sovereign (the head) and political community (the body.) The Condition of Nature, Hobbes’s thought experiment mirrors an anarchic state before civilization. In this state equality is held in a negative air; it poses a threat of vulnerability. Without authority we are open to attacks. This threat leads to three conflicts: competition, diffidence, and glory. Competition leads to violence, due to the desires of the individual, we may try to have what the other one has. Diffidence leads to distrust and anticipation of preemptive strikes. We believe that the other individual is after what we have. Lastly, glory leads to shattered pride due to undervalue, due to individual’s opinions. Hobbes describes life in this state as a miserable. “In such condition there is no place for industry because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently […] which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes,76). Hobbes state of nature mimics stereotypes of the ignorant rather than Goldman’s state. Hobbes state is depicted as constant warfare and fear while Goldman’s depicts hope and personal growth. Hobbes introduces Laws of Nature which help us get out of this anarchic state in which we seek peace and lay down some

The state of nature is the idea of life without society, government, state, or laws. John Locke and Hobbes both agree that the state of nature is equivalent to a state of perfect freedom and equality, although they both understand these terms differently. Hobbes argues that equality leads to inequality in the state of nature. Inequality arises from the idea of man having the right to pursue their self-interest, with no duties to each other. Without duties to each other when, “Any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Hobbes 184). In the Hobbesian natural state, man is made up of diffidence and lives with no security other than what he can provide himself (Hobbes 185). By virtue, men will enter a continuous state of war for self-preservation because it is man’s natural right to act on what he thinks is necessary to protect himself.

Hobbes’ state of nature, therefore, is one that is as equally pessimistic as his view of human nature. The state of nature, for Hobbes, is that of anarchy, in the sense that there is no over-arching power to constrain the actions of men, and is one in which there are limited resources. Man is thus driven by his desires as described above, and in that all men are essentially free, pursues them forsaking all others. As resources are limited, and all men have the same essential desires, not everyone has the ability to realise these desires. The result of this is a state which Hobbes calls war “of every man against every man”. Hobbes can be no plainer in his explanation than with the following: At this time, he says, there is “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. Consequently, as a product of the state of war against all and man’s need to use all he can in order to guarantee his conservation, it

In Hobbes' Leviathan, the conclusion on the nature between morality and the state is that the "Leviathan," i.e. the state, is responsible for the creation of morality and that without the state, man is without morality and is, in fact, a savage. Hobbes claims that the state originates morality by way of discussing human nature. He says: "So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory...Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men lie without common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war...Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every manis enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other scrutiny, than what their own strengthm and their own invention shall furnish withal." (Leviathan 592) What Hobbes is saying here, is that man, in a state of nature, is not moral.These three things (competition, diffidence, glory), are all that savage man has without government or "without common power" as Hobbes puts it. Therefore, the state removes the state of savagery from the nature of man and puts in morality.

Hobbes believes that the state of nature is a thought experiment and a constant threat to society. In Hobbes’ state of nature, morality is not naturally occurring. The people would be at a constant war for individual survival. In the Leviathan, Hobbes discusses his concept of natural law as a way to cope with the dread of the state of nature. One of the laws Hobbes wrote on is “that every man, ought to endeavour peace, as farre as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps and advantages of Warre”

Thomas Hobbe 's philosophical political piece 'The Leviathan ' argues that society functions most effectively if all state and commonwealth is delegated by an all powerful sovereign, and that without it we are in a state of chaos, otherwise titled by Hobbes as 'the state of nature ' (Thomas Hobbes, 2002, p. 181). I will argue that it is not possible to acknowledge what life is like in the state of nature without fully acknowledging that life in the state of nature leads to an all-powerful sovereign that ultimately leads to the benefit of the people due to humanity 's innate fear of death and desire for civilization.

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.

The state of nature is very differential to that of feudalism which was taking place during Hobbes’s time period; this is evident in social relationships and the characteristics of human beings in each state. In feudal society the notion of equality was not present and was class based, meaning there was a social hierarchy (Weinstein, 2015) , this is rather different to Hobbes who described the state of nature as a complete free and equal system. In feudal society there is a mutual cooperation and obligation in the system making it a direct social relationship among individuals which portrays the system more like a community (Weinstein, 2015) rather than separate, isolated individuals that are present in the state of nature. In feudalism the economic problem is solved through the production of agricultural goods which is done by the labour of the surfs. The idea of accumulation of wealth is not significant since the system operates through a direct social relationship and so due to this the payment the surfs get for their labour is payment in kind. Meaning the surfs exchange their labour for order, security, and peace that the system grants them (Weinstein, 2015). In the state of nature there is no form of “payment” or “system”, every individual in the state of nature is self-preserved and only fights for its own well-being making this individual not obligated to anything or anyone. During feudalism the government was based on divine rights, in other words it was God who

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