Preview

Thomas Hobbes and His Theory of Social Contract

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
534 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Thomas Hobbes and His Theory of Social Contract
THOMAS HOBBES AND HIS THEORY OF SOCIAL CONTRACT Human beings live in a world that is full of rules, regulations and most of the time they don’t have chance to refuse or change them. The majority of the world population lives in territories where there are official, organized institutions called “states”. human beings lived freely in nature without a central, binding power long period of time in history. Thomas Hobes who tried explain necessity of the state explain the transition from this stateless stage called “the state of natüre” to an organized state. Also, Hobbes’ theory can be considered as very pessimistic and dark. According to him, the state of nature does not refer to a peaceful, harmonious social life. Firstly, he believes that all individuals struggled against all other individuals. He claims that human beings are naturally selfish and he considers human beings as rational egoists that always look for the maximization of their self-profits. Secondly, Hobes thinks that humans are somehow naturally equal and there is not too much difference between their mental and physical abilities. So, in a stateless stage individuals have the motive to compete with others in a very hostile sense. Hobbes explain it as the lack of confidence people have in the state of war due to their inevitably unsafe lives which called “diffidence”. Lastly ,the desire to have glory is the last motive that Orient people in state of war.People always want to have reputation and power.However they actually want to have prevent potentional threats by frightening or threating other people in this unsafe World. Thus according to him there was a need for a special person like a mortal God called “Leviathan” who would provide peace and order in society. After analyzing Hobbes’ theory we can m explain and criticize Hobbes’ argument. First of all, according to Thomas Hobbes, a contract is simply “the mutual transferring of right”( Hobbes, p. 192). ). In Hobbes’ view, a

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher of the 1600’s that tried to create a basis for politics. Having experienced the English civil war, Hobbes realized that the conflict was the result of human nature. Hobbes exclaimed that the world was full of greedy people and those who are selfless and care only for themselves. Without the government to maintain order, Hobbes said that there would be “a condition of war of everyone against everyone”. Hobbes noted that in order to stop this, the people would have to sacrifice their freedom for the government. In exchange, they gained law and order. He also notes that this sacrifice would allow the government to suppress any form of rebellion. Hobbes called this agreement the social contract.…

    • 123 Words
    • 1 Page
    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

    According to Hobbes, government is needed so that society will not collapse into violence due to humanity’s selfish desires and self-interest. Hobbes believes that humanity’s natural state is motivated by self-interest and will do everything they can to succeed in their endeavors. People will do whatever it takes to fulfill what their idea of ‘good ’is. When everyone acts this way it quickly devolves into chaos, war, and violence.…

    • 266 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes was a philosopher who saw humans as a purely physical being. He believed that all human actions can be explained through the motions in our bodies. According to Hobbes all feelings and emotions are a result of phantasms, our perception of the objects around us. This perception is a motion within our bodies and each person perceives these phantasms differently causing love, hate, desires, and what we think is good and bad. Every feeling that comes from ones perspective has a physical feeling, such as desires can cause certain pains and it is only human nature that one does whatever is needed in order to relieve those pains. Hobbes therefore sees humans as being able, by their state of nature, to take or do whatever necessary for themselves even if it shows no regard for the other people their actions may harm. This inevitably would end up in a fight for survival or “the war of all against all”. In order to prevent such a war from happening Hobbes thought it necessary that the individuals must promise each other to give up their right to govern themselves to the sovereign for the mutual benefit of the people. This sovereign then has absolute power to rule with no questions asked and not to only act on behalf of the citizens but to completely embody their will. In summation, Hobbes believed that society could only exist under power of the sovereign and that life in the state of nature is violent, short and brutish, as all men act on self-interest.…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 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

