Thomas Hobbes Leviathan Argument Analysis

Hobbes believed that “it is not possible for people to have both freedom and peace, since the state of freedom is a state of unlimited greed and war.” (Document C). i believe that hobbes is right about how there are many selfish people and if it came down to you or them, who would you choose? It is most likely that one chooses to save themselves because at a certain time it comes down to survival. Hobbes thought that we should have a ruler such as a king or queen because “democracy- allowing citizens to vote for government leaders- would never work.

Hobbes believed if there was no government every man will fight against one another for power. To stop the fighting the people form a government to make peace. “To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust” (doc 2). This quote is saying that without laws or any form of government people will fight each other. And

There is no government, no authority whatsoever. Every being is born equal and share the right to do anything for their survival. His political theory was based off his idea that all humans are naturally evil and selfish. Hobbes said that this equality leads to war. “...a war of every man against every man.”

However, Hobbes’s also states that "The obligation to the sovereign is understood to last as long and no longer than the power last by which he is able to protect them can be relinquished by no covenant" (Machiavelli 124). This suggests that a sovereign’s power in a natural Commonwealth comes from his ability to protect the people from the “state of nature”. The subjects of a natural Commonwealth do not necessarily need to fear a ruler to believe that he possesses the ability to protect them from their true fear, a return to the “state of nature”. This indicates that while fear of a ruler might be a useful tool for a ruler to use to enforce his authority, it is not absolutely necessary for the preservation of a political

should rule over the state is reasoned. Hobbes begins by explaining what a commonwealth is and its role in the community. He defines a commonwealth as the "multitude so united in one person" (Hobbes, 120). The definition sets the framework for the notion that the states should come together and have one voice, hence the federal government speaking on the behalf of all the states. This role of the commonwealth, or common power, is to protect the public from foreigners or outsiders (Hobbes, 119).

Hobbes believed that natural state of humans was violent and therefore needed order and control to ensure a just and equal society (Robinson 2016, 4). However Hobbes believed that a sovereign could maintain power without deceit and manipulation. Hobbes believed in the social contract which is when people could have a moral understanding about right and wrong to avoid the chaotic violent human nature. Hobbes believed in the idea of utilitarianism which would “maximize the most good and minimize the pain” (Robinson 201, 4). This would ensure that the sovereign was doing things for the right reasons and not to better himself but to better society as a

Humans, according to the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, are selfish by nature. In his landmark work, Leviathan, he explains the importance of a strong government in society. According to Hobbes, without a strong system of government people would revert into a primitive state; war would run rampant, the natural law would not be abided, and those once tamed by society would become evil. William Golding based his novel, Lord of The Flies, on a similar idea. In this novel, many characters digress from civility into savagery.

COMPARISON BETWEEN TO THOMAS HOPPES AND JOHN LOCKE VIEWS ON STATE OF NATURE Introduction Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) were both political philosophers. They are mainly known for their master pieces on political philosophy. I.e. Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Two Treatise of Government. Each of them has different views and perspective of the State of Nature and Social Contract.

Hobbes believed that man must escape their state of nature to be protected. Within this social contract the ruler had absolute power over the people which lead to their words and opinions never being heard. Hobbes believed that for the government to function properly, the people must obey the absolute monarchy and accept that their opinions are not being accounted. Hobbes explained, “And therefore, they that are subjects to a Monarch, cannot without his leave cast off Monarchy, and return to the confusion of a disunited Multitude; not tranferre their Person from him that beareth it…” (Hobbes in Perry, 22).

There were many philosophers in the 17th and 18th century that influenced and inspired the founders of our country. For instance, John Locke believed that life, liberty, and property should be our natural rights as humans and if the government could not secure these rights then the people could get rid of them. That idea impacted Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. This was the perfect time to develop different theories and contradictions because this was right around the time of the printing press and protestant reformation where people started to question the catholic church. Other philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau impacted founders like George Washington and James Madison who have positively affected this country in many different ways.

Summary Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory of social contract, which states that we need moral, legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short. In this state, a man can kill others, and there are limited resources. This can soon lead to a state of war in which we are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals. So, in this state of war if a person was to possess a beautiful house or property, and had all the comforts, luxuries, and amenities to lead a wonderful life; others could come and harm him and deprive him of his fruit of labor, life, and liberty. Therefore, the state of nature is that of fear, violence, and distrust.

Hobbes developed the ‘social contract theory’, which is the idea that civilians give up some of their freedom and liberty for protection from the leader. This concept, which was used during Hobbes’s time, is still a part of the government today. Hobbes brings down this concept in his world famous book, Leviathan. A picture of a ‘giant’ monarch holding onto a tiny world is used to describe his version of the social contract. The drawing depicts the trade of freedom for safety.

According to Hobbes, a sovereign, whether the sovereign was placed into power by violence or force, is the only way to secure law and order. For him, if a citizen obeys the sovereign for fear of punishment or in the fear of the state of nature, it is the choice of the citizen. According to Hobbes, this is not tyranny; it is his idea of a society that is successful, one that does not have room for democracy. As a realist, Hobbes has a fierce distrust of democracy and viewed all of mankind in a restless desire for power. If the people are given power, law and order would crumble in Hobbes’ eyes.

Hobbes was an English philosopher, known through out the world as the author of “Leviathan” which is regarded as one of the earliest examples of the social contract theory. His writings were greatly influenced by the

Thomas Hobbes proposed that the ideal government should be an absolute monarchy as a direct result of experiencing the English Civil War, in which there was internal conflict between the parliamentarians and the royalists. Hobbes made this claim under the assumption that an absolute monarchy would produce consistent policies, reduce conflicts and lower the risk of civil wars due to the singular nature of this ruling system. On another hand, John Locke counters this proposal with the view that absolute monarchies are not legitimate as they are inconsistent with the state of nature. These two diametrically opposed views stem from Hobbes’ and Locke’s different understandings of human nature, namely with regard to power relationships, punishment, and equality in the state of nature. Hobbes’ belief that human beings are selfish and appetitive is antithetical with Locke’s contention that human beings are intrinsically moral even in the state of nature, which results in Locke’s strong disagreement with Hobbes’ proposed absolute monarchy.