Essay Hobbes and Goldman: The Good Life and Political Legitimacy

Thomas Hobbes' believed that the social contract of the government and the people was that citizens should let themselves be ruled and that the ruler or assembly should have "ultimate authority." He argues that if there was no government then humans would be out of control and ultimately perish. He also stressed that government was "society's only hope for peace and security" (Fiero 98). Hobbes' ideas about the "Natural Condition of Mankind" was that humans were "selfish, greedy, and war-like" (Fiero 98). This shows that Hobbes' believed that humans needed government in order to live and flourish.

Thomas Hobbes, is regarded as one of a handful of truly great political philosophers, Hobbes is famous for his early and the elaborate development of the social contract theory. This was the method of justifying political principles or arrangements by appeal, “to the agreement that would be made among suitably situated rational, free, and equal persons” (). Hobbes believed that the only true and correct form of government was the absolute monarchy that was on order to be strong enough to hold humanity’s

With these natural causes of quarrel, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear (p.45). He believes that humans have three motivations for ending this state of war: the fear of death, the desire to have an adequate living and the hope to attain this through one’s labor (p.47). These beliefs become valid because of the use of his examples. One example suggests that people are barbaric to each other. With the absence of international law, strong countries prey on the weakness of weak countries. I believe that his views of moral behavior are very true. Like Hobbes said, people are out for their well-being. If I were to do a favor for someone, I may think I am helping someone out, which I am, but I am probably doing the favor because it is going to make me feel better. It is going to benefit my well being. Hobbes is a famous philosopher whose views were very controversial. But the fact that he lived in a time when the monarchy was the “divine right of kings” (p.42), makes his views valid today. With a different government and new laws, his views appear to be true.

Thomas Hobbes was an enlightened thinker who lived in the 17th century and through the upheaval that was the English Civil War. While observing the Civil War, Hobbes concluded that people are “naturally cruel, greedy, and selfish” (Ellis 183). Hobbes argued that a strict government was the only way to control people because, without it, they would fight, steal, and oppress each other. He said the only way to keep the people at bay was to have them obey strict laws. His favored government was an absolute monarchy because it “could impose order and compel obedience” (Ellis 183). In an absolute monarchy, the citizens give up all of their rights in order to be protected by their leader.

In defining political legitimacy, many theorists put forth a distinct set of values that frame their view on the authorities’ right to rule and citizen’s obligation to follow. Theorists such as Hobbes and Locke, both of their account on political legitimacy might look quite similar at first glance, because each theorized about the nature of mankind and the right political systems that would meet the needs of individuals. However, in Hobbes’ perspective, political authority does not pre-exist in individual’s state of nature, rather, it is created by the social contract and serves to ensure self-preservation which is threatened in a state of nature. In contrast, Locke thought that the social contract does not create authority, but that political authority is embodied in individuals and pre-exists in the state of nature, all individuals thus have the moral obligation to respect those rights made by authorities. In my point of view, Locke’s idea sounds more compelling than that of Hobbes’, because it allows individuals to have their own liberties free from an oppressive sovereign and prevents danger posed by absolute freedom.

Essentially a royalist and a belief in the selfishness and vanity of the       individual, he espoused that men should join together in the formation of       a commonwealth, one with a sovereign, to whom all responsibility for       social order and public welfare would be entrusted to (Kemerling). He felt       that investing power in a single natural person who can choose advisors       and rule consistently without fear of internal conflicts is the best       fulfillment of our social needs (Kemerling). Hobbes had two reasons why a       sovereign was needed: to protect the citizens from themselves and to       protect the nation from other nations. When men are together, without a       master, they tend to be aggressive and malicious towards each other. The       causes of this are usually competition, diffidence, and glory (Blanchard).

