Humans, according to the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, are selfish by nature. In his landmark work, Leviathan, he explains the importance of a strong government in society. According to Hobbes, without a strong system of government people would revert into a primitive state; war would run rampant, the natural law would not be abided, and those once tamed by society would become evil. William Golding based his novel, Lord of The Flies, on a similar idea. In this novel, many characters digress from civility into savagery.
The power to overcome our environment and other creatures with more physical prowess but lesser mental capabilities is nothing to be scoffed at. However, the ability to reason and how much we apply it may be hurting us. Another similar fact about humans is that we can rationalize anything – considering a problem from any and every angle, how to overcome roadblocks with it, the current circumstances and the implications for the future – and in many cases this power is used for good. The problem with rationalization is its ability to make wrong things seem right, and right things seem wrong. Rationalization can weaken our sense of empathy, or connection, with our fellow people, dissolve the
Thomas Hobbes described that life in a state of nature would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In addition, no one would be able to survive in an Anarchy society where there is no order and the safeguard of others is at risk. Therefore, governments require for citizens to surrender some freedom to obtain the benefits of the government. Thus, the government has preserved its two major purposes: maintaining order and providing public goods to the public and an uprising purpose of promoting equality. The main and oldest purpose of government is to maintain order by establishing laws to preserve life and protect property.
Our rationality and reason give us the ability to distinguish between good and bad, just and unjust, and to assess whether or not we are good people. It also gives us the capability to understand and perform higher intellectual activities. The three alternatives can also be said to be split into 2 categories, the rational part of the soul and the non-rational part of the soul. The life of growth and perception falls
Hobbesian Theory in Lord of the Flies The question of whether man is inherently good or evil has been debated amongst religions, philosophers, and many great thinkers since the beginning of man itself. On one hand, there are those who believe we as humans are naturally moral beings, and it is society that makes us evil. However, others argue society is not only good, but needed to control our inhumane and animalistic tendencies. One of the most famous believers in this theory is English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes.
Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his Discourse on Inequality and Social Contract each attempt to explain the rise of and prescribe the proper management of human society. At the foundation of both philosophies is the principle that humans are asocial by nature, a precept each philosopher interprets and approaches in a different way. Hobbes states that nature made humans relatively “equal,” and that “every man is enemy to every man.” Life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” he says, and “every man has right to everything.” Rousseau outlines primitive asocial man having “everything necessary for him to live in the state of nature” from “instinct alone,” and being “neither good nor evil.”
The debate was clearly won by Thomas Hobbes team, although they had an easier topic and material to talk about. The theory of human nature being driven by instinct and the human species is naturally greedy, evil, and selfish was backed up with years of research and facts. Although Thomas Hobbes team had many great points, John Locke team (the team I was in) also had great points and won the political side of the needed kind of ruling. Main key points that caught my attention and were significant include: 1) without no ruler then chaos will occur 2) human nature is the need and desire of dominance 3) it’s human nature of doing whatever possible to survive 4) human nature is driven by instinct to survive and fulfill the needs a person has and
George Berkeley and Thomas Hobbes, two influential philosophers from the seventeenth century, both proposed two very different metaphysical theories of human nature. Hobbes proposed the metaphysical view that matter is all there is in the universe. Leading him to purpose the materialistic view of human nature. Additionally, Hobbes suggested that are mental states can be explained through mechanical terms. Hobbes claims we are all complicated machines and therefore all mankind is made of matter.
In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes writes about the laws of nature and man’s liberty. Hobbes states that when an individual thinks that peace and self-defense require it, and other people are also willing than he should be willing too. As our natural rights give every man to maintain his right and do whatever they like. But if others don’t lay down then that individual should not follow the law as well because it’s not fair to themselves (p. 60). Hobbes statement will make Socrates dissatisfied because he is more about obeying the laws no matter what.
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.
In Thomas Hobbes’s words, the life of man is, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” He does not hold a high opinion of man’s ability to enjoy life or at least go through it with endurance and perseverance. On the other hand, John Locke had more confidence in human nature. He believed that morality could be approached rather like numbers: obviously and easily. Everyone would know what good meant, just as everyone would know what five or ten meant.
The modern state Christopher Pierson focuses on a normative illustration of the modern state – how it should be. The following discussion tries to summarize the essence of three features. (Monopoly) control of the means of violence Thomas Hobbes came up with his idea of the ‘Common Power’ – the Great Leviathan – owning all the means of violence and ruling over the people. Engels talks about power as ‘arisen out of society but placing itself above it’, meaning that the people give all their power to a higher institution and accepting its rule over them. Weber, in his attempt to define the state, mentions ‘monopoly…of physical force’ claimed by a human community.
NAME: Fatima Gidado ID NUMBER: BU/15C/LAW/1722 MODULE: History of ideas, Science and Society 1 ASSIGNMENT QUESTION: (i) Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both social contact and natural law theorists. Discuss. (30 marks) (ii) Explain the application or usefulness of these to contemporary society and Nigerian society in particular.
Thomas Hobbes proposed that the ideal government should be an absolute monarchy as a direct result of experiencing the English Civil War, in which there was internal conflict between the parliamentarians and the royalists. Hobbes made this claim under the assumption that an absolute monarchy would produce consistent policies, reduce conflicts and lower the risk of civil wars due to the singular nature of this ruling system. On another hand, John Locke counters this proposal with the view that absolute monarchies are not legitimate as they are inconsistent with the state of nature. These two diametrically opposed views stem from Hobbes’ and Locke’s different understandings of human nature, namely with regard to power relationships, punishment, and equality in the state of nature. Hobbes’ belief that human beings are selfish and appetitive is antithetical with Locke’s contention that human beings are intrinsically moral even in the state of nature, which results in Locke’s strong disagreement with Hobbes’ proposed absolute monarchy.
TRUE SENSE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: The controversy whether international law is a law or not resolves on the divergent definitions of the word “law” given by the jurist. If we subscribe to the view of Hobbes, Austin and Pufendorf, that law is a command of sovereign enforced by a superior political authority then international law cannot be included in the category of law. On the other hand if, we subscribe to the view that the term“law”cannot be limited to rules enacted by superior political authority, then international law can be included in the category of law. Lawrence aptly remarked that everything depends upon the definition of law which we choose to adopt.
