Research Paper On Thomas Hobbes

Hobbes’ theory on the state of nature is based on the concept of individualism: that the individuals who comprise society are the only factors to be considered when analyzing it. Consequently, Hobbes claimed that men are all selfish and simply concerned with themselves, regardless of the damage that their actions cause to others. This behavior would result in divergence, and ultimately lead to a ‘State of War’ between men.

Hobbes believes that in the state of nature, man has no power to control others, and because of this, everyone is aggressive towards one another, as no one can trust another. Because of this, social order is necessary to give man incentive towards cooperation and trust, by selling your individual rights to freedom in order to gain social rights of security and safety. The role of the social order is to combat man’s aggressiveness, man’s power to hurt one another and direct this towards positive social ends instead of destructive.

First, Hobbes says that nature is chaos. There are no rules, and the only means of protection are the strengths of each individual. There is no trust among anyone, and each individual only cares about his or herself. Hobbes develops the right of nature, or self-preservation, out of these circumstances. Each individual has a right to think of self-preservation in a world where no one can be trusted. One might think that this wouldn’t fix the problem of the natural chaos. However, Hobbes explains that the focus on self-preservation will be so powerful that individuals will make covenants that will be adhered to because they preserve everyone and hence oneself. This is in accordance with Hobbes’ concept of the laws of nature. He explains the laws of nature to be: seek peace, forfeit rights, and keep covenants. Humans pursuing self-preservation would realize that by seeking peace and forfeiting rights such as taking what one wanted from others as one saw fit self-preservation is easier and more achievable. This also requires the formation of governments to enforce the covenants made. Otherwise, there would be no way to know for certain that the covenants would be respected and upheld. With the formation of government come concepts such as justice. Hobbes bases his definition of justice on the very thing that created the government: covenants, and the keeping of those valid or

Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to connect the philosophical commitments to politics. He offers a distinctive definition to what man needs in life which is a successful means to a conclusion. He eloquently defines the social contract of man after defining the intentions of man. This paper will account for why Hobbes felt that man was inherently empowered to preserve life through all means necessary, and how he creates an authorization for an absolute sovereign authority to help keep peace and preserve life. Hobbes first defines the nature of man. Inherently man is evil. He will do whatever is morally permissible to self preservation. This definition helps us understand the argument of why Hobbes was pessimistic of man, and

     Essentially what Hobbes is saying by all of this is that human beings are not fit to govern themselves. The notion of the social contract serves the purpose of saving us from ourselves because, according to Hobbes, humans are not able to do that on their own. The idea of acting on behalf of the common good is, while comprehensible in theory, impossible for humans to execute.

In this essay, I will argue that Hobbes does have a pessimistic view of human nature. This is based on several other secondary sources and what Hobbes describes as human nature. In my descriptive section, I will explain what Hobbes says about human nature, the State of Nature, and what both of them have to allude to in regards to political obligation towards the state, an authority figure over the people. I will be highlighting sections in Hobbes’ Leviathan that will be later critiqued in my critical section. And in my critical section, I will be critiquing the Leviathan with sources that both agree and disagree with Hobbes in order to help prove that his view on human nature is pessimistic.

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).

Since there is this constant struggle to get what you want, protect what you already have, and attain power and glory, all men are continuously in a state of what Hobbes deems war. It is a civil war because there isn’t a common power to rule everyone as every man is for himself. This perpetual civil war makes it pretty much impossible for anyone to function productively let alone make any kind of developments whatsoever. This chaotic state is what Hobbes calls the ‘state of nature’:

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.

keOf all the social contract theories that have been put forth, the most influential perhaps have been John Locke’s and Thomas Hobbes’. While both are Natural Law theorists, they have completely different views of man’s state of nature. John Locke thinks of man in a natural state as a peaceful, social being while Thomas Hobbes thinks of man as an aggressive and greedy man. Both theorists also showed that man doesn’t live in a state of nature, social contracts will be formed to govern the populace. It is, however, the reasons for the formation of these social contracts that are of relevance to this essay. I believe that neither of these theories are accurate depictions of man but Hobbes seems more practical in his theory than Locke.

The Right of Nature is defined by Hobbes as: ... the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature. That is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing anything, which in his own Judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto. Liberty, according to Hobbes is simply the absence of external impediments to motion, which will prevent a person from some actions, but not from all the actions available to him or her. So, there is not much in the Primary State of Nature to prevent

Hobbes believed that in nature people had to do whatever was necessary to survive and that even if living together, people were still likely to fight. His view of people was dark and most likely due to the horrors of a series of political schemes and armed conflicts he had seen during the English Civil War. He believed that a contract was necessary. Hobbes felt that people were not capable of living in a democratic society. Instead, a single dominant ruler was needed, and if everyone did their part, then the community would function smoothly. Hobbes’ theory is unlike Locke and Rousseau’s. He believed that once the people gave power to the government, the people gave up the right to that power. It would essentially be the cost of the safety the people were seeking.

This perspective is essentially materialist and rather careful interpretation of the human conditions is radical and far-reaching in the history of political though and particularly disagrees with Locke’s. Unlike Locke’s perspective therefore, self-interest is the dominant theme of Hobbes’ perspective of the state of nature (Hobbes, 1994).

In order to overcome the detrimental power-clash related effects within a society living in the state of nature as defined by Hobbes, it

Hobbes believed that if each individual shares the same views about acquiring peace and mutual co-operation then they can construct a social contract that will grant them immunity from the State of Nature. A social contract can be broken apart into two phases: the first is that people must mutually agree to establishing a society collectively by acknowledging each other’s right to live equally and the second phase is that they must agree to submit to the authority of an individual or group who will in turn make sure that the first phase of the social contract will be carried out. This is done so that those people who choose to engage in a social contract with one another can have surety that even if their counterparts fail to reciprocate the social contract terms then the authority in charge will enforce certain laws that will punish and deter people from going against the social contract. Since a state will be granted the authority to enforce punishments for those who breach the social contract then people will begin adjusting their lifestyles to in accordance with the social contract unlike in the State of Nature wereby there was no officially authority to rule and enforce order so that people can co-operate despite their differences. This is a good way for people to live amongst each other harmoniously