How Does Hobbes Justify The Power Of The Sovereign

Both writers describe man as being intrinsically equal in this state, with Hobbes stating that “nature hath made men so equall, in the faculties of body, and mind…. the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable” (183). In a similar fashion, in his Two Treatises of Government, Locke depicts the state of nature as, “a state also of Equality, whererin all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another…” (269). Regardless, however, both men describe the danger of living in this crude condition, perhaps due to this very equality that exists. In the eyes of Hobbes, the state of nature is the equivalent of a state of war, building on the premise that, “if any two men desire the same thin, which neverthelesse they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (158).

He believes that the human condition, the traditions, experiences, and knowledge acquired by humans, is far to complex to be described by science and therefore avoids he commonly held views of political science from the Enlightenment Era. However, Thomas Hobbes, as he writes in Leviathan (1651) believed that all political phenomenons could be reported systematically as he equated all humans to machines, predictable by consistently acting in their self interest. [PG 3] Burke’s criticism that can be applied to Hobbes lies on three fronts; that the understanding human condition cannot be derived through logic; that consent, explicit or tacit, does not exist after the first social contract; and that a rebellion is neither possible nor effective when in a social contract. Thomas Hobbes’ prefaces his discussion of the social contract by giving credence to what he understood as science.

In his most well-known work Leviathan, Hobbes dictates that all humans are similar, they have same objective and adopt the same means of obtaining it. When he talks about the reasons why people want to create a legal state, he refers to the basic nature and behavior of humans. He mentions state of nature which is hypothetical condition of no-government. In the state of nature, every man would have whatever he could obtain by whatever means and property would be one’s own only as long as one could keep it. There is no restriction, no morality, no law in the state of nature, and people are consistently engaged in the “war of every man against every man”.

For Hobbes, the state of nature is a constant state of war by which all humans are equally capable of harming one another (Hobbes 185). Thus, humans require, “the mutual transferring of rights”, a contract with a sovereign authority to provide security and to protect humans from harming one another (Hobbes 192). Furthermore, Rousseau contends that, “all legitimate authority among men must be based on covenants” (Rousseau 53) and man will reach a point within the state of nature where, “obstacles to their preservation prove greater than the strength of each man” (Rousseau 59). Hobbes and Rousseau share similarities in the premise of their arguments by acknowledging the fundamental source of human motivation, the flaws of living within the state of nature, and the necessity of contract or a social pact between men and a sovereign

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two theorists known for their views regarding the social contract. Both theorists study the origins of government and the level of authority given to the state over individuals, thoroughly constructing their arguments through the social contract. A philosophical approach was used in both Hobbes’s and Locke’s arguments, however supporting different authorities. Thomas Hobbes advocates for absolutism whilst John Locke advocates for a constitutional government. Through the close examination of the state of nature, the relationships between subject and sovereign and views regarding the social contract, one can observe a more sensible basis for constructing a successful political society.

Hobbes viewed state of nature as a state of war. According to Hobbes, in a state of nature, there is no right to property because no one affords another that right. He stated that property and possessions would inevitably cause men to become enemies. Hobbes believes that people have equal physical and mental ability to harm, and that people will do so for three reasons - competition, difference, and glory. " so that in the state of nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel, first, competition; secondly, difference; thirdly, glory" (Hobbes 2008, p.85).

Hobbes believes that in a natural state without a government, humans are selfish, impulsive beings in a constant civil war. The solution is for

Locke’s vision of continual consent to governmental rule is much more appealing than Hobbes’s tyrant. Even though his views on human nature seem too good to be true, Locke’s philosophy is alluringly practical. If you do not agree with your government, simply leave and find another government you do agree with. Additionally, Locke’s plan protects the citizens by giving them leave to make their own decisions. Hobbes’s view is doubly flawed: his opinion on human nature forces his government to fail morally.

Another view point within the book stated was that men had the ability to overthrow a government if they had been wronged. Another idea Hobbes and Locke differentiated on while Hobbes believed that once society had chosen a ruler they had a social contract while Locke believed that if the ruler infringed on life liberty or property the people had a right rid themselves of their government. Locke refers to this as “State of War” an example of this occurs when Charles I refused to call parliament, raised taxes upon his people and many believed that he was a secret Catholic (the protestants feared the Catholics and didn’t want their king to be one). When Charles refused to call parliament he obviously couldn’t be granted any money therefore imposed taxes in which ultimately in the end angered everyone. The downside of not listening to his people caused a dis-connect within the King, Parliament and the people.

Hobbes starts by laying out a set of definitions. The reason for this, as he explains later, is that an argument without definitions and step by step logical analysis is nothing, but an opinion only. Man, according to Hobbes, has an insatiable need for power. Power, he says, is of two kinds: natural and instrumental. The former includes the faculties of the mind and body, whereas the latter depends on acquired traits or characteristics like friends or wealth.

The secondary literature on Hobbes's moral and political philosophy (not to speak of his entire body of work) is vast, appearing across many disciplines and in many languages. There are two major aspects to Hobbes's picture of human nature. As we have seen, and will explore below, what motivates human beings to act is extremely important to Hobbes. The other aspect concerns human powers of judgment and reasoning, about which Hobbes tends to be extremely skeptical. Like many philosophers before him, Hobbes wants to present a more solid and certain account of human morality than is contained in everyday beliefs.

In Leviathan, Hobbes argues that peace and unity are achieved through the creation of a commonwealth. An authoritarian government that the people choose to submit due to fear of what happens if the government did not exist. The first part of the book is called “Of Man.” In this part, Hobbes describes the nature of man as a perpetual state of war where every person has the right to do everything they wish since everything can be said that is done due to self-preservation. This leads to conflict and war.

I personally believe this was describing the way people’s attitudes toward each other and the lives they lived, which describes some places and people in today’s world. In comparison, Locke explains, “It is not equal to a state of war”, “People are free to do whatever they want, but are bound by law of nature”. In reference to the purpose of the government the two men Hobbes and Locke disagreed again. Hobbes thought that the use of a one single government was wrong and wanted a one personal ruler of all, which would be comparable to a king. In comparison Locke thought a government would be best suited for the projected outcome of protection of personal property and

The only way to leave the state of war which Hobbes believed was the way of live before the formation of societies was to join into a social contract with others. Hobbes is well known for his social contract theory in which to protect one ’s well being they must enter a society and give up their rights and freedoms to all things in return for protection and survival. This unification of people into a structured environment would get them out of a state of war. Within Hobbes’ social contract a ruler provides protection and survival while the people agree to obey the ruler and give up rights to all things.

. . endeavor to destroy, or subdue one an other (p.47))” The point I think Hobbes is trying to make here is that humans will be invested purely in their own self-interest, “that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such warre, as if for every an, against every man.(p.48)”. Using this logic, if it is in the persons self interest to kill another human being, or take their things, the person will do that without it being considered immoral. An idea that also relates well to Machiavelli, who believes that this is how one should go about life as