Thomas Hobbes And Adam Smith

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.

The story “lord of the flies’’ by William Golding, the novel correlates to the philosophical views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke was an English philosopher that surmised man's natural moral compass would point towards good, Locke's philosophical writings stated “ that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their actions. Essentially, Locke thought that our human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance. People, Locke believed, were basically good’’ ( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2). John Locke thought if people were given no rules they would make a paradise, flourishing in law, order, and structure, Thomas Hobbes believed people were naturally cruel and chaotic, with a need of a strong ruler to make decisions. Hobbes stated, “Who felt that mankind was inherently evil and required a strong central authority to ward off this inclination toward an immoral behavior, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish’’( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2 ). Thomas Hobbes believed a strong iron-fisted ruler was needed for the safety and well being of a society. The ideals of man in a natural state, follow Thomas Hobbes philosophical view represented through Jack's brutish and monarch like attitude which lead to them living in a dystopian society.

In Hobbes’ version of the state of nature there are no restraints, no standards of morality and justice, and everyone is uninhibited, which ultimately results in a “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Ch. 8 pg 78). Hobbes bases his belief that humans are equal in the assertion that all human beings have equal opportunity and potential in mental and physical strength because “equal time equally bestows on all men in those things they equally apply themselves unto” (Ch 8, pg 76). Even though one man may be stronger than other, the weaker man still has the capabilities to utilize his mental strength and use other strategies. This equality in potential of power extends to the equality that everyone desires the same things. In the state of nature “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,” eventually resulting in a continuous state of war (Ch 8 pg 76). This notion of competition is the key that further highlights why humans are equal: linking the state of nature with the state of war causes everyone to exist in an equal, perpetual state of conflict with one

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).

hile there are many big ideas in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, the most important ideas deal with human nature and social order. In this paper, I will argue Hobbes’ lack of optimism, and Smith’s lack of pessimism in their theories of human nature, and will also discuss how our idea of social order changes once these aspects are taken into consideration.

This leads us to Hobbes’ view on the natural state of humans. He believes that without a common power to govern them, men are in a condition of war. In this state, all men are other men’s enemies. This brings rise to the idea ‘Everyone is governed by his own reason…in preserving his life against

Aristotle and Hobbes present two fundamentally distinct doctrines about the conception of politics, human affairs, and the nature of man. Specifically, both philosophers express vying interpretations of human nature. Even though Aristotle and Hobbes similarly use their understanding of human nature to conceptualize their politics, they both express differing views about the aims for which they believe human beings act and exist. In a rather preliminary interpretation of their views, it can be said that, for Aristotle, man is inherently social, and thereby is naturally inclined towards the community. Whereas, for Hobbes, man is innately individualistic, and is naturally inclined towards self-interest. The distinction between the Aristotelian and the Hobbesian philosophies about human nature rests in their respective explanations of what means and ends drive human action and existence. In the first half of this paper, I will discuss the ways in which Aristotle’s and Hobbes’ conception of human nature differ from one another. In a discussion of equality, I will compare Aristotle’s view of the flexibility of man’s nature, to Hobbes’ view of the intransigence of man in the state of nature, while also comparing Aristotle’s view of collectivity, to Hobbes’ view of individualism. The second half of my paper will argue that Aristotle’s teleological view of human nature presents a more superior and accurate account of human

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.

We will give Hobbes’ view of human nature as he describes it in Chapter 13 of Leviathan. We will then give an argument for placing a clarifying layer above the Hobbesian view in order to

Independence from England became a possibility for the colonists after the French and Indian War, which took place from 1754-1763. They took the initiative for achieving this right after the war. Since France was no longer an obstacle, they anticipated fewer repercussions. The after effects of the war resulted in an abundance of new taxes. This burden fell on the shoulders of the colonists and they were determined to take action change. These ideas to bring about change were influenced by ideas of the Enlightenment, which included John Locke and Thomas Hobbes as key figures. Locke and Hobbes were both English philosophers and political theorists who had alternating views on their concept of ideal government.

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;

Secondly, when we ask the question, what is freedom, we are not simply asking for a definition. We are seeking to find some truth in regards to liberty. We don’t ask this difficult question in order to get some sort of dictionary definition, we ask this question in order to gain insight. We ask this question to know how we should live our lives and how our government and other institutions should act in respect to liberty and our freedoms. Berlin’s two conceptions not only provide us with a definition, but also helps us determine how our society and laws should progress.

According to the view Thomas Hobbes presents within the selected passaged in the Leviathan, we live in a narcissistic society where man’s condition is primarily driven by ego and where the achievement of personal goals is deemed paramount. Within the State of Nature that is, outside of civil society we have a right to all things ‘even to one another’s body’, and there would be no agreed authority to ensure the moral grounds of our decisions. Therefore since there are no restrictions and no shared authority; man is naturally un-guarded and prone to conflict and each individual is deemed a potential threat to our resources.

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes paints a grim picture about man’s natural state. Famously characterized as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (Hobbes 89),” man’s life is chaotic. The state of nature, Hobbes insists, is a “state of warre(Hobbes 88)” which pits men against men. Man naturally aims for felicity, defined as “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desire, that is to say, continual prospering (Hobbes 46).” People think of their own interests and their pursuits of said interests may put them into conflict with another, in which violent war may emerge. Man, thus, lives in a state of constant fear.

By definition, equality is the property that a set of things are the same in measure, value, and status. On the other hand, inequality represents the exact opposite of equality. This assessment is drawn from the works of Hobbes and Rousseau, whom despite addressing many of the same issues differed greatly on issues such as the state, human nature, and inequality, posing difficulty in telling who among the two represented a better view of those issues. A breakdown of the various works of both Hobbes and Rousseau will assist in examining the similarities and differences in their views on the three issues.