Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

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.

Thomas Hobbes was born in 1588 in England. Hobbes survived through the English Revolutionary era, and his perspective of human nature built up negatively. He believed that all men were innately bad and evil. Hobbes stated, “... yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves” (Hobbes 1). This quote shows his thought, that all men are selfish and they always think they are better than anyone. Hobbes believed that humans didn't know how to cooperate because same desire would only cause them to be an enemy. Also, Hobbes said that it was the human who limits the development due to their constant war with each other.

     In criticizing Hobbes argument, it is extremely important to understand that the very theory of the state of nature is purely arbitrary. Such a state has never existed. While Hobbes states that the idea of a state of nature is hypothetical, a certain validity must be denied in the absence of evidence.

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).

The most essential right of nature is that of self-preservation. Self-preservation, or the ability for one to survive, is the core of human nature. Hobbes refers to self-preservation as a natural law that cannot be broken. It is detrimental for one to break this natural law. Hobbes uses this reasoning to describe the structure of leviathan: the artificial body that functions to govern a state.

In ‘Leviathan’ (1996), Hobbes describes the State of Nature as a place where society has broken down and life would be “nasty, brutish, and short” because of human nature. According to him, we are fundamentally equal, and have a tendency to self-preservation. In this essay, I will discuss whether his view is based on a false assumption of human nature. I will first show why the existence of society poses a problem to the claim about equality, before moving on to discuss obstacles to his second claim. Then, I will explain why, even if Hobbes’ assumptions are correct, it does not follow that the State of Nature would be so bad. Indeed, society breaking down is not a sufficient condition for Hobbes’ State of Nature to become real.

In “The Leviathan” the author Thomas Hobbes argues the point that all men are created equal. Hobbes believes that nature has created every man equally in a sense that even though everyone has different interests and abilities it does not mean that one is better than the other. One man can be a lot more physically strong than another, but when u compare a two men one might be stronger but the other might be smarter (Hobbes, 82). And there is no way to differentiate which is better because the stronger man might be able to accomplish a task through brut force but the smarter man can accomplish the same task buy using the tools around them to succeed. Suppose the stronger

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;

Our natural instinct as humans is to become and want to become as powerful as we possibly can. He attributes this attribute to our desire for “gain” and to be the master of other people as well. It is easy to see this attribute in our world leaders like the President of the United States or any of the other leaders of the many countries on our planet. Another area of our society that this attribute of gain and selfishness, especially in the United States, is in the corporate world. Many of our powerful business leaders are driven by great and power over others, and this drive only proves Hobbes’ point about the naturally selfish nature of humanity. Looking back at the 1600, Hobbes’ time, the drive for man to compete was very relevant in leadership positions of countries. Many of the kings and dictators of history have been driven to compete by the drive to power. Each ruler is driven by their own specific reason to compete, but when push comes to shove, our nature is to compete for what we want, not to compromise for

In Hobbes' masterpiece Leviathan he talks about how humans are equal to one another. What he means is that it doesn’t matter if someone was born stronger or with faster reflexes than another person, they will be each other’s equal in terms of both mind, body and as human beings. He supports this claim by talking about how any man can rule or dominate another man or others by any means necessary. He also says that humans are equal when it comes to experience. This is because Hobbes talks about how time is given to everyone equally and that they have an equal chance to apply the knowledge that they gained from experience. In addition, he says that humans have an equal chance to think that they know more than other people. Lastly, Hobbes talks

In order to answer the question in the prompt, I find it first appropriate to elaborate on Hobbes’ ideas stated in the “Leviathan” to help further prove my point. Hobbes believes that in the state of nature men are all equal. He also believes that human beings are fundamentally egoistic. I personally believe that men in the state of nature are egoistic, but a different definition from what is commonly associated with the word “egoistic”. The definition states that to be egoistic one must be centered in or preoccupied with oneself and the gratification of one's own desires. I don’t believe that Hobbes’ claim that men are egoistic is accurate. Men in the state of nature must fend for themselves and look out for their best interest. If men were

In the reading, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes discusses what human existence is in the state of nature and the state of war. As it is described, the state of nature refers to how men were made equal in the faculties of the body and mind. To quote, “As though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himself, as well as he.” Here, Hobbes is explaining his opinion on the meaning of the “state of nature” explaining that even though one may have a strength compared to another, it all is balanced out in the end. Each of us have our individual flaws and strength that constitute our character. Hobbes also notes, how humans inherently have a state of greed and savagery. The state of war in human existence is also examined in this article. Hobbes states, “And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way

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 Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan, Hobbes argues that humans are inherently and exclusively self-interested (6). Before they formed society, humans lived in the state of nature--a brutal place governed by no laws, contracts, or power to restrict human nature. People were free to kill each other without facing repercussions, forcing everyone to fend for themselves and live in fear of death. Hobbes describes this anarchy as the worst way to live life, one that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (12). However, his argument is weak in that it relies on the questionable premises that humans are exclusively self-interested and that self-interest harms others in the state of nature. Even if we accept that humans are only self-interested, self-interest does not always harm others; in fact, it can do the opposite. But in reality, Hobbes’s view is too pessimistic, nothing more than an ideology that can be endlessly supported by manipulating evidence to fit his claim. In failing to recognize the abilities of emotions, familial duty, and other inherent sociological and psychological factors to complexify human obligation and desire, Hobbes paints an unfairly pessimistic and unrealistic view of human interests.

Both Hume and Hobbes have opposing views regarding whether or not humans are naturally moral. Hume believes that humans are naturally moral. According to Hume, humans derive their morality through sentiments or feelings that help shape behavior and action. Hobbes, however, believes that humans are selfish individuals and in turn do not have moral values. This is described as the state of nature. He further believes that humans do not have a unified moral code or system and must thus find a higher power that would help shape their behavior. Such a power, Hobbes argues, should be the government as it develops laws that all humans must abide by. Hobbes describes this as common wealth.