The Leviathan By Thomas Hobbes

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

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

While enjoying hors d’oeuvres, the topic of discussion centered around criteria for political legitimacy. Thomas Hobbes led the discussion, outlining what he believes to be legitimate government. While American politics were founded on strict theories of consent, Hobbes is less concerned with the method by which a government is formed. In Leviathan, Hobbes mentions two paths for a sovereign to acquire power, a “Commonwealth by acquisition…[and] a Commonwealth by institution” (Hobbes, p. 110). Thomas

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).

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.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that

Each of the two men have gained land, an “inanimate thing” once lusted after; nevertheless, their quality of life has declined considering they now live in a constant state of fear of their own conservation. Ergo, man creates a social contract with a larger power, or a state, which allows for the emergence of the Leviathan, a powerful state. The Leviathan, is a sovereign power that has gained much of its power by creating numerous amounts of contracts with its subjects. However, its power is quite contested throughout academia, and even within Hobbes’s Leviathan itself. “What extent does the Leviathan have power?” “Is it absolute?” and further on. The biggest question is about consent and the

Thomas Hobbes was a divisive figure in his day and remains so up to today. Hobbes’s masterpiece, Leviathan, offended his contemporary thinkers with the implications of his view of human nature and his theology. From this pessimistic view of the natural state of man, Hobbes derives a social contract in order to avoid civil war and violence among men. Hobbes views his work as laying out the moral framework for a stable state. In reality, Hobbes was misconstruing a social contract that greatly benefited the state based on a misunderstanding of civil society and the nature and morality of man.

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

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.

Thomas More, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes offer models for the relationship between the sovereign and the people in their works Utopia, The Discourses, and The Leviathan. Each argues that ensuring the common good of the people should be the primary goal of the sovereign. However, they differ in the specifics of their descriptions of this relationship and in their explanations of the sovereign’s motivation for valuing the prosperity of the people. An examination of the specified passages in each of these works will clarify the comparison of their models for this relationship.

One of the long pondered debates among political philosophers concerns the state of nature concept underlying much of social contract theory, with the esoteric term being used to describe the hypothetical human condition which logically preceded the institution of organized government. Engaging in a rigorous deconstruction of this hypothetical condition, one defined by a societal structure in which man's rights are not protected by the power of the state, provided political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke with ample opportunity to indulge their faculties for elevated thought, with Hobbes's Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government standing as enduring testaments to this philosophical conundrum. Both Hobbes and Locke applied clinical logic and objective analysis, diffused through their distinctly disparate worldviews, to elucidate stirring but separate visions of the state of nature and man's place within it. Whereas Hobbes grounded his writing on the state of nature in a pragmatic appraisal of humanity's craven nature, Locke viewed the notion as the embodiment of man's promise and potential. A critical analysis of the works of Hobbes and Locke can be used to refine one's own conception of the state of nature, because each philosopher offered a uniquely informed perspective on a query which is common to all of us.

Thomas Hobbes and Niccolò Machiavelli are known to be philosophers whom have helped to develop the views of political power and human nature. Both men had very different views from one another, yet at the same time they did indeed have many similarities. From having opposite views on Political Power, to having alike views on Human Nature, Hobbes and Machiavelli are men whom have shaped political philosophy throughout our time. Through the works of Machiavelli’s, The Prince and Hobbes’ Leviathan their views are clearly portrayed and explained with great depth. These works have helped change the way we see our modern day society.

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes attempts to set up the stage for the understanding of the nature of freedom. The account holds much significance, because, what people understand freedom to be matters a great deal to their past and present life. According to Hobbes, freedom implies “the absence of opposition (by opposition I mean external impediments of motion) …” (Hobbes, 2005, P157). However, Hobbes understood this to have had political implications and he talks of liberty (freedom from legal constraints) in contrast with obligations that act as constraints. He suggests that legal constraints do not make it physically impossible to do something, thus, he denies that there is anything more to freedom within a state than this absence of legal restrictions. Having argued this, he emphasizes the duty to obey the laws issued by the sovereign. However, Hobbes’s account has rightly been challenged in a number of ways. Suitably, in this paper, I will confront and critically assess the argument to show how it is ineffective in its attempt to provide an account for the nature of freedom.

The mechanical analogy, contra the traditional organic and theological concepts of the state, became for Hobbes both apposite and inevitable. Civic conflict was leading to disaggregation of the contemporary 17th century English state, demonstrating to him that the sanctions which held it together were neither eternal nor 'natural.' [4, 5, 6].