Morality : The Basis Of Morality

Hobbes believes that in the state of nature, man has no power to control others, and because of this, everyone is aggressive towards one another, as no one can trust another. Because of this, social order is necessary to give man incentive towards cooperation and trust, by selling your individual rights to freedom in order to gain social rights of security and safety. The role of the social order is to combat man’s aggressiveness, man’s power to hurt one another and direct this towards positive social ends instead of destructive.

Thomas Hobbes opens with the idea that all animals live within two sets of perpetual motion. The first being the inborn nature of animals to breath, the pulse and course of blood, the acquiring of nutrition and the exertion that follows, his vital motions. The second animal motions are voluntary, to speak, move and go. These voluntary motions are fueled by ones thought and imagination and are not always apparent to us. Essentially, Hobbes is saying that our thoughts propel us into motion or “endeavor.” When endeavor draws us toward something it is the cause of “appetite” or “desire”, what it is pushing us from something it is “aversion.” Appetites and aversions are both inborn and learned, but are

He argues that each individual has a subjective moral code that is derived from their own personal desires. Rather then individuals adhering to a similar notion of justice based on consensus and rationality, they will construe their moral values to align with their passion. As individual morality is relative to their own desires this is bound to create a sense of anarchy and conflict within a society that lacks a state as man’s passions are able to run wild. Hobbs in combining this individualistic morality along with the general conclusion regarding the rule of nature, highlights that their will inevitably be conflict the demand for resources by humans will continuously outweigh the necessary supply. . As humans are guided by their own virtues which is based on passion rather then rationality, there idea of what defines self preservation are misconstrued. Therefore their is a substantial incompatible imbalance between these two notions as an individual is able to justify any decision (killing another person) on the basis of achieving his own desires. This mindset of Hobbes is further compounded when reviewing the context of the author, who developed his concepts during a time of great civil

Hobbes’ theory on the state of nature is based on the concept of individualism: that the individuals who comprise society are the only factors to be considered when analyzing it. Consequently, Hobbes claimed that men are all selfish and simply concerned with themselves, regardless of the damage that their actions cause to others. This behavior would result in divergence, and ultimately lead to a ‘State of War’ between men.

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

In the previous chapters of the book, Thomas Hobbes describes the state of nature in which men, driven by appetites and aversions, are constantly in a state of competition and conflict with one another. Because there are limited resources like food and shelter and people have a desire for the same end, there is no peace or unity in society. Every man must fend for himself in this individualistic, power struggle. The combination of finite resources, mistrust of other men, and equality of power in the state of nature, an unending state of conflict arises in which "the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (Hobbes, 125 sect.9).”

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

Further, he aims to convey the notion that all men, by design, love liberty and dominion over others. Hobbes proposes the only way to protect the liberties of all is for the people to follow a contract (covenant), however the sole way to ensure the covenant works is to instill some sort of terror of power -- causing a reflex to stray away from our “natural passions.” This seems to be his reason for the need of a sovereign, or form of government. Moreover, he then describes the rights of the sovereign and begins to play with Aristotle's analogy about bees, like humans, being political creatures. Evidently in disagreement with Aristotle, Hobbes mentions six reasons (Leviathan, 331-332), as to why the realm of politics is complex when it comes to dealing with humans; firstly, men are continually in competition for honor and dignity; secondly, for man, joy is consistent in comparing himself with other men; thirdly, many men think themselves wise enough to govern the public better than the rest, leading to civil war; fourthly, man has the ability to represent others, whether that be of good or evil; fifthly, man is most troublesome when she is at most ease; and lastly, that of man, is by covenant only, therefore it is a requirement to ensure their agreement is constant and lasting. These concepts are

If a power is present which is not strong enough for a man’s security, man will call on his strengths to secure himself from other men. It was clear to Hobbes, that men must group themselves together, with a leader capable of ensuring obedience of these natural laws. It is important that the group being governed is a large group because the small groups are not stable. The addition of only a few members with contrasting views to a small group, could destroy the entire community.

To begin, there are a few terms and concepts brought forward in Hobbes piece that I will define now. The first being “egoist,” an egoist is someone whose sole goal or ultimate end is their own happiness. Psychological egoism is a slight variation of this idea, in that everyone does act egoistically, because it is our human nature. The next term, “sovereign,” is an authoritative ruler of state, one who uses fear to enforce contracts. The “Right of Nature,” Hobbes defines is the right someone may invoke if their is danger presented that harms their lives. The most important thing to an egoist is staying alive, therefore Hobbes implements the “Right

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).

In the Leviathan, Hobbes systematically tackles the topic of human nature and it’s relation to a centralized political power. In doing so, he effectively replies to the question of why man cannot live sociably in a stateless condition like other social creatures. Hobbes’ most effective reply to the objection is man’s use of reason in the state of nature. He thoroughly illustrates reason’s role as a stimulant and solution to the state of war. Firstly, I will examine reason’s contributions to the state of war as it promotes competition, diffidence, glory and self-assurance. Secondly, I will dissect reason’s role as a solution in directing man towards the law of nature. Lastly, I will present the strengths of Hobbes’ argument and it’s fallibility due to his radical assumption of equality.

Hobbes believes in psychological egoism, the idea of giving priority to your own interest. He believes humans want to preserve and prosper only themselves and human nature brought out an animal nature. This nature meant humans would act in his/her own self interest, without the regards to other humans. The result of this was “state of war” ultimately meant nothing is unjust. Since humans are so indulged in themselves, we cannot live peacefully together without order.

Hobbes welcomes us to consider what life would be similar to in a condition of nature, that is, a condition without government. Perhaps we would envision that individuals may charge best in such a state, where each chooses for herself the right direct, and is judge, jury and killer in her own particular case at whatever point verbal showdown create—and that at any rate, this state is the suitable illustration against which to judge the legitimacy of political outlines. Hobbes terms this circumstance "the state of direct nature", a condition of famously private judgment, in which there is no relationship with saw vitality to official common contention and productive imperativeness to support its choices.

Hobbes believes that in the state of nature, humans have no laws, morals, police force, property, government, culture, knowledge, or durable infrastructure. Within this state of nature, people have no morals and do as they please without any consequence. As