point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, Socrates, of the nature and origin of justice. Says Glaucoma • The issue raised in the Thomas hobbes theory, represent an aspiration, not a reality. Nonetheless, the Theory is a giant step toward absolute security, but many unresolved argument are counter posed to it. • Life in the state of nature may well be ‘‘solitary’’ and ‘‘poor.’’ It may be a life of fear, insecurity, and barbarism. But it is not a life lived in utter isolation. 1.3 SOME …show more content…
But Hobbes’s theory does not do enough to show why the Leviathan would serve the intended purpose. The person or persons to whom authority is granted by the people are not themselves bound by the agreement. It’s important to Hobbes’s theory that the people covenant among themselves, but the political authority itself is not party to the agreement. So the authority is not contractually bound. Moreover, it’s not clear why we should think that the Leviathan will be efficacious in fulfilling the intended purpose. If human nature is as Hobbes describes it, then we should anticipate that whoever has political authority might abuse it. Yet the theory does not build in protection against the possibility of that abuse as no check and balances is contemplated by the