Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan Essay

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.

Thus, small groups invite invaders and foster dissent. Hobbes to accepted that man bestowing his power in one leader, “is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all, in one every man, I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner.” (CWT III, 38). The preceding quote was Hobbes’s opinion of a social contract. This, Hobbes believed, was essential to man escaping the state of nature, and to the formation of a responsible government.

Hobbes states that with this singular rule to abide leads to three characteristics of outcome. That man first looks to invade and conquer through competition. He will look to go to war with anyone that gets in the way of a successful end. “Man is enemy to every man..(therefore) men live without other security” (Hobbes, 1994, page 76). The need to define man as a savage individual leads Hobbes to the Laws of Nature, and will help define the need authorizing an absolute sovereignty.

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.

Outline Hobbes' theory on the social contract giving details on what he believed was needed to maintain it.

i.e. If I promise not to hurt you and you promise not to hurt me then neither of us gets hurt and we’re both happy. And this is what Hobbes believes to be the basis of our desire to keep the laws set out by the state – we should avoid chaos because it is not in our best interests therefore we should keep the laws.

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

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?

According to Hobbes the state of nature leads to a war of all against all. What Hobbes refers to when he discusses the state of nature is a state in which there are no civil powers. To reach his conclusion about how the world would be in the state of nature, Hobbes first explains what human nature is and then explains the relationship between man and civil government.

In order to analyze Hobbes’s work of moral and political philosophy, one must first understand his view of human nature. Hobbes’s was greatly influenced by the scientific revolution of the early 17th century, and by the civil unrest and civil war in England while he wrote. Hobbes views the nature of man as being governed by the same laws of nature described by Galileo and refined by Newton .He writes in Leviathan “And as we see in the water, though the wind cease, the waves give not over rowling (rolling) for a long time after; so also it happeneth in that mation, which is made in the internall parts of a man” . From this, he concludes that man is in a constant state of motion. Being at rest is not the natural state of man, but rather a rarity.

Hobbes believed that in nature people had to do whatever was necessary to survive and that even if living together, people were still likely to fight. His view of people was dark and most likely due to the horrors of a series of political schemes and armed conflicts he had seen during the English Civil War. He believed that a contract was necessary. Hobbes felt that people were not capable of living in a democratic society. Instead, a single dominant ruler was needed, and if everyone did their part, then the community would function smoothly. Hobbes’ theory is unlike Locke and Rousseau’s. He believed that once the people gave power to the government, the people gave up the right to that power. It would essentially be the cost of the safety the people were seeking.

As briefly discussed above, the scope and character of the subject’s right to self-preservation and its relationship to the Sovereign’s right to punish has engendered long-standing debate among Hobbes scholars. Because of punishment’s pivotal role in Hobbes’s theory of Sovereign rule and the civil state in general, it is essential to assess its character in relationship to the subject’s inalienable right to self preservation detailed in Ch. 21 (among other places). Thus, before a conception of the true purpose of punishment can be reached, one must attempt to determine the extent to which these seemingly paradoxical rights do (or do not) threaten the viability of Hobbes’s artificial commonwealth. In his discussion of contracts in Ch. 14, Hobbes

Many people might have different interpretations of what Hobbes was trying to convey, but I’m going to attempt to explain my understanding. Hobbes had an extremely dark way of viewing humanity. He believed that everyone did things that end up benefiting them in the end. He believed that we didn’t do things out of pure kindness, according to Hobbes that was impossible and if someone said they did “is lying or is in a state of self-delusion, ignorance, or stupidity.” (page 191) This belief in humanity is defined as psychological egoism.

From this concept Hobbes deduces that the state of nature is thus primarily a state of war, which leads to the

In Philosophy the argument of the state of nature often comes into discussion. However, two mainstream philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Jean- Jacques Rousseau have similarities, but mostly have multiple different ideas on this theory. Although Hobbes makes valid points Rousseau 's view on state of nature is more realistic then Hobbes.