Why Do We Need An Authoritarian Government In Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

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.

I think that Hobbes’s idea of a strong authoritarian government would probably justify the US policy about surveillance. Since a commonwealth is instituted mainly to protect the people, who have singed this social contract in order to escape from the short and poor life of the state of nature, the sovereign should do whatever it is necessary to guarantee protection to its own citizens. In fact, as Hobbes says: if a government is no longer able to keep people safe, then the social contract is no valid anymore. So, assuming that the US policy main goal is to protect Americans from external threatens (i.e. terroristic attacks), it is in line with Hobbes’s argument.

In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes believes that men are equal in nature and that people have the same hopes and desires, including universally immoral thoughts (Hobbes, p. 183). In terms of equality in desires, Hobbes makes the assumption of scarcity, where people cannot have everything they want. Hobbes stresses the importance of a mutually recognized public authority (Lloyd & Sreedhar, p. 1). Without this common authority, there will be serious disputes as everybody tries to please their own private appetite. Civilians need this common authority because the state of nature for humans is a condition of war that needs to be controlled. Without the authority, there will be chaos, as every individual will attempt to accomplish their private desires without regards for other people.

This paper will compare and contrast the beliefs of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke expressed in Leviathan and Second Treatise of Government. The paper will show the basic differences between the two philosophers views, is Hobbes ' distrust of the people and Locke 's relatively greater trust of the people and distrust of the government 's power and the likelihood of the abuse of that power.

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

He wrote a book called The Leviathan; where he states his views on human nature and his implications for a proper government. Hobbes believes that all people are equal, but equality brings about competition. His view on human nature is that people are “naturally evil and selfish in the state of nature” (Hobbes). In order to maintain order amongst the evil people, a social contract should be signed with the Leviathan. When people sign the social contract, they give up all their rights to the Leviathan in return for law and order; this ensures protection and peace for the citizens.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was a British philosopher and political theorist. Leviathan (1651), was Hobbes’s significant work of political thought. He regarded human beings as cruel and selfish and had imagined a state with unlimited power as he claimed that this was the only way people could be sheltered from each other. Leviathan thoroughly debates that civil harmony and

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.

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.

In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes places limits on the freedom of individuals in the social contract, as well as individuals in the state of nature. Hobbes writes that in the state nature, “the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; doing anything which, in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means there unto” (ch. 14, ¶1). An individual’s will is only free when there is no extraneous obstacles and his rapacious disposition and self preservation will be guided by his reason. Residing in the state of nature without extraneous obstacles signifies an individual’s convictions of freedom are endless, there is however very

For all that is natural in this world, humans ironically live in an artificial realm. The argument of how we should live, or politics, has been a controversy for as long as one can remember. Like a quilt, all of our political premises are man made ideas of how some think a society would live most comfortably. The doctrine people live by, or try to live by is comprised of the myriad ideas of theorist like Plato, Aristotle, Marx, Locke, Hobbes, and many more. Akin to many idealist, Thomas Hobbes explains a notable political approach in his book Leviathan. Hobbes depicts the idea of living with a sovereign under a covenant; he goes on to explain the details of how things would work best. Thereupon reading Leviathan, one could ask herself whether

Thus, Hobbes draws the conclusion that individuals ought to form a group and enter a contract. This contract would deem the most powerful individual or group the Leviathan. Individuals would then give up rights to this Leviathan to achieve order and security among the group. The Leviathan is then given total authority; whatever the Leviathan wants is enforceable on the group. Hobbes believes this is preferable as now civilized society is possible, even though some rights may be given up. What we find first, though, is that his portrayal of the state of nature and subsequent state of war are both flawed.

In the Leviathan, Hobbes tries to prove why the Leviathan is necessary for preserving peace and preventing civil war.

Hobbes was primarily intent on the creation of an impartial, theoretical science of government, 'stressing the priority of truth above the delights of rhetoric or the utility of propaganda [6]. He focuses his attention on basic principles rather than changing institutions or forms of government. Leviathan can therefore be seen as a political creature or persona and that creature can exhibit aristocratic, republican, monarchical or, even, democratic features [8].

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.