Selflessness And Trustworthiness In Thomas Hobbes Leviathan
In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that all humans are by nature untrustworthy, motivated only by self-serving factors—namely fear of death and glory—and will therefore seek to harm others when possible to elicit safety or greater relative gain—as besting another in competition for some resource is a source of glory—for themselves (Hobbes, 559-560, 565). It follows, then, that since all humans are flawed by nature in these respects, no one man or woman could hold a greater claim to power over another—as each is equal in the qualities of selflessness and trustworthiness that would ensure their ability to properly enforce and enact laws that benefit those under their rule. While Hobbes seems to agree that humans are equally flawed in their nature,
…show more content…
It is implausible, given that humans by nature want to seek their own benefit, that they would entrust another equally flawed human with greater power (Hobbes, 559). By doing so, they make themselves vulnerable to exploitation—as their sovereign is more likely to seek his own benefit by cheating and deceiving his subjects than to act contrary to Hobbes’s description of human nature by being selfless when given absolute power (Hobbes, 559). Additionally, since this contract is still just a covenant between the sovereign and those he rules, there is no inherent value to it that makes its power more compelling than any other covenant made within the state of nature—as both sides are entrusting humans to act contrary to their nature. No sovereign who is as flawed as his subjects are can compel them to disregard their own nature in following laws that they would not have otherwise followed outside the provisions of the social contract. They would instead choose to remain outside his contract because any benefit the sovereign claims to give to the people if they follow his rules is dependent on them acting in accordance with his laws first and then trusting him to deliver, and, by Hobbes’s own description, humans are by nature untrustworthy when it comes to
It is implausible, given that humans by nature want to seek their own benefit, that they would entrust another equally flawed human with greater power (Hobbes, 559). By doing so, they make themselves vulnerable to exploitation—as their sovereign is more likely to seek his own benefit by cheating and deceiving his subjects than to act contrary to Hobbes’s description of human nature by being selfless when given absolute power (Hobbes, 559). Additionally, since this contract is still just a covenant between the sovereign and those he rules, there is no inherent value to it that makes its power more compelling than any other covenant made within the state of nature—as both sides are entrusting humans to act contrary to their nature. No sovereign who is as flawed as his subjects are can compel them to disregard their own nature in following laws that they would not have otherwise followed outside the provisions of the social contract. They would instead choose to remain outside his contract because any benefit the sovereign claims to give to the people if they follow his rules is dependent on them acting in accordance with his laws first and then trusting him to deliver, and, by Hobbes’s own description, humans are by nature untrustworthy when it comes to