ipl-logo

Thomas Hobbes Human Freedom Analysis

1423 Words6 Pages

On first reading, Hobbes seems to provide a succinct and coherent concept of freedom and human freedom. He tells the reader that individuals are free to the extent they are unhindered by external impediments. However, Hobbes differs on his thoughts on liberty in the state of nature and liberty when living under the sovereign. The freedom agents have in the state of nature is the reason why subjects must ultimately renounce their right to a commonwealth and form civil government. Additionally, this formation of civil government creates the need for political obedience from the subjects. Hobbes displays the transformation from the unlimited human freedom individuals possess in the state of nature to the much more limited freedom under the sovereign, …show more content…

Hobbes perpetually declares the problems of too much liberty in the hands of the individuals without government. He writes, “But a man may here object that the condition of subjects is very miserable, as being obnoxious to the lusts and other irregular passions of him or them that have so unlimited a power in their hands” (p. 117, [20]). This “unlimited power” causes a “dissolute condition of master less men, without subjection to laws and a coercive power to tie their hands from rapine and revenge” (p. 117, [20]). Humans as Hobbes discerns them are prideful egotists, power-seekers, competitive, and fear sudden death; thus, they need an external judge to mitigate the chaos they cause from these traits. This commonwealth will curtail some liberties of the men, but provide them safety from their neighbor. All things considered, Hobbes’ judgements make civil government and the submission of will inevitable. Hobbes withdraws from ancient political philosophy by abandoning virtue as the object of government of government, favoring freedom instead. This notion of freedom makes a significant alteration as humans enter into civil society, which forms new obligations for individuals. As human freedom is curtailed and obligations mount higher and higher, one questions just how pleasant Hobbes’ government would

Show More
Related
965 Words | 4 Pages

Hobbes believed that “it is not possible for people to have both freedom and peace, since the state of freedom is a state of unlimited greed and war.” (Document C). i believe that hobbes is right about how there are many selfish people and if it came down to you or them, who would you choose? It is most likely that one chooses to save themselves because at a certain time it comes down to survival. Hobbes thought that we should have a ruler such as a king or queen because “democracy- allowing citizens to vote for government leaders- would never work.

Read More
1208 Words | 5 Pages

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).

Read More
1053 Words | 5 Pages

There is no government, no authority whatsoever. Every being is born equal and share the right to do anything for their survival. His political theory was based off his idea that all humans are naturally evil and selfish. Hobbes said that this equality leads to war. “...a war of every man against every man.”

Read More
789 Words | 4 Pages

Hobbes believed if there was no government every man will fight against one another for power. To stop the fighting the people form a government to make peace. “To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust” (doc 2). This quote is saying that without laws or any form of government people will fight each other. And

Read More
407 Words | 2 Pages

Atlanta Exposition Argumentative Essay Civil rights activist, Booker T. Washington in his address “Atlanta Exposition” delivers and influential speech about equality of race in the South. Washington's purpose is to appeal to white southerners and importance of the common interests between African-Americans and whites. He adopts a persuasive tone in order to convince both African American and white southerners that they can achieve progress but separately. Washington begins by addressing the population of African Americans in the south.

Read More
531 Words | 3 Pages

“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,”

Read More
1602 Words | 7 Pages

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.

Read More
624 Words | 3 Pages

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

Read More
1591 Words | 7 Pages

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.

Read More
1212 Words | 5 Pages

Hobbes developed the ‘social contract theory’, which is the idea that civilians give up some of their freedom and liberty for protection from the leader. This concept, which was used during Hobbes’s time, is still a part of the government today. Hobbes brings down this concept in his world famous book, Leviathan. A picture of a ‘giant’ monarch holding onto a tiny world is used to describe his version of the social contract. The drawing depicts the trade of freedom for safety.

Read More
838 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
1351 Words | 6 Pages

Thus, both men would evaluate the statement that “in a legitimate state all men are free and there is no inequality,” differently. Rousseau would mostly disagree, holding that the state itself is the impetus for inequality. Hobbes would largely agree, contending that men are equal both in a primitive state of conflict and under a sovereign’s awesome power. These different responses result from the philosophers’ opposing views on fundamental human nature, civil society’s raison d’etre, and government’s inevitable form. --- Rousseau begins his

Read More
731 Words | 3 Pages

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;

Read More
941 Words | 4 Pages

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”

Read More
1084 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More

More about Thomas Hobbes Human Freedom Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document