Pros And Cons Of Hobbes

The Historical Ideas of Hobbes Doctrine Authors Charles Edward Merriam, Christopher Scott McClure, and Mark. A. Heller, all conducted articles on Hobbes theory on the state of nature, and the state of war; and their understanding of it. In Hobbes original theory of what the state of nature is, he seen no good in man. He assumes that without government, human lives in the state of nature would led to a state of war. “Every man, against every man”. These scholars have attempted to explain state of war, and state of nature from their own point, compared to Hobbes. All scholars have different views on what Hobbes position is; moreover the main idea is to captures Hobbes idea of this mix between the state of nature and the state of war, and
Heller in The Use & Abuse of Hobbes: The State of Nature in International Relations, viewed Hobbes from a completely different stand point, his argument was the Hobbes has dramatically confused the nature state of man, with the nature state of war. Heller is speaking from an international level, he believes that Hobbes theory will not work in at the international level because the system is totally different. He discuss issues with things such as collective security and how it was created on different term, and what it means for a state to give up their sovereignty. “Because of vast differences between the two, the logic of Leviathan, so compelling when applied to individuals, loses its rationale when applied to relations among states”. (Heller pg. 32, 1980) Meaning when Hobbes theory is applied to human nature it has a meaning, but when used in international relations government, it has no theoretical meaning. Heller believes that IR government attempts to use Hobbes doctrine as a crutch, therefore he makes it clear that the state of nature and the state of law are two different concepts; which have no same meaning. He also finds that Hobbes expectations are examples of things humans are not able to live by. He doesn’t see that a man is equal with that state of war, because people don’t live the life Hobbes claim they do; and this is because the government is able to keep them out of that condition. Heller is not moved by Hobbes message
Hobbes teaching is solely based on “glory and pride”, which in this authors eyes leads to danger and fear. (McClure, p. 114,2014) He brings up the fact that Hobbes thoughts on fear and death were wrote during the civil war. McClure believes Hobbes theory on fear and death were influenced due to the percentages of deaths during that time, which made Hobbes become fearful in his own life. Moreover in the author’s viewpoint, Hobbes objective was a way to view death from a different state of mind, such as being insane or unhuman; not for him but for others. This is when the author sees Hobbes unrealistic and incoherent. Hobbes is a man that lives by fear, but stays clear of war; he relies on others to risk their lives and then views them as immortal. Moreover Hobbes intentions are not for man to think of death, but encourages fear of death; which influences others to join as a society. ‘‘And if no covenant should be good, that proceeded from the fear of death, no conditions of peace between enemies, nor any laws could be of force; which are all consented to from that fear’’(McClure,p.115,2014). The author finds this statement made by Hobbes as a clear point that he didn’t really believe everything that he was saying that others should