Thomas Hobbes and the Social Contract Essay

Thomas Hobbes then begins to explain that what any one man has another may take at will. Some men take pleasure in the conquest of what belongs to another and will take more than they need, while others are content with the bare essentials. Hobbes states that, because it is in man's nature to increase his own power it should be “allowed.” Hobbes states that there are three causes for quarrels between men, the first being competition and the want for man to gain from another through violence. The second is diffidence, or a lack of confidence in one’s own ability of worth which in turn causes men to fight for safety, perhaps to distract another from his insecurities. The third is for the sake of glory, or to secure his reputation. Thomas Hobbes says that, because all men have a natural animalistic inclination to fight for what we want and believe we deserve, a “common power”, a government or hierarchy of some sort, is vital to maintaining a semblance of peace. Hobbes muses that, without security outside of us there will be no industry or commodities, no modern comforts, no society. Without someone to lord over us in some way our future will be one of “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short…” (pg. 48). And, while we enjoy the

First, Hobbes says that nature is chaos. There are no rules, and the only means of protection are the strengths of each individual. There is no trust among anyone, and each individual only cares about his or herself. Hobbes develops the right of nature, or self-preservation, out of these circumstances. Each individual has a right to think of self-preservation in a world where no one can be trusted. One might think that this wouldn’t fix the problem of the natural chaos. However, Hobbes explains that the focus on self-preservation will be so powerful that individuals will make covenants that will be adhered to because they preserve everyone and hence oneself. This is in accordance with Hobbes’ concept of the laws of nature. He explains the laws of nature to be: seek peace, forfeit rights, and keep covenants. Humans pursuing self-preservation would realize that by seeking peace and forfeiting rights such as taking what one wanted from others as one saw fit self-preservation is easier and more achievable. This also requires the formation of governments to enforce the covenants made. Otherwise, there would be no way to know for certain that the covenants would be respected and upheld. With the formation of government come concepts such as justice. Hobbes bases his definition of justice on the very thing that created the government: covenants, and the keeping of those valid or

Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan explores the idea of “right of nature,” by going through a number of laws and explaining the necessity of a sovereign government. Hobbes believes that the natural right of human beings to preserve their own lives necessitates the first law of nature, which compels them to seek peace to fulfill that right; similarly Hobbes’ belief that humans posses a natural right to all natural things necessitates that they give up certain rights to a sovereign in order to preserve the peace.

Philosophers have always been a great influence in the history of the world. Both Thomas Hobbes (1558-1679) and John Locke (1632-1701) established the framework of their ideas on social contract in the thought of the condition of nature. Their hypothetical support for the formation of a common government gets from certain states of the condition of nature that requires the making of the political body. In this manner, so as to comprehend the political thought about these two creators it is key to concentrate on their origination of the condition of nature. Hobbes and Locke have diverse thoughts with respect to the condition of nature, which has imperative ramifications in their perspective of the social contract. Both creators utilize the sensible instrument of the condition of nature, however they do it another way, subsequently achieve distinctive conclusions. In this exposition the center will be put on the contrast amongst Locke's and Hobbes' thoughts of the condition of nature, and its suggestions for their hypothesis of the social contract, of human instinct, and profound quality.

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

Further, he aims to convey the notion that all men, by design, love liberty and dominion over others. Hobbes proposes the only way to protect the liberties of all is for the people to follow a contract (covenant), however the sole way to ensure the covenant works is to instill some sort of terror of power -- causing a reflex to stray away from our “natural passions.” This seems to be his reason for the need of a sovereign, or form of government. Moreover, he then describes the rights of the sovereign and begins to play with Aristotle's analogy about bees, like humans, being political creatures. Evidently in disagreement with Aristotle, Hobbes mentions six reasons (Leviathan, 331-332), as to why the realm of politics is complex when it comes to dealing with humans; firstly, men are continually in competition for honor and dignity; secondly, for man, joy is consistent in comparing himself with other men; thirdly, many men think themselves wise enough to govern the public better than the rest, leading to civil war; fourthly, man has the ability to represent others, whether that be of good or evil; fifthly, man is most troublesome when she is at most ease; and lastly, that of man, is by covenant only, therefore it is a requirement to ensure their agreement is constant and lasting. These concepts are

