Preview

Critically Examine Hobbes's Conception of the State of Nature

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1668 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Critically Examine Hobbes's Conception of the State of Nature
Critically Examine Hobbes’s Conception of the State of Nature

The concept of state of nature was developed by Hobbes in his famous work, Leviathan, in which he also set out his doctrine of the foundation of states and legitimate governments which was based on his social contract theories. Leviathan was written during the English Civil War, so much of his theory concentrates on the need for the presence of a strong central authority within society in order to avoid the evils of rebellion and civil war. Hobbes developed his state of nature by contemplating what life would be like without any governing political authority, i.e. a state of anarchy. Hobbes wrote 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 as is of every man against every man" (Leviathan, ch. XIII). Hobbes described this concept with the Latin phrase “bellum omnium contra omnes”, in his work, de Cive.

Hobbes identified three reasons why the state of nature would be a state of war of “all against all”, by which he means not constant fighting but a constant readiness to fight. First, without government there would be little or no industry and so resources would be very limited. People must attack for gain in order to take whatever possessions others had managed to acquire. Second, individuals would try to pre-empt these attacks, and get their defence in first. This Hobbes calls ‘diffidence’. Third, people would realize the advantages of a reputation for strength and attack others simply for glory. These natural causes of quarrel are how Hobbes concluded that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear. Hobbes believes that humans have three motivations for ending this state of war; the fear of death, the desire for better living conditions, and hope for a means to achieve those conditions.

Within the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    After analyzing how Locke and Hobbes understand the state of nature it is evident that they share many ideas but they also show essential differences in their ideas. Hobbes regards the state of nature as a state of war, in which natural law is established only after a process of reasoning. This process leads men to the conclusion that they must somehow find…

    • 397 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Pierre presents himself and talks about his accomplishments in Congo, country where he was born, before leaving for USSR. Here he brefly talks about his education.…

    • 421 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes, an Enlightenment philosopher, claimed that mankind is naturally evil and selfish and will cause conflicts “if any two men desire the same thing, which they nevertheless cannot both enjoy” or have differing opinions, in order to gain more power so that they can freely pursue their selfish desires, especially “during the time men live without a common power” and “in that condition which is called war, every man against every man,” and are therefore incapable of self-governing. Hobbes’ position on human nature is easily observable; intolerance and bigotry causes violence and general public…

    • 1210 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    At first sight, Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government, seemed quite similar to Hobbes’s Leviathan. They both believed that a state of nature is a state that exist without government. They believe that men are created equal in this state, however Hobbes argues that because of self-preservation, man possessed the desire to control over other man. Locke, on the other hand, reasons with a more peaceful and pleasant place.…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Phil 103 Final

    • 1037 Words
    • 3 Pages

    1D. The state of nature is Hobbes’ description of what human beings lived like prior to the existence of a state or civilized society. In this existence, all humans were equal in that they all wanted to achieve their ultimate end and they all had the right to do what they thought necessary for survival…

    • 1037 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    It is a brutish and violent nature. In the absence of culture, arts, science, reading or writing, humans, possibly, are more related to animals, since animals also live in the state of nature, and who always fight for domination. This rather negative view is Hobbe’s main reason why there should be a government. There should be an authority to establish peace. In peace, numerous achievements can be obtained. In peace does humanity progress. It might be argued that Hobbes demands a despot, an autocracy. Still, is not that better than the state of nature? There might be many opposing arguments especially that of the anarchists, yet Hobbe’s examples might not be conquered because they are succinct and feasible. They are plausibly impregnable because they are factual, not idealist. Leviathan does convincingly argue, and this monster in the state of nature does devour…

    • 1395 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the idea of human nature; origin of state, the nature of government, the rights of regulation can be drawn as the reflection of insightful philosophies of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Karl Marx. By understanding this within the context of human nature, we can see their ideas play to how they perceive a modern philosophy. Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto illustrates the desire to build "a society without economic classes". John Locke's Political Theory claims the establishment of natural rights which will assist protest against unjust rulers. Thomas Hobbes's most famous publication, the "Leviathan" defines a government which unifies the collective will of many individual and unites them under the authority of sovereign power. Although the three philosophers desire the same result through their theories, its practices and use have indicated that there are difference and similarities both present. All are saying that there should be absolute government, but their areas of specialization are different.…

    • 843 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes was an absolute monarchist that believed human beings were organisms that were in constant motion, and needed to have some sort of authority or restraint, so they could be stopped from pursuing any selfish act. In contrast to John Locke were he believed in a democratic rule and constitutes that human nature was identified by reason and tolerance. The political ideology that Hobbes obtains is precise regarding the following points: people are naturally born with rights but must give up any right to the monarch so in return they receive protection, humans are naturally wicked, cruel, inhumane and selfish, no individual can be trusted to govern themselves and cannot maintain order, and the main purpose of a government body is to implement law and order. It is normal to be in a state of war knowing the reality of human nature, being in constant conflict amongst…

