In chapter 19 of Leviathan Thomas Hobbes discusses the different kinds of commonwealths and explains why he believes a monarchy is the best form of government. A few of the points he makes about why he believes this are: the monarchs interests are the same as the people, the monarch is more consistent than a democracy, and monarchy is more stable because the monarch can set up arrangements for the succession of power. In my opinion, these points (and the other points he makes) would only work if the people are lucky enough to have the right person as their sovereign. Monarchs in the past haven't always had the same interests as their people, they are just as likely to do things that hurt their people such as the events that lead to the French
“In 1651, Hobbes wrote one of the most influential philosophical treatises in human history, Leviathan or the Matter Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil. Like his rival, John Locke, Hobbes posited that in a state of nature men and women were free to pursue and defend their own interests, which resulted in a state of war in which “the life of man” was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. ”(“Philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers and the First Principles,”
However, Hobbes’s also states that "The obligation to the sovereign is understood to last as long and no longer than the power last by which he is able to protect them can be relinquished by no covenant" (Machiavelli 124). This suggests that a sovereign’s power in a natural Commonwealth comes from his ability to protect the people from the “state of nature”. The subjects of a natural Commonwealth do not necessarily need to fear a ruler to believe that he possesses the ability to protect them from their true fear, a return to the “state of nature”. This indicates that while fear of a ruler might be a useful tool for a ruler to use to enforce his authority, it is not absolutely necessary for the preservation of a political
Thomas Hobbes in his book The Leviathan stated “Our motives and actions are all based on internal bio-mechanical processes.” In other words, our actions for change are based off wants and needs. Cesar Chavez, labor union organization and a civil rights leader, uses juxtaposition all throughout his essay (published in a religious organizations’ magazine) to state the two methods of taking action, violent or non-violent. He writes his article in an introspective tone by using religion to advocate nonviolence. He uses aphorism to repudiate violent methods.
In Leviathan, Hobbes was the original author to suggest that humans are prepared to do terrible things, when there are no consequences. Hobbes paints the picture of a world in a “State of Nature,” which is referring to before governments controlled people, and before people had set customs and tradition. In saying this, he is implying that people are naturally evil, and that without a strong, central government to enforce rules, people are prepared to do horrendous things for their own personal gain. Thomas Hobbes doesn’t mean that people are evil directly, though. He means that several factors of human nature combine and mix to create something that is ignorant, arrogant and greedy.
The world is driven by emotions that dictate what the world calls reality. Thomas Hobbes seems to disagree with this claim when he states how the world is essentially a complex machine that is solely governed by fact and logic. I disagree with Hobbes because it is evident throughout history and literature that emotions dictate the actions that create reality. Through World War II and The Things They Carried, I intend to depict how emotions fuel the beliefs that create and control reality for everyone. Even significant historical events such as war are driven by the emotional beliefs between the conflicting sides.
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.
Therefore, he suggests that everyone consents to give up their rights to an absolute authority for his/her own good whether it is one person or body of persons (38). Hobbes also proposes that humans enter a covenant with the authority and submit to a power as if they are “all in one and the same person” which is his ideal “commonwealth” (39). This is the conclusion from which Hobbes derives the title of his work Leviathan, a biblical figure who is “the monster that ruled over chaos at the beginning of the world” (Petrovic 12). To Hobbes, the most effective power to preserve harmony in the commonwealth would be a monarch (39) who would be most successful in fulfilling his duties namely protecting the commonwealth and enforcing good laws as well as “public instruction, both of doctrine and example” (39-40). In Hobbes opinion, it would be devastating, essentially the “greatest evil”, if the rights of the sovereign were violated as this would have people fall back to the state of nature which everyone would want to avoid (40).
Group therapy (GT) is now a standard format in the field of substance abuse treatment. Indeed, any treatment plan that does not incorporate some form of GT is considered incomplete. Healing is found in sharing, and to have the best chance of recovery an addict needs a safe forum where feedback can be given and received, insight into “interpersonal dynamics” can be gained, and closure to old business and harms can be found among fellows (Corey et al., 2014, p. 3). Counselors should be familiar with the history of how GT has developed and have a fundamental knowledge of how it currently impacts the treatment of substance abuse disorders. Burlingame & Baldwin have divided the history of group therapy into three eras they call the foundational
In the text “Leviathan”, by Thomas Hobbes many themes were presented such as the theme of the state of nature used as a device. The state of nature is seen as a war by the purpose of one’s desires. One line that shows this is the line “This Endeavour, when it is toward something which causes it, is called Appetite, or Desire; the later, being the generall name; and the other, often-times restrained to signifie the Desire of Food, namely Hunger and Thirst” (pg.119). We all have desires, but some desires unknowingly do hurt us. However, there are certain things you do wish for that, you know will end up hurting you but you still have things done your way.
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.
It is also important that there is a kind of reliance that the agreements will be kept. In chapter 17, Hobbes presents a solution for a commonwealth, where people in numbers consent to the single sovereign authority to have complete control over them by repressing some of the freedoms and enforce laws to safeguard order within a state. The Leviathan is described as a single body built up by components of citizens, constructed through agreement to surrender in obedience to this single authority, so as to flee from bringing destruction from one another. However the true liberties as outlined in chapter 21 of the Leviathan are not oppressive and establish the terms in which the authority is absolute only as it instructs its subjects in its proper use. (Carmichael,
Part of this shared view is the idea of following through on promises. Hobbes calls this the third Law of Nature, and summarizes it by saying, “men [must] perform their covenants made, without which covenants are in vain” (89). Hobbes goes on to say that breaking a covenant is injustice to the community (89). Hobbes, in this claim, correlates injustice to the state of war. In Hobbes’ theory, self-preservation is unattainable in the state of war because there is no one to enforce peace, making it impossible to preserve oneself.
He supports his argument with Hobbes’ view, who also sees ‘limitations upon the lawful authority of the Sovereign’ and Hobbes further sees the protection of the subject as a requirement for the sovereign’s qualification. (Pierson, 2011, pp. 11-12;
THOMAS HOBBES AND THE SOVEREIGN’S POWER In this essay, focusing on Thomas Hobbes’s book ‘’Leviathan’’, mainly on the chapters 13 and 14, I’m going to analyse the fact that Hobbes gives the sovereign an absolute power authorizing it to provide the society with security essential to their liberty. Thomas Hobbes is certainly one of the most controversial and frequently contested political philosophers of modern times; he left a significant mark on modern understanding of human nature, political theories and the issues of systems of governance. His work has been at the centre of many discussions among political philosophers; I will refer to some of the twentieth century political theorists and their critiques to confront Hobbes view of the absolute