Prior to a covenant, “every man has right to everything”(89). Hobbes goes on to consider the fool’s position which maintains that it is nonetheless within reason to break a covenant, should it suit one’s interest. Hobbes’ fool says that, “To make or not make, keep or not keep covenants [is] not against reason, when it [conduces] to one’s benefit” as “every man’s conservation and contentment [is] committed to his own care”(90). Hobbes says that, “From such reasoning as this, successful wickedness hath obtained the name of virtue”(90). This understanding of virtue is reminiscent of Machiavelli’s words in The Prince, that virtue is anything “which if pursued results in one’s security and wellbeing”(62 m). Hobbes agrees that humans desire security and are fundamentally self-interested. He sees the “general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power”(58). However, a closer analysis of Hobbes’ refutation of the fool reveals differing perceptions of what security and wellbeing entail, and how to achieve

What: Hobbes creates an argument based around the idea of natural laws and rights of men, specifically the right to control your own existence. As well as the difference between the natural laws and natural rights of man, the right being the liberty to live so and the law being the obligation. In his argument, Hobbes discuss the belief that all men have the right to the power for “preservation of his own nature” with “the absence of external impediments”. As well as an argument on the transfer and/or renouncement of rights when in quarrel with another person, and the need to put your own expenses on the line in order to create a fair situation.

Hobbes’ view on the State of Nature was extremely pessimistic in that men will be in a constant state of war with one another. Men will have the right, given by they themselves, to use their own strength or knowledge to take what is “theirs”, and to destroy those who choose

Firstly, Hobbes concludes that the extent of human action is boundless in the state of nature, and entering into a civil society is the sole way of constraining the actions and abilities of man. Hobbes asserts that all men are naturally motivated by power, and will take whatever lengths necessary to acquire advancement. Since there are no limitations to what a man may achieve in nature, the measures that one could take to achieve domination are only hindered by individual physical boundaries. There is no regulatory force that would impede any man from doing anything. Thus, Hobbes concludes that in the state of nature, “every man has a Right

According to Hobbes, men are greatly influenced by external forces which are constantly pressing upon them which create wants and needs, which Hobbes defines as “appetites and aversions.” (Hobbes 393). These desires and dislikes create what Hobbes deems, “the Passions”, which contribute to the overall choices men make in their daily lives, thus creating the basis of human nature. The prominent downfall of mankind is the desire for ultimate power that supersedes the power of anybody else. This craving for power is precisely why Hobbes has such a desolate view on human nature. “For such is the nature of men, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves.” (Hobbes 402). This selfish component of mankind creates the clash of power so prominent in Hobbes’ illustration of the state of nature.

Hobbes’ claimed that as mankind we agreed to trade some sense of personal rights over to a form of sovereignty in exchange for the comfort and security that a sovereign could provide (Doody, 2015:1). This sovereignty

From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavor to destroy or subdue one another. (Hobbes 1615:5).

In his magnum opus Leviathan, Hobbes relies heavily on an examination of human psychology in justifying his argument that morality is grounded in a rational, free contract made amongst humans of equal standing. For Hobbes, finding the roots of morality begins with answering the question of what is the basic motivation behind all human action. This paper will first explicate Hobbes ' view of action and the will as it relates to self-preservation, his answer to the question of motivation. Secondly, it will be clarified how Hobbes derives his account of human nature from the concept of self-preservation and, finally, how this provides the foundation for his set of “laws of nature” which constrain the behaviour of rational actors and from which morality stems. Although it may seem initially that Hobbes offers an excessively pessimistic picture of humanity, it will be argued that his emphasis on self-preservation as the essential driving force for action is compelling.

Hobbes puts forth human beings as rational creatures with the desire for life and pleasure and questions the ways that they can escape the amoral, lawless and chaotic state of nature (Gricic p. 374). In this step, Hobbes makes known the ‘laws of nature,’ the moral obligation existing in the state of nature asking ways of prudential reason for preservation, willing to seek peace with others and how we can keep agreements (P. Kelly p. 22). A social construction of humanities ‘natural right’ to ‘self-preservation.’ That natural liberty shows how the problem of the state of nature can be solved through allowing one’s own enlightened interest. (Gricic p. 374)