    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
  • Better Essays

    In Leviathan, Hobbes attempts to explain how civil government came to be established. He begins his argument at the most logical place; the fundamental basis of mankind, and makes several key steps in the development of human nature to reach the implementation of a sovereign ruler. Hobbes believes the foundation of mankind is motion. Man is in constant motion and the instability that forms from the collisions that ensue from the constant motion form the state of nature. The state of nature is an inherently dangerous lifestyle, where all members live in a state of constant fear. This fear drives man to consent to a social contract, which establishes a peaceful existence. The social contract is ultimately enforced by the sovereign ruler who uses fear of punishment to ensure man follows the laws created. Man essentially gives up one type of fear for another in an attempt to better human life.…

    • 1304 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    He published a work known as Leviathan, in which he argued that before organized society all humans practiced self-preservation. This basically meant every man for himself under certain conditions. This egotistical view came to terms in a life or death situation. Hobbes knew that even though many people seemed grateful and giving to others, that when it came down to it, man would simply do anything necessary to ensure his own survival. To assist this issue, Mr. Hobbes believed that people made a sort of social contract that eventually formed a state.…

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Neda was a free spirited individual who was against, and even rebelled against the complete government control of Iran who unfortunately lost her life because of it. As the filmed mentioned a few times, she was a rebel. In my eyes she was not a rebel in a negative way, but a rebel in a way that she wanted to be able to show her individuality, her own personal style, and did not want to be under the complete control and dictatorship of the Iranian regime. She stood for independence, individuality, and a free-spirit lifestyle that we are so very fortunate of in this country. She unfortunately lost her life because of her desire for independence as a woman, in my opinion she was assassinated, it was not just a random act of violence that claimed her life but rather a cold blooded murder! I believe that she was targeted! As the film stated she was an extremely beautiful woman, and beautiful woman like Neda are…

    • 952 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes' and Locke's writings center on the definition of the "state of nature" and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and "the state of nature", a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes' Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler's powers. The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists' discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke's description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of "peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation". Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which "teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions," are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke's Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful. At an undetermined point in the history of man, a people, while still in the state of nature, allowed one person to become their leader and judge over controversies. This was first the patriarch of a…

    • 3013 Words
    • 87 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes doctrine the Leviathan based on his social contract theories. As the book was written in the midst of a civil war much of it focuses on the need of a strong central authority to avoid discord and civil war. In his Leviathan Hobbes hypothesizes what life would be like without government, also known as state of nature. In this state each person would have a certain right, or license to all . This would eventually lead to a “bellum omnium contra omnes” or war against all, and people would love solitary, poor, short lives. In order to avoid this he states that man needs to agree to a social contract and establish civil society. Hobbes states that “society is a population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede their natural rights for the sake of protection”. This means that man gives up some of his natural right to the sovereign in exchange for protection and order, and any misuse of this power is to be acknowledged as the price of peace, although in extreme cases rebellion is to be expected. The sovereign is in charge of and must control civil, military, judicial, and ecclesiastical powers. To prove this Hobbes said "If men are naturally in a state of war, why do they always carry arms and why do they have keys to lock their doors? "…

    • 508 Words
    • 3 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
  • 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
  • Good Essays

    William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is one of the most well known tragedies of all time. Two star-crossed lovers, driven apart through the hate between their families, die tragic deaths when they can’t be together. People can interpret the play in countless ways. There have been many versions made throughout the years. Through movies and art form this play has been adapted and changed. In 1997, Baz Luhrmann directs his own modernized version, “Romeo + Juliet”. This movie uses the original text, omitting some parts. Baz Luhrmann puts his own take on the story changing how the viewer sees the play. The modern adaptations in Baz Luhrmann’s version of Romeo and Juliet cause the viewer to have a different perspective on different scenes of the play specifically the prologue, party scene and in the tomb.…

    • 2423 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes, a philosopher who wrote Leviathan, argues that human beings are selfish and therefore need a higher authority appointed to protect them from one another. The similarities between Hobbes’ views of human nature and those of Luther are that they both believe that human beings need an authority figure to stop them from doing evil. Hobbes states in Leviathan that freedom means that human live in a society where “… they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.” This illustrates that human beings are greedy and use violence to get what they want.…

    • 759 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays