Summary Of Leviathan By Thomas Hobbes

Born during a period of medieval philosophy, Thomas Hobbes developed a new way of thinking. He perfected his moral and political theories in his controversial book Leviathan, written in 1651. In his introduction, Hobbes describes the state of nature as an organism analogous to a large person (p.42). He advises that people should look into themselves to see the nature of humanity. In his quote, “ The passions that incline men to peace, are fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them,” Hobbes view of the motivations for moral behavior becomes valid because of his use of examples to support his theories, which in turn, apply to Pojman’s five purposes for morality.

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

English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes’, leviathan consists of three parts. The second part, titled “Of Commonwealth”, describes a government Hobbes refers to as the “leviathan”; which is simply defined as “something that is very large and powerful”. Biblically, “leviathan” is defined negatively, as a devilish sea monster. On the contrary, Hobbes uses the term to portray his version of the ideal government.

In this essay I will prove that Hobbes’ makes a good argument in his book Leviathan in paragraph eight on page eighty-four when he states that, “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of everyman, against everyman. For war consisteth not in battle only or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the will to content by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather” (p. 84). I will prove this by identifying his main argument, his main premises and his final conclusion. I will then prove that his argument is logically strong and that it ties

Charles Mills establishes the concept of the “Racial Contract” as an ongoing systematic cycle of racism and prejudice within the world enumerated in the social contract; causing white people to thrive; forcing subjugated people to abide through exploitation; and leaving a residue of an epistemology of ignorance to ensure its continuance. Mills denounces Locke as a constituent of the racial contract, imbibed in his seventeenth century racist practices. As a nation founded on the principles of Locke, the longevity of racism embedded in the United States exemplifies the culmination of Mills’ Racial Contract from its constitutional beginnings to applications in the modern prison industrial system to the prevalence of wrongful convictions based on race in our legal system. The Racial Contract not only exists, but evidentiary proof of its prevalence abundantly resides in our contemporary lives. However, as Americans, we remain ignorant to the problem by redefining answers to the question: Who is Racist?

In The Racial Contract (1997) Charles W. Mills asserted that racism and white supremacy have been the real basis for the social, political and economic that has existed in the world over the last 400 years rather than the ideas of John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Jean Jacques Rousseau or even Thomas Hobbes. Few blacks have ever been social or political philosophers, and this fact alone explains why these disciplines tend to ignore racism, colonialism, slavery, genocide and segregation far more than history or political science. This Racial Contract is political, moral and economic in that it assumes that nonwhites are naturally inferior in all of these categories, and were even when they were living in a state of nature in Africa and the Americas. Contemporary social contract theories like John Rawls use this theory as a metaphor or normative standard, although Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau that state of nature was literally true. Indeed they believed it was historically valid because they could observe societies in their own time that they considered to be in a state of nature, such as those of the Native Americans and Pacific islanders. They had very different views about how human beings behaved in this condition, with Hobbes being the most pessimistic. He would have agreed with Mills that all human beings were equal in the state of nature, but all equally bad greedy, violent, vengeful and brutal. As described in Leviathan, though, this was a universal trait of humanity, not a

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?

In Charles Mills The Racial Contract, his main argument is declaring the global white supremacy as the core of today’s political system. Mills opens with mentioning how other political philosophers in history have neglected to discuss race because of their own racial privileges. However, this is ironic given the significant of race and what social and political constraints race has put on certain groups of people. At the same time, race provides superiority for whites in the political and social spheres. Mills explains, “A Racial Contract might be more revealing of the real character of the world we are living in, and the corresponding historical deficiencies of its normative theories and practices…” (7). The Racial Contract is grounded on three claims, which are the existential claim where white supremacy exists, the conceptual claim where white supremacy exists in the political system, and the methodological claim where the contract supports a theoretical framework. Then, Mills outlines his argument with ten theses although this paper will only touch on the first seven theses. Although Mills omits some of the origins of race thereby weakening his historical actuality theses. Still, Mills is able to counter with examples of race that demonstrates its presence in society and a critique on social contract theorists who underestimate race’s impact on society. Overall Mills argument is sound in formulating race as a central aspect in the political system, but lacks in

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

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was a British philosopher and political theorist. Leviathan (1651), was Hobbes’s significant work of political thought. He regarded human beings as cruel and selfish and had imagined a state with unlimited power as he claimed that this was the only way people could be sheltered from each other. Leviathan thoroughly debates that civil harmony and

By reading Hobbes, it was undoubtedly seen that his biggest trepidation was ending up living in a state of nature. For this reason he beliefs that the best way of avoiding state of nature is by not rebelling and obeying to the law. He described it the state of nature as “no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” . He goes on saying that anyone’s property is the common wealth’s property. It belongs to the sovereign state. He says “That every private man has an absolute Propriety in his Goods; such, as excludeth the Right of the Soveraign. Every man has indeed a Propriety that excludes the Right of every other Subject: And he has it onely from the Soveraign Power; without the protection whereof, every other man should have equall Right to the same. But if the Right of the Soveraign also be excluded, he cannot performe the office they have put him into; which is, to defend them both from forraign enemies, and from the injuries of one another; and consequently there is no longer a Common-wealth.” He claims that the State owns everything in the country and citizens are only legitimate to own as long the State finds it

Hobbes's first argument in favour of the doctrine of absolute sovereignty is essentially the argument against right reason described as the vision and the heart of Hobbes's moral and political philosophy [9]. His doctrine of absolute sovereignty is derived primarily from the negation of this doctrine, and almost everything that we can discover in his notion of sovereignty can be found in his negation of this argument. An argument that leads to his conclusion that it is essential for the sovereign to be absolute, and to possess effective enforcement or coercive powers.

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

From the complex ideas introduced in the selected passage, Hobbes proceeds to construct a very significant yet disputable argument in which he encourages the need to submit ourselves to political authority. He justifies that although men are rational they are naturally self-interested and thus require the authority of a sovereign to govern them. The