The Varying Notions of Authority and Challenging Authority

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.

There has been vast amounts of research done on the topic of leadership, and yet despite this it continues to be ‘‘riddled with paradoxes, inconsistencies, and contradictions’’

The law of nature essentially forbids humans from committing an act that would be reprehensible to his well being. This left humans to act in a way that was enforced by the a law. Hobbes analyzed both of these human natures and came to the conclusion that the ideal way for humans to exist within a peaceful environment would be be through the law of nature. In order for humans to live by the standards of the law of nature, humans must surrender their rights to a supreme leader (or small assembly)- this surrender is known as a social contract. Hobbes explained that people would would simple put their “Right[s] aside, either by simply renouncing it, or by transferring it to another” The social contract would involve all of the members of society to transfer their power to the all mighty leader. This all mighty leader would have complete control over the society, with no input from the members of societies.

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.

Without a strong sovereign power, people would resort back to what he refers to as the “state of nature.” This state puts everyone against each other and is fueled by the unlimited desires of a human among scarcity. Another condition in the state of nature is that everyone is equal, allowing even the weakest person to kill the strongest. There is also a disagreement on good and evil among the people, however everyone searches for a way to protect oneself, which leads to the establishment of a social contract backed up by a great power. The self-serving and dangerous conditions of life in the state of nature now shift to the right of nature, which is self-preservation. This right comes with three laws, consisting of seeking peace when others do, creating a contract for peace, and obeying the contract. Hobbes defines a contract as a mutual transfer of right and should lead to peace, security, and stability as long as each party obeys. Once again, the sovereign is not a party to the contract, and is only there to make sure citizens keep the peace or else face the risk of being back in the state of

However Thomas Hobbes saw humans as naturally selfish and quick to fight. He believed people lived in a state of nature which meant everyone had a right to everything. Hobbes was more concerned with protection and order than rights. The social contract was an agreement in which both sides agreed to something in order to reach a shared goal. He believed that once the people agreed to hand over power in exchange for protection, they lost the right to overthrow, replace, or even question the government.

As I was pointing out in the intro I will be starting off with Hobbes perspective of social contract. Hobbes believes in a “civil society” which is humanity’s natural state that is ran by fear and ever-present insecurity. There is always a solution to every problem with this problem the solution is to go to war then see the fear of the society and their insecurities of that war, then the government using their reason to discover ways out of the conflict thus ending the war. Hobbes pretty much sums this up by saying “agreeing to end the war”. He says that “They come to see the fear and insecurity of their persons and possessions in the state of nature as undesirable, and peace and order as desirable.” Which means that they reject

In his work Leviathan, Hobbes equates the state of nature with the state of war, a continuos, violent conflict that ultimately end in one’s untimely death(76). However, as fear of death drives man to seek peace, by our reason we develop certain laws of nature which forbid anyone “to do that which is destructive of his life or taketh away the means of preserving the same”(79). Among these laws of nature is the keeping of covenants, which, for Hobbes, is the foundation of justice. In chapter XV, Hobbes considers an objection to his understanding of justice, influenced by Machiavellian thought, and proceeds to refute it. By looking at the arguments of both Hobbes and the Machiavellian fool, one can see the importance security and how their differing opinions are influenced by their

What is leadership, and how do we attain the best and most effective leaders? These are questions that are as old as civilization itself. Bass (1974) wrote that, “from its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders” (as cited in Wren, 1995, p. 50). Since the study of history in the West is commonly held to begin with Herodotus of ancient Athens, it is not surprising that we should examine the historical views of leadership through the eyes of two titans of Greek thought: Plato and Aristotle.

Thus, small groups invite invaders and foster dissent. Hobbes to accepted that man bestowing his power in one leader, “is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all, in one every man, I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner.” (CWT III, 38). The preceding quote was Hobbes’s opinion of a social contract. This, Hobbes believed, was essential to man escaping the state of nature, and to the formation of a responsible government.

1. This chapter suggests that leadership has a moral dimension and that leaders have a responsibility to use their authority for the common good. Do you agree? Discuss

The authority of an agent is the act which he is allowed or authorised to do by his principal, and which will bind his/her principal. Usually, the principal will only be bound by the act of the agent if the agent acts within his/her authority. There are two types of authority which an agent could rely on, namely actual authority and apparent or ostensible authority.

Thomas Hobbes creates a clear idea of the social contract theory in which the social contract is a collective agreement where everyone in the state of nature comes together and sacrifices all their liberty in return to security. “In return, the State promises to exercise its absolute power to maintain a state of peace (by punishing deviants, etc.)” So are the power and the ability of the state making people obey to the laws or is there a wider context to this? I am going to look at the different factors to this argument including a wide range of critiques about Hobbes’ theory to see whether or not his theory is convincing reason for constantly obeying the law.

Hobbes claims that man has desires for order and security inborn. In order to prevent poverty and suffering, people took a part in a contract. In other words, it is an agreement among people through which ordered society maintained. They willingly leave all their rights and independence to the authority because of the social contract which states obedience. In Leviathan, Hobbes states that “The mutual transferring of right is that which men call contract” (93). On the other hand, for Rousseau, after people began to live together, property is invented and the invention of property means that humanity fall from grace out of the state of nature and people surrendered their freedoms and rights to the society as a whole that Rousseau termed as general will. However, this problem is solved by the social contract. According to The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right, he endeavours to mention that “Find a form of association that will bring the whole common force to bear on defending and protecting each associate’s person and goods, doing this in such a way that each of them, while uniting himself with all, still obeys only himself and remains as free as before”(11). Consequently, Hobbes’ social contract depends on the submission, on the other hand Rousseau’s social contract based on the

Thomas Hobbes implies to the idea of social contract to resolve the problem of war and disorder. If social contract were not created, there would be no law. If there’s no law, the