Utopia And Leviathan

In his book Utopia, Thomas More examines a society that seems to be the ideal living situation for human beings. The main thesis of Utopia is his solution to many of the problems that are being faced in English society in the early 16th century.

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.

Although they consider politics of other states to be flawed and corrupted, Utopia is not without its suspicions. Kings of

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).

More seems to specifically highlight this when describing his Utopian society. For example, More describes Utopians spending idle time participating in scholarly activities, such as attending public lectures and their natural enjoyment of learning. However, More clearly asserts the significance of reason when describing the religions of Utopia. In Utopia, each religion is fundamentally the same, each guided of nature and what is natural. Doing what nature intends, which is established through reason, is the true way of worshipping God, according to the Utopians (More, 2011, p. 2011). This is consistent with the humanist theory of a higher, absolute natural law created by God and thus must be followed by man. In order discover this natural law, one must use reason. With this in consideration, it apparent that More intentionally created Utopia to represent a society of humanists, one that is adheres to all aspects of Renaissance humanism without fault.

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.

Leviathan is an organic metaphor in which the leviathan; a biblical sea monster represents the sovereign (the head) and political community (the body.) The Condition of Nature, Hobbes’s thought experiment mirrors an anarchic state before civilization. In this state equality is held in a negative air; it poses a threat of vulnerability. Without authority we are open to attacks. This threat leads to three conflicts: competition, diffidence, and glory. Competition leads to violence, due to the desires of the individual, we may try to have what the other one has. Diffidence leads to distrust and anticipation of preemptive strikes. We believe that the other individual is after what we have. Lastly, glory leads to shattered pride due to undervalue, due to individual’s opinions. Hobbes describes life in this state as a miserable. “In such condition there is no place for industry because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently […] which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes,76). Hobbes state of nature mimics stereotypes of the ignorant rather than Goldman’s state. Hobbes state is depicted as constant warfare and fear while Goldman’s depicts hope and personal growth. Hobbes introduces Laws of Nature which help us get out of this anarchic state in which we seek peace and lay down some

In my opinion both philosophers provide a very convincing argument towards man in the state of nature and natural law. It all comes down to whether an individual can function without being governed, or whether he needs guidance in his everyday life. Hobbes Leviathan to me seemed the quintessential handbook for despots. That one ruler ruling over an entire nation would be rational if only the leader was fair and provided justice to his citizens if favor of the citizens. However referring to the state of nature, I believe that man has been endowed with reason which would fuel our self-preservation. In a

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

In More’s Utopia, everyone does indeed worship different gods, yet they must all believe in one single eternal power. This allows Hythloday the narrator and his comrades to convert some of the Utopians into Christians, for the citizens readily accept the one-god notion and the practice of sharing communal goods (More 517). No one is condemned due to his or her religious beliefs in Utopia. A fanatic who begins condemning other religions is tried on a charge, “not of despising their religion, but of creating a public disorder” and is sent into exile (More 518). Does this reflect a society with utopian religious ideals? In Utopia, there are two sects of religious people – the ascetic sect whose members do not marry or eat meat, and the sect that allows its members to marry and eat meat. The Utopians regard the second as more sensible, but the first holier. They believe that “anyone [who] chose celibacy over marriage and a hard life over a comfortable one on grounds of reason alone” is insane; but “as these men say they are motivated by religion, the Utopians respect and revere them” (More 520). Truly, religion shapes a nation’s identity and beliefs, and in the cases of the Blazing World and Utopia, some aspects of their religion mars their perfect societies.

One of the main premises of Leviathan and The Prince is morality. Where morality comes from, how it affects people under a political structure and how human nature contributes or doesn’t to morality. Hobbes and Machiavelli differ widely on each subject. Machiavelli’s views on morality, based upon a literal interpretation of the satire The Prince, is very much a practical and realistic approach to the nature of morality and human nature. Hobbes’ views, based in Leviathan, are of a more idealistic nature, and my views are a little in between the two.

Relationship Between the Sovereign and the Subjects in More's Utopia, Machiavelli's The Discourses, and Hobbes' The Leviathan

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.