Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Hobbes' View of Human Nature
Thomas hobbes and state of nature
Hobbes' View of Human Nature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Hobbes' View of Human Nature
Thomas hobbes and state of nature
Hobbes' View of Human Nature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Hobbes' View of Human Nature
Hobbes believed that man must escape their state of nature to be protected. Within this social contract the ruler had absolute power over the people which lead to their words and opinions never being heard. Hobbes believed that for the government to function properly, the people must obey the absolute monarchy and accept that their opinions are not being accounted. Hobbes explained, “And therefore, they that are subjects to a Monarch, cannot without his leave cast off Monarchy, and return to the confusion of a disunited Multitude; not tranferre their Person from him that beareth it…” (Hobbes in Perry, 22).
In the condition of nature, where man is put at war against man, no security is conceivable and life is brimming with terror. In any case, two common interests empower individuals to get away from the condition of nature; Hobbes’ refers to them as trepidation and reason (pg.108). Angst makes man need to get away from the condition of nature; logic demonstrates to him a method to get away. Reason gives the laws that Hobbes creates, which constitute the establishment for peace.
Hobbes believed that natural state of humans was violent and therefore needed order and control to ensure a just and equal society (Robinson 2016, 4). However Hobbes believed that a sovereign could maintain power without deceit and manipulation. Hobbes believed in the social contract which is when people could have a moral understanding about right and wrong to avoid the chaotic violent human nature. Hobbes believed in the idea of utilitarianism which would “maximize the most good and minimize the pain” (Robinson 201, 4). This would ensure that the sovereign was doing things for the right reasons and not to better himself but to better society as a
Hobbes believes our natural condition is extremely dangerous. When humans remain in their natural condition, every man is at war against every other man. Hobbes believes that our natural condition is the state of nature which is the stare of war. In the state of nature, there is no government and therefore no laws. Men are able to do anything they want.
According to Hobbes, a sovereign, whether the sovereign was placed into power by violence or force, is the only way to secure law and order. For him, if a citizen obeys the sovereign for fear of punishment or in the fear of the state of nature, it is the choice of the citizen. According to Hobbes, this is not tyranny; it is his idea of a society that is successful, one that does not have room for democracy. As a realist, Hobbes has a fierce distrust of democracy and viewed all of mankind in a restless desire for power. If the people are given power, law and order would crumble in Hobbes’ eyes.
The renowned modern philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, revolutionized the understanding of political philosophy through their interpretation of the state of nature. They compiled their arguments through a position that was relative to their individual thoughts, societal position, and struggle. They looked to express the transition of man, preceding the structure of society more commonly known as the State. Thus, by constructing a comparative analysis on the state of nature respectively for each of the author's interpretation provides the reader invaluable knowledge regarding the structure of modern political thought. Thomas Hobbes formulates his treatise on the state of nature through negative connotations since the state of being is forever at war, which represses man.
Hobbes state described this by explaining how the sovereign is responsible to encourage the good interest of the people if only the sovereign have an interest as well in doing so. Hobbes justify this by explaining that, there could not be a possible disagreement between both the sovereign and the individuals that could war because it was in the interest of the sovereign to assure peace and stability of the citizens. Because the anarchic state of nature entails constant competition, which is a state of war, and because every person harbors an inherent desire for peace so as to be able to pursue her desires, people are compelled to abandon the state of nature
Hobbes viewed state of nature as a state of war. According to Hobbes, in a state of nature, there is no right to property because no one affords another that right. He stated that property and possessions would inevitably cause men to become enemies. Hobbes believes that people have equal physical and mental ability to harm, and that people will do so for three reasons - competition, difference, and glory. " so that in the state of nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel, first, competition; secondly, difference; thirdly, glory" (Hobbes 2008, p.85).
Hobbes writing regarding “State of Nature,” was mainly about how humans are so offensive and always ready for the war. Humans are always willing to fight with one another to get superior to others. He stated that nature doesn’t make all men
Summary Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory of social contract, which states that we need moral, legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short. In this state, a man can kill others, and there are limited resources. This can soon lead to a state of war in which we are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals. So, in this state of war if a person was to possess a beautiful house or property, and had all the comforts, luxuries, and amenities to lead a wonderful life; others could come and harm him and deprive him of his fruit of labor, life, and liberty. Therefore, the state of nature is that of fear, violence, and distrust.
Thomas Hobbes has been famous for his philosophies on political and social order. In many of his scholastic works, he maintains the position that in the presence of a higher authority the duty of the rest of mankind is to simply obey. The discourse on this essay will focus on his views expressed in his book The Leviathan. In this book Hobbes’ views are fundamentally entrenched in his description that in a society with no higher authority life would be nasty, short and brutish (?) .This essay will engage in discussion by first laying out the conceptual arguments of anarchy and the human state of nature.
The State – is a great and mighty power, a kind of “Mortal God” reigns supreme over people and towering above them. Naturally, creating his philosophy, Hobbes did not assume that the components of his theory will have a big socio-political impact on our society and for instance will be used for the purpose of US global domination. It is quite obvious that the ideologists of absolutism in the US, deriving their knowledge, including the doctrine of Hobbes, distribute power and interest “of American sovereign” in many regions of the world. Such rights are
While Hobbes also states that the human nature does not allow for the people to live in peace and to pursue common goals since “here are very many that think themselves wiser and abler to govern the public better than the rest” (Hobbes 3). respectively, there always exists the notion of competition, and if there is no possibility to reach consensus over the issue, there is the need for establishing an authority. This is the reflection of the social contract idea in the work by Hobbes as far as the author is concerned that only through common action and goals the society is able to function without problems and conflicts. Nevertheless, even though, in contrast to Machiavelli, Hobbes suggests the way of getting power that is based on agreement rather than on power and intellectual games, their ideas regarding the need for a strong ruler who would be able to establish the order in the society is rather similar, even though in one case this task is taken by a person himself and in the other case delivered by the
The individuals eventually realise the futility of living in the state of nature and inevitably attempt to organise a society in which the sovereign, in order to secure peace and safe living, has absolute powers. Even if the sovereign, to maintain the welfare of people and their safety, sometimes requires various restrictions of their civil liberties, the individuals know that without being assured a safe and prosperous living they might not be able to experience those liberties at all. Here Hobbes idea of an absolute power emerges to be logical. Nonetheless, as Van Mill stated in his article frequently cited in this essay: “political power is necessary but because of this it is also necessarily dangerous”
The secondary literature on Hobbes's moral and political philosophy (not to speak of his entire body of work) is vast, appearing across many disciplines and in many languages. There are two major aspects to Hobbes's picture of human nature. As we have seen, and will explore below, what motivates human beings to act is extremely important to Hobbes. The other aspect concerns human powers of judgment and reasoning, about which Hobbes tends to be extremely skeptical. Like many philosophers before him, Hobbes wants to present a more solid and certain account of human morality than is contained in everyday beliefs.