Preview

Thomas Hobbes Human Nature

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1490 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Thomas Hobbes Human Nature
Hobbes: Human Nature and Political Theory

Thomas Hobbes writes in his 1651 masterpiece Leviathan of his interpretations of the inherent qualities of mankind, and the covenants through which they enter in order to secure a peaceful existence. His book is divided up into two separate sections; Of Man, in which Hobbes describes characteristics of humans coexisting without the protection of a superior earthly authority, and Of Commonwealth, which explains how humans trapped in that primal ‘state of nature' may escape and, through agreements, be able to live peaceably among one another without fear of unjust actions being taken against them. I too will discuss these elements of society as Hobbes intended them to be, with special emphasis
…show more content…
The first is competition, which makes people invade for their personal gain. The second is diffidence (distrust) which makes people invade out of fear; a mutual sense of insecurity forces one to anticipate an attack from someone they cannot trust (who likewise feels the same way), so pre-emptive measures are taken. This makes sense because one renders it better to be a surprisor, and not a surprisee, since being surprised meant an almost certain death. The last cause of conflict is glory, which makes people invade others for their own merit. Knowing these sources of problems, Hobbes then declares; "Hereby it is manifest, 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 if of every man, against every man." (Leviathan, Pt. I Ch. 13) Therefore, at this point it is safe to conclude that human nature in this sense is essentially dangerous and evil. However, assuming that all humans are rational individuals, Hobbes believes that mankind would naturally want to escape this hellish state of existence and live under agreements that ensure the rational causes of quarrel could be avoided (albeit the third cause of quarrel, glory, is noted as an irrational cause of conflict). By establishing a commonwealth, contends Hobbes, we essentially remove the …show more content…
But Hobbes' response is rather simple; for it is "the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as hath been shown, to the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants." (Leviathan, Pt. 2 Ch. 17) What he is saying is that rational individuals would understand that life under a common authority would allow for better means of self-preservation, because it creates an entity that can punish people who do not play by the game fairly. Also, people would be unable to rely on their individual autonomous powers in the effort to secure livelihood and happiness. Hobbes calls the necessary central authority the Sovereign (the institutional embodiment of an orderly government), and those over whom it presides are the Subjects.
Thus, Hobbes' perception of human nature led him to develop his vision of an ideal form of rule that would govern these autonomous individuals. He believed that a sovereign power was required to keep men united, who would work to maintain the peace among the people as well

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

    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

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two of the great political theorists of their time. They both provided wonderful philosophical texts on how our government should govern us. This paper will show the largest differences and some of the similarities between Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. Although they do have some similarities, Hobbes and Locke have different views on most of their political arguments, and I will expand on their differences on the state of nature, government, and social contract.…

    • 841 Words
    • 3 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

    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
  • Good Essays

    In Hobbes’ mind humans are naturally violent and need to control to avoid any outbursts which would destroy social order (63). People with this thought process saw that the body in power should have complete authority over their subjects with no restraint on their power and no one being able to remove them from their throne. This however is setting a kingdom up for failure as even though some people can be prone to violence, oppressing them with a monarch that controls them too harshly or that are disinterested in ruing a kingdom can cause an even more violent uprising which is displayed in the French revolution. Nonetheless, having a government body put in power is necessary as humans do require leadership and social order but that same government body must be held accountable if there are caught doing any wrongdoings that could severely hinder the progress of the community or create arduous situations to their…

    • 1100 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Joseph Butler (1692-1752) hold contrasting views on how to build a human society. For Hobbes the most important issue is to achieve and maintain peace, and points out, that men ought to give up their natural rights and transfer them to a sovereign. For Butler the best way is to follow the rules of God which are already inside of every man’s soul. The two both start with an account of human nature: Hobbes notes that it is lead by appetites and aversions and results in selfish individuals; Butler argues that man is born to virtue, so that every human being is naturally benevolent and has an inborn motivation to love and help others. In the pages that follow I shall refer to different arguments by Hobbes and Butler to understand each other’s conceptions on human society.…

    • 1632 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Contributions of Hobbes include the recognition of the existence of the individual and individual rights along with the concepts of rationality, self-interest, competitiveness, and calculation as individual attributes. Adams and Sydie also point out (p. 14) that Hobbes did not consider the ruler or monarch to be ordained by God (as monarchs often claimed in the divine right of kings) or some external force, but by the people themselves since "authority is given by the subjects themselves." This is important in the development of ideas of political democracy in western Europe and North America.…

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan expressed his views of how the government should run the people they governed. Leviathan stated that the people should hand over their rights to one strong ruler. He believed that all humans were all naturally selfish and wicked and by having a ruler to have complete control over them, they will gain order and obedience. Thomas believed that without a strong ruler, people will constantly have war with one another and life would be “poor and short.” Hobbes called this agreement by which people created this type of government the “social contract”. In short, Hobbes believed that the best type of government was an absolute monarchy, which will impose order and demand obedience; a “sea monster” type of ruler to control the wicked people.…

    • 478 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    “according to Hobbes, is born political society. For the past 300 years, we have told ourselves a story in which humanity is a collection of rational self-seeking individuals; that society is the conflict of interests; that those conflicts are resolved by a central power given legitimacy by a social contract in which individuals recognize that it is in their interest to yield up part of their unfettered freedom; and that governments have emerged as the source of power through which conflicts are mediated.” (Hobbes, T., & Gaskin, J. C. A. (1998). Leviathan. Opposing Viewpoints.)…

    • 354 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good 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

    Hobbes Vs Bossuet

    • 793 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Where Bossuet uses religion to support his theory, Hobbes uses a secular approach, rejecting traditional views of the Divine Right of Kings, with logical arguments. Hobbes provides a secular justification for what he calls the state of nature, a metaphorical period before a government was established that was characterized by chaos. In this state, Hobbes states three principle causes of why man cannot live without misery and violence: competition for gain, diffidence for safety, and glory for reputation (6). This constant battle between man subsequently opens Pandora’s box, unleashing hatred and resulting in war. Hobbes states, “Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war […] and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (6). The natural, yet chaotic behavioral cycle of man, Hobbes stresses, will continue to cause conflict without the presence of a strong government.…

    • 793 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    I have researched on question no.8. The claim of Hobbes that natural law and our natural inclinations cannot bring us to agreement, peace and security without the institution of a sovereign. Why is agreement not enough to maintain a multitude? Why is the institution of a sovereign necessary?…

    • 403 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays