Is The State Of Nature A Hobsian State Of War Of All Against All 
Do you agree with the Hobbesian position that "the state of nature is a state of war of all against all"?
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.
The state of
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.
The state of
Bibliography: Gauthier, D. (1969) The Logic of ‘Leviathan’: The Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Goodin, R., Pettit, P. and Pogge, T. (eds) (2008) A companion to contemporary political philosophy. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell (an imprint of John Wiley & Sons Ltd). Hobbes, T. and Macpherson, C. (1968) Leviathan (The Pelican Classics). United Kingdom: Penguin (Non-Classics). Locke, J. and Laslett, P. (1988) Locke: Two Treatises of Government. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. McNeilly, F. (1968) The Anatomy of ‘Leviathan’. United Kingdom: St. Martin’s Press. Peters, R. (1967) Hobbes. United Kingdom: Penguin Books Ltd. Rousseau, J.-J. (1973) The social contract; and, Discourses. London: London, Dent, c1973. Rousseau, J.-J., Wootton, D. and Cress, D. (2012) Basic Political Writings: Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Discourse on Political Economy, on the Social Contract, the State of War. 2nd edn. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Thomas, D. L. (1995) Locke on Government. Routledge. Wolff, J. (2006) An introduction to political philosophy. 1st edn. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.