Essay on Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

Thomas Hobbes is a brilliant political philosopher who happens to have a very pessimistic view on human nature. He believes that fear is a key element in human nature and basically that people are too bad to be virtuous. His view is interesting because he believes you get this view of human nature by looking at yourself, which says a lot about how he views himself. While there are many things that I could critique about Hobbes’ theory, mostly because I do not completely agree with them, there are some I agree with. I think it would be incorrect to say that Hobbes was completely off about human nature or his theory in general because some of his theories can still be seen in the world today. One of the main ideas of Hobbes is the idea of self-preservation, which is very dominant in today’s society.

Thomas Hobbes then begins to explain that what any one man has another may take at will. Some men take pleasure in the conquest of what belongs to another and will take more than they need, while others are content with the bare essentials. Hobbes states that, because it is in man's nature to increase his own power it should be “allowed.” Hobbes states that there are three causes for quarrels between men, the first being competition and the want for man to gain from another through violence. The second is diffidence, or a lack of confidence in one’s own ability of worth which in turn causes men to fight for safety, perhaps to distract another from his insecurities. The third is for the sake of glory, or to secure his reputation. Thomas Hobbes says that, because all men have a natural animalistic inclination to fight for what we want and believe we deserve, a “common power”, a government or hierarchy of some sort, is vital to maintaining a semblance of peace. Hobbes muses that, without security outside of us there will be no industry or commodities, no modern comforts, no society. Without someone to lord over us in some way our future will be one of “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short…” (pg. 48). And, while we enjoy the

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

A state of nature is a hypothetical state of being within a society that defines such a way that particular community behaves within itself. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes proclaimed that, “A state of nature is a state of war.” By this, Hobbes means that every human being, given the absence of government or a contract between other members of a society, would act in a war-like state in which each man would be motivated by desires derived solely with the intention of maximizing his own utility.

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).

English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes’, leviathan consists of three parts. The second part, titled “Of Commonwealth”, describes a government Hobbes refers to as the “leviathan”; which is simply defined as “something that is very large and powerful”. Biblically, “leviathan” is defined negatively, as a devilish sea monster. On the contrary, Hobbes uses the term to portray his version of the ideal government.

In Hobbes….he reveals how firmly he disagrees with traditional natural law theorists, Hobbes sates that, “I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceases only in death.” In other words, Hobbes reveals that he believes that men cannot be satisfied by the “cultivation of virtue” as a political end; man will fight for more power until the fight itself kills them. According to source Hobbes states that, “All men have in common is the continual fear and danger of violent death” (Hobbes, 1956: Ch.13, 107-108). Hobbes is basically stating that because death is less likely to occur when there is peace, men will therefore desire a peaceful society only because it is in their best interest. Source , Hobbes states that, “The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such tings are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them.” These are prime examples of where the tradition view towards natural law contrasts with Hobbes theory. Natural law tradition generally believes it is human nature to have peace, and avoid evil, where Hobbes on the other hands believes man is only interested in having peace because it is for his own benefit. In current terms, Hobbes has a more realist view on natural law tradition.

In this essay I will prove that Hobbes’ makes a good argument in his book Leviathan in paragraph eight on page eighty-four when he states that, “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of everyman, against everyman. For war consisteth not in battle only or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the will to content by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather” (p. 84). I will prove this by identifying his main argument, his main premises and his final conclusion. I will then prove that his argument is logically strong and that it ties

Thomas Hobbes was a divisive figure in his day and remains so up to today. Hobbes’s masterpiece, Leviathan, offended his contemporary thinkers with the implications of his view of human nature and his theology. From this pessimistic view of the natural state of man, Hobbes derives a social contract in order to avoid civil war and violence among men. Hobbes views his work as laying out the moral framework for a stable state. In reality, Hobbes was misconstruing a social contract that greatly benefited the state based on a misunderstanding of civil society and the nature and morality of man.

Several writers in 17th century England published incredibly influential works on political philosophy. These pieces detailed the nature of humans and consequently explained the best method of governing them. Published in 1651, Thomas Hobbes’s controversial Leviathan details a rather dystopian view of humanity’s natural state and advocates for an absolutist government. Nearly 40 years later, John Locke published The Second Treatise of Government, detailing his own views, many of which sharply contrast with those of Hobbes. Despite both Hobbes and Locke arguing that all men are equal in the state of nature, Hobbes’s belief that this equality causes constant warfare leads him to recommend a repressive civil state in which a sovereign acts as

Hobbes suggests three causes of the nature of man. First, competition; Second, Diffidence; third, glory. Human exercise violence first to gain their desire, and secondly to defend their gains, and lastly for one’s own reputation. On the ground that we are all in a state of war, Hobbes states, “In such conditions, there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain…no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, NO SOCIETY, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death…” (Leviathan, XIII). Therefore, the idea of justice or injustice cannot have a place in our society where there is no power.

We will give Hobbes’ view of human nature as he describes it in Chapter 13 of Leviathan. We will then give an argument for placing a clarifying layer above the Hobbesian view in order to

Laviathan, Thomas Hobbes ' most important work and one of the most substantial philosophical texts of the Seventeenth century, was written largely as a response to the political violence and turmoil of England’s civil wars. In Leviathan, Hobbes, using science and reason as a foundation, attempts to create a concrete and methodological solution for peace and political stability. In the context of a historically violent and fear stricken period in which Leviathan was written, it is logical that Hobbes would claim man’s principal motivation to maintain peace and avoid war is due to a fear of death, therefore forcing man to seek the preservation of life. Hobbes’ central idea in Leviathan centers on the necessity for absolute sovereignty and a commonwealth through covenant (social contract). For Hobbes, past democratic governments only encouraged factionalism and internal conflict within the state. The lack of centralized power served only to distract these governments from pressing issues and exterior threats, thus Hobbes believed the presence of a strong central power such as an absolute sovereign would preserve peace.

In Leviathan, Hobbes claims that justice arises in the creation of covenants (pg. 95 Ch. 15.2). To be just is to carry out those covenants and to be unjust is to break them. If this is the case, then what if two parties create a covenant that involves doing bad things to achieve good ends? How is that considered just? Or, perhaps, I should be asking if it is moral? In earlier chapters, Hobbes claims that an individual’s notions of good and evil are subjective. Anything that one deems pleasurable is considered good and anything deemed harmful is considered evil (pg. 35 Ch. 6.7). Thus, the “good” ends an individual acts toward may not even be good in a relative sense—not that we actually know what it means to be relatively good. At the end