    • 497 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were two main political philosophers during the seventeenth century. Hobbes is largely known for his writing of the “Leviathan”, and Locke for authoring "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Included in their essays, both men discuss the purpose and structure of government, natural law, and the characteristics of man in and out of the state of nature. The two men's opinion of man vary widely. Hobbes sees man as being evil, whereas Locke views man in a much more optimistic light. While in the state of nature and under natural law, they both agree that man is equal. However, their ideas of natural law differ greatly. Hobbes positions himself with the view that the state of nature is a state of war where every man is for himself and loyalty to another being will only bring dismay. Contrastingly, Locke sees natural law and the state of nature as a place of equality and freedom for all. Locke therefore believes that government is necessary in order to preserve natural law, and on the contrary, Hobbes sees government as necessary in order to control natural law.…

    • 1028 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes Vs Mill

    • 1168 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Hobbes offers support to his claim that nature makes men apt to fight one another, by showing how people act in their own self-interest. When people act in their own self-interest they look to preserve their own life. Hobbes believes in his definition of nature that man must use their own virtues of protection to ultimately preserve themselves. The way Hobbes describes the motivation is quite simple. For instance, in modern society, one may still lock our homes regardless if it is a perfectly safe area – this is due to Hobbes’ concept of, “self-preservation.” Nevertheless, the root of these actions is actually…

    • 1168 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    hobbes and kant

    • 1500 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Hobbes was a different kind of philosopher that had a very pessimistic view on humanity. In Hobbes’ book the Leviathan, he believed that humans were naturally nasty creatures and needed to be regulated in a society. For Hobbes one thing he also believed in was Utilitarianism, which is the desire for pleasure that drives our actions, basically, the most useful choice for your benefit. Hobbes had a theory that was called “the state of nature”, which in the eyes of Hobbes was life for humans before any kind of laws or governments. He says that the state of nature is a violent place with no lows. In the state of nature there is no business, no account of time, buildings, and there is always danger around the corner. For Hobbes the “state of nature” was a savage place that could only be fixed by laws, there is only peace when there is no war and no war is a place with laws. Hobbes came to the conclusion that humans cant live in groups without law. Hobbes was…

    • 1500 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The argument presented by Thomas Hobbes in chapter 13 of Leviathan, is that the state of nature is a state of war of all against all. Such a view had previously been discussed- earlier versions of the argument appear in other significant works- however it is Hobbes account of a state in “continuall feare of danger and violent death”1 upon which I will focus on and critique in this essay. There are many reasons why many seem to regard Hobbes argument as the most accurate portrayal of a pre-civilised society, many believe it to be so straightforward and seemingly correct that to object it would be to ignore a necessary truth. Secondly, those who accept Hobbes’ view of a human nature that is so egotistical and unforgiving, would seemingly too agree to the assumption of a gloomy, unbearable state of nature. In this essay I shall argue that such opinions are not logically justified as Hobbes’s argument holds its foundations solidly in assumption alone, an assumption that was heavily moulded on his surroundings of a savage Civil War. Hobbes’s argument lies solely on the grounds that human beings are intrinsically wicked and self-centred beings an argument that cannot be completely validated and therefore cannot be a ‘necessary truth’. Yet despite holding such a bleak outlook on the human condition and its simple invalidity the work of Thomas Hobbes still shapes the political word today2 and it continues to impact our understanding of human nature and interactions. In order to justify my critique of Hobbes I will begin by presenting both his original argument and a brief view of some modern interpretations before cross examining their conclusions against that of other social contract theorist such as Locke and Rousseau as well as rational logic to present the argument that the state of nature is most certainly not a state of war of all against all.…

    • 3361 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    As Hobbes’ continually points out, in a state of nature, fear is the most antagonizing force that a man produces to be used against others to perpetuate a state of constant war. It is this fear, along with the struggle for as much power as possible (which Hobbes establishes that it is men’s reasoning to do so) that creates the balance beam act which acts as the driving force for men to seek each other out and pursue peace. This pursuit for peace amongst themselves is not only instigated for the greater good of themselves, but also society as a whole, whereby in realizing the interconnectedness of their fellow peoples, men consent to the “social contract” that Hobbes’ presents.…

    • 544 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Enlightenment Thinkers

    • 503 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher of the 1600's, tried to create a science of politics. After witnessing the horrors of the English Civil War, Hobbes decided that conflict was part of human nature. Without governments to keep order, Hobbes said, there would be "war of everyone against everyone". In this state of nature life would be "nasty, brutish, and short." In his book Leviathan, Hobbes argued that to escape such a bleak life, people gave up their rights to a strong ruler. In exchange, they gained law and order. Hobbes called this agreement, by which people created a government, the social contract. Hobbes basically saw people as naturally selfish and violent.…

    • 503 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes Vs Locke

    • 5047 Words
    • 21 Pages

    He begins noting that humans are essentially equal, both mentally and physically, in so far as even the weakest person has the strength to kill the strongest. Given our equal standing, Hobbes continues by noting how situations in nature make us naturally prone to quarrel. There are three natural causes of disagreement among people: competition for limited supplies of material possessions, distrust of one another, and glory in so far as people remain hostile to preserve their powerful reputation. Given the natural causes of conflict, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear (Hobbes Pt 1, Ch…

    • 5047 Words
    • 21 Pages
    Powerful Essays