Thomas Hobbes Purpose Of Government

Pericles takes time to laud democracy as a form of government. He believes the division of political power equally amongst citizens inevitably leads to laws that benefit the Athenian people as a whole. This in turn increase overall equality, and by extension, social mobility. Such a government is a just government in the eyes of Pericles, and thus, a shining example of Athenian superiority. “[Athens’] administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition.” (2.37.1).

What is of greater underlying significance for Aristotle, however, is not so much the size of the citizen-body as the stark contrast between the respective ideas that “those constitutions which aim at the common good are right, as being in accord with absolute justice” and “those which aim only at the common good of the rulers are wrong” (The Politics, 3:6, 1279a16, p. 189). In practice, Aristotle’s juxtaposition is implicitly suggestive that if one is ruling in their own self-interest, regardless of the size of the group, and be that for themselves or the minority to which they belong, then they are in essence missing the point of what it is that they are supposed to be doing. Thus, the key point Aristotle is trying to make is this: the ruler of a polis or state; be that one person, a few people, or many people; should govern in accordance with the interests of the polis or state as a whole at heart rather than with the interests of a select few.

Thomas Hobbes was a proponent of the monarchal system and in this paper I will prove that Hobbes was right in supporting the monarchal system of government, I will also show the opposing school of thought, and finally, I will give you my opinion on the monarchal system. Thomas Hobbes lived from 1588-1679 and throughout most of his life there was violence going on all around him. The biggest case was the English Civil War. This war lasted about seven years and it overthrew the monarchy, which England had established many years before. After this revolution, shaky governments ruled the land for several years. But then, the English went back to the monarchal system. These times shaped Hobbes’ views

Aristotle argues that in order for a polis to emerge, a union between man and women must convene. Later a household must be introduced which unites with other households to form a village, villages come together to form city-states. This theory is Aristotle’s natural view that an individual can not be self sufficient Plato argues that, in order to achieve absolute justice, a city-state is needed.

Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes are two of the most influential political theorists in history. Each philosopher has shaped mankind’s political thought and both have earned the title of a “Father” of political thought. Aristotle and Hobbes contributed to the world of political thought with differing dogmas. They both stand on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Aristotle claims that man is naturally a social being and therefore a political animal. Furthermore, he understands man as controlled towards the community. Hobbes claims the exact opposite. Man is naturally ordered towards the individual and that individual is himself, according to Hobbes.

Aristotle provides very unique and compelling arguments for what he believes to be the ideal form of government for a city-state, but because of the time period he was alive, he did not have the necessary knowledge to realize how limited his view of human nature was. Due to its limited power and sole purpose being to protect individuals’ right to own property, which in turn allows individuals to live happy lives, Locke’s form of government is more

Two of Aristotle’s most famous works, Nicomachean Ethics and Politics, offer an outline of his perfect society and how Athens could ascend to his ideals. According to Aristotle, the strive for the most good society starts with individuals and then collectively builds up to the Chief Aim through active participation in politics. He explains that an Athenian earns his freedom and citizenship by subduing his animal instincts and passions. Instead of succumbing to these urges,

The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life” (Pericles’ Funeral Oration, Thucydides). In other words, it doesn’t matter what your social rank is, if you are a citizen of Athens, you have a right (and duty) to serve in the government. This is known as a direct democracy today, and it is where we, citizens of the United States, took inspiration for our current system of government. Pericles is right to praise the city-state in this regard, as its legacy still has effect on the world millenniums after its time.

The european philosopher Thomas Hobbes had many ideas on government that have been proved right throughout the course of history. Hobbes believed that the a one leader was the best form of government. One example of how his philosophies were proved accurate is during the Puritan Rule of England. The House of Commons ruled over England for a period of time. This idea of government did not end up well since the House of Commons couldn't form as a government. After this Cromwell becomes dictator of England and his rule is absolute. During his rule he improved his country both economically and militarily. This proves that Hobbes was right because one ruler had better results for the country over an oligarchy. Another example of how Hobbes was proven right throughout history is during the French Revolution.

While some differences between Aristotle and John Locke’s nature and purpose of a political community are obvious, the similarities are noticeable. According to Aristotle, the nature and purpose of a political community is for the greater or highest good of all its citizens, which according to him, is virtue and happiness. The purpose of the community is to make it possible for the citizens to achieve this virtue and happiness. “It is constituted out of numerous households for the sake of satisfying the needs of its citizens other the everyday ones” (Aristotle, Politics 1252b -15). For example, if someone in the community wants their roof to be fixed, they can get it done by a carpenter from the community. Likewise, if the carpenter wants a shirt to be mended, he can get it done by a tailor from the community.

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

Government is needed in the first place, as James Madison (2009) once put it, because “men are not angels.” Left to themselves, Hobbes believed total chaos and societal breakdown would result. He called this scenario a “war of all against all” (Klenner, 2005, p. 673). Men were almost animal-like in Hobbes’ view, brutish and operating out of base primal instinct for personal survival and advancement.

Through examination and thorough research the Thomas Hobbes general view of government is closest to scripture in regard to how he views the need for government. The Philosophers compared the state of nature together with government to provide a better understanding of the need of government in civil society. Equality of ability leads to equality of hopes and to competition among men, among all who desire the same things. This natural enmity is intensified by the diffidence, or distrust, men without government have for each other as they anticipate how each would like to deprive all others of whatever goods they have, so that each is led to think of subjugating all the rest until there is no power left capable of threatening his security (Strauss & Cropsey, 1987, p. 399). The view Hobbes has on government is closest to scripture because as he explained, men are threatened by other men.

Thomas Hobbes' View on Government         Thomas Hobbes in his controversial work, the Leviathan, declares that such       a government based on the rule of the common people, would result in       anarchy and total pandemonium.         But before one can understand Hobbes' view on government, it is important       to understand how Hobbes feels about people. Hobbes has a very       materialistic view on the world because of his belief that the movements       of physical objects will turn out to be adequate to explain everything in       the universe (Kemerling).

For Aristotle the human is "by nature" destined to live in a political association. Yet not all who live in the political association are citizens, and not all citizens are given equal share in the power of association. The idea of Polity is that all citizens should take short turns at ruling (VII, 1332 b17-27). It is an inclusive form of government: everyone has a share of political power. Aristotle argues that citizen are those who are able to participate in the deliberative and judicial areas of government (III, 1279a32-34). However, not all who live in a political association are citizens. Women, children, slaves, and alien residents are not citizens. Some groups; the rich, the poor, those who