Compare And Contrast Luis And Hobbes
The things that drive men towards wanting peace are fear of death, desire to live peacefully, and the possibility of getting that standard of life. In the state of nature, there is no common power and Hobbes states that all individuals are fundamentally equal in that everyone is capable of killing or harming another individual. There is no peace and the risk of death is constant. Life without laws and before a civil society is defined by a constant state of war and general chaos. In the state of nature, every man has a right to everything. The existence or potential existence of this condition means that there is absolutely no guarantee that individuals can preserve themselves. When in a state of war, "there is no place for industry, because
the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, no culture of the earth, no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death" (I. xiii). Hobbes further points out that, "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war is of every man against every man." (I. xiii) By utilizing such a bleak description in reference to individuals in the state of nature, Hobbes clearly points to the need for an authoritarian sovereign power. For without one, men will know no security and will constantly fear for their lives. Therefore, the alternative to instituting a sovereign power is an environment where any substantial form of self preservation is impossible. Even though remaining in the state of nature results in constant fear and danger, it is still a viable choice because fear and liberty are consistent. Choosing to enter into a covenant under the totalitarian authority of a sovereign power is therefore an act of liberty. This remains the case even if the choice is made under duress and desire for self preservation. In addition, the sovereign power itself is grounded in a kind of liberalism because the power is only legitimate if it is consented to by the individuals who choose to live under it.
the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, no culture of the earth, no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death" (I. xiii). Hobbes further points out that, "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war is of every man against every man." (I. xiii) By utilizing such a bleak description in reference to individuals in the state of nature, Hobbes clearly points to the need for an authoritarian sovereign power. For without one, men will know no security and will constantly fear for their lives. Therefore, the alternative to instituting a sovereign power is an environment where any substantial form of self preservation is impossible. Even though remaining in the state of nature results in constant fear and danger, it is still a viable choice because fear and liberty are consistent. Choosing to enter into a covenant under the totalitarian authority of a sovereign power is therefore an act of liberty. This remains the case even if the choice is made under duress and desire for self preservation. In addition, the sovereign power itself is grounded in a kind of liberalism because the power is only legitimate if it is consented to by the individuals who choose to live under it.