Hobbes believed that in nature people had to do whatever was necessary to survive and that even if living together, people were still likely to fight. His view of people was dark and most likely due to the horrors of a series of political schemes and armed conflicts he had seen during the English Civil War. He believed that a contract was necessary. Hobbes felt that people were not capable of living in a democratic society. Instead, a single dominant ruler was needed, and if everyone did their part, then the community would function smoothly. Hobbes’ theory is unlike Locke and Rousseau’s. He believed that once the people gave power to the government, the people gave up the right to that power. It would essentially be the cost of the safety the people were seeking.

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 was the first philosopher to connect the philosophical commitments to politics. He offers a distinctive definition to what man needs in life which is a successful means to a conclusion. He eloquently defines the social contract of man after defining the intentions of man. This paper will account for why Hobbes felt that man was inherently empowered to preserve life through all means necessary, and how he creates an authorization for an absolute sovereign authority to help keep peace and preserve life. Hobbes first defines the nature of man. Inherently man is evil. He will do whatever is morally permissible to self preservation. This definition helps us understand the argument of why Hobbes was pessimistic of man, and

From the complex ideas introduced in the selected passage, Hobbes proceeds to construct a very significant yet disputable argument in which he encourages the need to submit ourselves to political authority. He justifies that although men are rational they are naturally self-interested and thus require the authority of a sovereign to govern them. The

Through this, complete power should be vested in one king, and the people who gave him this power need to trust and abide by him at all times. They are not to rebel, because rebellion would lead them back to the chaos which they were trying escape . Basically, Hobbes’s ideal state had rights against the people, because it possessed all the sovereignty,and the people

For no king can be rich, nor glorious, nor secure, whose subjects are either poor, or contemptible, or too weak (through want or dissension) to maintain a war against their enemies, whereas in a democracy, or aristocracy, the public prosperity confers not so much to the private fortune of one that is corrupt, or ambitious, as doth many times a perfidious advice, a treacherous action, or a civil war” (Hobbes 120). The king or queen decides everything for the good of the people. This has to be true, because if the people are not well, the king will not be well. If the king was corrupt, he would only benefit for a certain amount of time and his people would suffer. Eventually, he would suffer along with them. Essentially, everyone’s lives are intertwined. Another example of why Hobbes prefers monarchies instead of other forms of governments is ability of monarchies to enact legislation without too much “gridlock”. In governments where there are assemblies that are needed to make decisions, they can be inefficient and never reach an agreement, case in point, our U.S. government. It is a model of inefficiency. For example, when a bill is being made and it is approved by the House of Representatives it is passed on to the Senate. If the Senate approves it, it is passed on to the President for approval. If he signs it, it becomes a law. Now for what happens in reality: The House and the Senate usually never agree on any bill because

Hobbes states that the proper form of civil government must have a supreme ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. He believes that the goal of the people is to escape the state of war, and that they are willing to transfer their rights in order to leave it. “Whensoever a man transfers his right, or renounces it; it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself; or for some other good he hopes for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself.”3 He believes that all men are equal in the state of nature despite any preexisting differences between them because they are ultimately powerful enough to defend themselves and their resources. “Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of the body, and mind; so that though there be found one man sometime manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet

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).

By reading Hobbes, it was undoubtedly seen that his biggest trepidation was ending up living in a state of nature. For this reason he beliefs that the best way of avoiding state of nature is by not rebelling and obeying to the law. He described it the state of nature as “no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” . He goes on saying that anyone’s property is the common wealth’s property. It belongs to the sovereign state. He says “That every private man has an absolute Propriety in his Goods; such, as excludeth the Right of the Soveraign. Every man has indeed a Propriety that excludes the Right of every other Subject: And he has it onely from the Soveraign Power; without the protection whereof, every other man should have equall Right to the same. But if the Right of the Soveraign also be excluded, he cannot performe the office they have put him into; which is, to defend them both from forraign enemies, and from the injuries of one another; and consequently there is no longer a Common-wealth.” He claims that the State owns everything in the country and citizens are only legitimate to own as long the State finds it