Political Philosophy: The Theory Of The State By Thomas Hobbes

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

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.

Hobbes is the founding father of modern political philosophy. Directly or indirectly, he has set the terms of debate about the fundamentals of political life right into our own times. Few have liked his thesis, that the problems of political life mean that a society should accept an unaccountable sovereign as its sole political authority.

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 wrote during the time of the English Civil War and these events were heavily reflected within his writing. This time demonstrated a tremendous amount of political instability within the state and the violent war caused tension and unrest amongst the citizens. Hobbes advocates for the need for an all-powerful sovereign in order to ensure peace and security within society. Hobbes argues that humans were naturally drawn into a state of war and the only way to escape this conflict was if humans entered into a social contract in which they traded their individual liberties in exchange for protection from a higher political power of authority. For Hobbes sovereignty is best achieved when humans, “owe under the immortal God, [their] peace and defence” (Hobbes, 332). According to Hobbes when humans sacrifice their personal liberty they are avoiding the fear of violent death and instead would be able to live a peaceful life. Hobbes states that in the natural state of war humans seek to destroy one another, “ if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end… endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another” (319). It is essential to enter into a social contract because without a constant source of political authority in their life, human life would result in chaos. In an attempt to avoid the violent wars that result in the state of nature and in order to escape violent death that he

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.

Throughout the assigned portions of the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes proves to be a "social contract" theorist, however inconsistently. Through his explanation of humanity extracting itself out of the state of Nature, by developing rules pertaining to property and contract, by means of the creation of a Sovereign, or Common Wealth, he clearly elucidates the basic concepts of social contract theory.

It is hardly adequate to argue that Hobbes commits himself to upholding that it is permissible for a political authority to do anything he likes over his people. Instead, what one finds in him is a statement such as, “It is a weak Soveraign, that has weak Subjects; and a weak People, whose Soveraign wanteth Power to rule them at his will.” As indicated above, a close reading of his texts as a whole reveals striking obstacles to interpret him as recommending a despotic rule of the commonwealth. Although the idea of ruling despotically looks very Hobbesian, it is not quite very supported by a close reading of Hobbes’s overall political philosophy. His overall argument indicates, rather, that the sovereign cannot command anything except what

Hobbes, the author of Leviathan argues that social unity and civil peace are the most important factors for a state and that they will be best achieved by a social contract created by a commonwealth. The ideas presented in Leviathan provide strong arguments about human nature and they seek to answer the epistemological questions of political science. Thomas Hobbes describes the state of nature as being a state of war, and this drives his judgment that an authoritarian government must be created to provide for its citizens the protection they need.

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”

We then need to comprehend the understandings that structure society, and from these assentions we will comprehend the structure and status of the state. Envisioning a condition of nature, said Hobbes, helps us comprehend what individuals are similar to just as people. ‘Self-preservation’ is our most fundamental desire; and if there is no law or authority to override our acting on this desire, no one to tell us how or how not we may try to stay alive. So Hobbes argues that in a state of nature, we have the right to use our power however we choose in order to stay alive. (Hobbes’ argument about the state of nature can be found in Leviathan, esp. Ch.

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

In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that an ideal state is one in which the government possess all the power in order to protect the people and provide security is the best. Thomas Hobbes believed that people were inherently evil. He claimed that people will do whatever they want to get whatever they want. He labels this as the state of nature. He claims that the natural state is the place we are in before we are actually influenced by society. He says that this place is total chaos because people only do what benefits them. He describes the natural state of man as one that is wild and chaotic without government. He asserts the idea that man needs and naturally wants order but not being able to do it on our own way is best. He goes on

Empiricism is the theory that experience, rather than reason, is the source of knowledge, and in this sense it is opposed to rationalism. This general thesis can receive different emphases and refinements; therefore, philosophers who have been labeled empiricists are united generally and may differ in various ways. The Empiricist Revolution helped facilitate discussion on real world, political problems. Since this revolution, philosophers and political theorists have developed two different ideas on what politics should be about and how a government should be ran: politics should be about making citizens more virtuous vs politics should be about the “basics” like security and property rights. Throughout this paper, I will be analyzing these two different outlooks on politics and presenting a case for both.