Role of Government as a Socializing Agent and the Role of Morality in Effective Social Control

“The law alone leads to political order. If laws are adjusted to the time, there is good government. If government fits the age, there will be great accomplishment. Therefore, when the people are naïve, if you regulate them with fame, there will be good government; when everybody in the world is intelligent, if you discipline them with penalties, they will obey. While time is moving on, if laws do not shift accordingly, there will be misrule; while abilities are divers, if prohibitions are not changed, the state will be dismembered…Indeed, if the state is orderly, the people are safe; if affairs are confused, the country falls into peril…Yet everybody’s likes and dislikes should be regulated by the superior.”

There would be a power of authority that would enforce the laws to protect individuals from the human nature of others. Failure to comply would result in consequences. The sovereign would control the law, giving onto people what is moral. He fears without sovereign, man would strive towards power and even killing. This would threaten the sovereign and result in chaos. Hobbes believes that everyone will agree to authority because it is in their best interest. After all, human beings are self-centered according to Hobbes. Therefore, human beings voluntarily surrender freedoms to live in harmony. This was called the Leviathan, and considered it necessary for social order. I find this more persuasive because it poseses structure, boundaries and expectations. It holds a clear message that if we all agree to the law, then we can live in

With these natural causes of quarrel, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear (p.45). He believes that humans have three motivations for ending this state of war: the fear of death, the desire to have an adequate living and the hope to attain this through one’s labor (p.47). These beliefs become valid because of the use of his examples. One example suggests that people are barbaric to each other. With the absence of international law, strong countries prey on the weakness of weak countries. I believe that his views of moral behavior are very true. Like Hobbes said, people are out for their well-being. If I were to do a favor for someone, I may think I am helping someone out, which I am, but I am probably doing the favor because it is going to make me feel better. It is going to benefit my well being. Hobbes is a famous philosopher whose views were very controversial. But the fact that he lived in a time when the monarchy was the “divine right of kings” (p.42), makes his views valid today. With a different government and new laws, his views appear to be true.

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’ 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?

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

“Perpetual and restlessness of desire [for] power…. that ceases only in death” (Thomas Hobbes). Though Hobbes and Golding share similarities on human nature and government, they differ in some aspects, as well. In the novel, The Lord of the Flies, Golding’s fundamental view on human nature is that people are naturally evil. He believes that people are in constant struggle between good and bad.

The purpose of government varies on several occasions and among different viewpoints, which is pointed out and discussed thoroughly in Nicomachean Ethics and Leviathan. Both Aristotle and Hobbes see the importance of a central power to oversee citizens of a state, however, they disagree on the extent to which they should interfere on matters of value systems. Aristotle takes a stern approach on governments being the sole advocate of behaving virtuously, even though it is easier said than done, because of the powerful influence of law. In contrast, Hobbes’ “Leviathan” is put in place not to promote certain values, but to create stability and enforce the law in order to prevent the return of chaos.

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, an English philosopher wrote The Leviathan, expressing his interpretation about naturally evil humanity and the importance of an absolute monarchy. The presence of principles and a reliable leadership are crucial traits to a controlled society. The profound knowledge of this fact will allow people to acquire a sense of concern to their own civilization. These texts show similar ideas that rules and authority are crucial aspects of civilization in order to manage a potential corrupt humanity by addressing the important roles of law, leadership, and the foreboding effects that the absence could

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.

Machiavelli establishes in his work The Prince that there are two types of government; either republics or principalities, and The Prince will focus on principalities. He states that principalities come in two types; hereditary principalities, and new principalities. Government power therefore comes from fortune or strength, by a state 's own army or along with the army of another. Government requires a strong ruler who uses coercion, but who also knows how to be cunning; someone who can be both “a lion and a fox”. Machiavelli never discusses elections or accountability among leaders, therefore his model is created from manipulation. Locke, in his work The Second Treatise of Civil Government takes a completely opposite stance, denouncing absolute rule and defining political power as the right to make laws for the protection and regulation of property; these laws are backed by the community, for the public good. He favored the social contract between the state and society, and encouraged the concept of dual accountability. The main similarity in opinion over rulers between both theorists claimed elites should be in charge of the state. Machiavelli believed government to be

Relationship Between the Sovereign and the Subjects in More's Utopia, Machiavelli's The Discourses, and Hobbes' The Leviathan

Although misunderstood when introduced to society during their time, Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan have been two of the most influential political works in history. The Prince and Leviathan, although seen as immoral and almost wicked works of their time, have guided many political thinkers, even America’s own Thomas Jefferson, on the subject of governance and power. This paper will compare the similarities and differences between both works in terms of the historical settings in which they were written as well as between the two distinct political philosophies presented by each man. More specifically, this paper will differentiate the purpose of power between Machiavelli’s theory of an absolute ruler separated from morals and ethics compared to Hobbes’ reasoning for a necessary and absolute ruler to put an end to the chaotic “state of nature” he presents.

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].