Preview

Pros And Cons Of Hobbes

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
820 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Pros And Cons Of Hobbes
The “State of Nature” in this post-9/11 21st Century America is one of self-induced fear, not by the US citizens but by our president. With constant reminders of terrorist threats against the US, as well as the constant state of high alert, the president has placed Americans in a tough place. US citizens are in constant fear and are looking to their government for protection. This idea stems back to the writings of Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes critiques the effects of government, or as lack there of, on man and society.

Hobbes first describes man’s state of nature, in which he states that all men are by nature equal in their strengths as well as their minds. He states that even “the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger as himself” (Hobbes, 1). This state of equality, however, creates considerable conflict between man because it leads people to seek power. He said ‘if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (1), at this point the men
…show more content…
This world invokes fear in his readers in order to convince them that a central government is necessary. Hobbes states that “the passions that incline men to peace are: fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them” (3).Bush uses that insecurity to justify his own ideas for government. President Bush believes that without the correct government in place can cause the same results to occur. He uses this idea that government can control people’s actions and protect them as well to instill fear into the hearts of Americans. We will in turn seek the protection of the government, therefore, confirming the ideas presented in Hobbes’ Leviathan. Americans are focused only self-preservation, so because of this we live in constant fear for our

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • 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
  • 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

    Pros And Cons Of Bill C-51

    • 1496 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Primarily, it can lead to the abuse of power from the Government or the involved parties due to the obscure wording of this bill. John Locke claimed that Liberals believed that while Governments can protect individuals, they can pose a threat to liberty, and is at best a “necessary evil”. But in terms of enacting Bill C-51, is it really necessary? While critics may use Hobbes’ claim that superior use of power through the government is crucial and argue that protection is more important since one cannot be free if they are not protected from others, Friedman’s view on governments counters this claim. When the power of the government is increased, the “Leviathan” starts to show. The Leviathan in short sets forth these principles of authority, sovereignty and how they are absolutely crucial for preserving peace. But…

    • 1496 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Freedom from Summary

    • 328 Words
    • 2 Pages

    She states that another beneficial aspect of freedom is our “effective government” and speaker one argues that government is the reason he is safe and sound because if there was no superior power to make and enforce rules, everything would crumble. The best type of government is that which meddles the least amount possible in its people’s lives (Lappe, 510). According to the speaker, the people believe government needs to be minimized to an extent. Everyone assumes so much from the government, and then complain when they think there’s too much power over us argues speaker one. Government shouldn’t intervene with a person’s choices and if it does, it is taking our freedom away (“Freedom From and Freedom To”). Speaker one claims although this superior law is there to protect us, it cannot stop all forms of detriment. There has to be a boundary on how much government is allowed to take over, which means “less responsibilities” (“Lappe, 511) In order for the nation to be ultimately free, the people need to stop relying on government to take on so much responsibility claims speaker one.…

    • 328 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In his 1651 Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes observed that without government, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Justify his argument. With this justification, justify the existence of government as it presently operates in the United States today.…

    • 1200 Words
    • 5 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

    “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 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
  • Powerful Essays

    After the twin towers fell and condensed to rubble on September 11, 2001, the Bush administration quickly formulated a plan to maintain the nation’s sense of national safety and security. John Lewis Gaddis summarized the administration’s directions to the public when he wrote, “Bush requested, and only partially received, what amounted to a global police action against terrorism, combined with a call for vigilance at home and abroad, combined with the suggestion that, despite what had happened, Americans should carry on with their ordinary lives” (Gaddis at 37). The citizens were to follow the example of former British politician Sir Winston Churchill; Bush believed the nation would best react to the crisis by applying Churchill’s words to their lives- the nation need to “keep calm and carry on” (Gale Biography In Context) while the administration began gathering intelligence and plotting their retaliation. In contrast to average citizens, Bush outlined what was later named The Bush Doctrine which said, “that the United States will identify and eliminate terrorists wherever they are, together with the regimes that sustain them” (Gaddis at 86). This meant the focus of the nation now weighed equally on the defensive and offensive sides of the scale. The Bush Doctrine outlines three core principles: preemption, unilateralism, and hegemony (Gaddis at 16, 22, 16). The United States has historically maintained defense for its people by eliminating or containing possible threats and if a threat becomes a reality, the nation retaliates, as it did following the bombing of Pearl Harbor. After 9/11, the government gained the authority to use surveillance and monitor communication through phones and the internet in order to avoid any other attacks of the same nature. In addition, “The administration also detained more than 600 possible suspects and announced it might use military tribunals to try alleged foreign terrorists” (Masci and Marshall). Despite the numerous…

    • 1813 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Locke vs Hobbes

    • 4270 Words
    • 18 Pages

    The concept of human security, which has had a crucial place in human's societal history, has been argued over by many great philosophers throughout mankind’s existence. Two pioneer thinkers of political philosophy, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, theorized state of nature typologies, which are the core of social contract theory, and created a concept of modern security, even in the 17th century. Hobbes created a contract entrusting absolute power to the sovereign, which thrived off of the individual's duty and responsibilities to the government. Contrary to Hobbes, Locke recognized the secure relationship between individuals' rights and liberties and the role of the sovereign. These two philosophers revolutionized liberal thinking in the height of the enlightenment age in which many philosophers questioned and argued over the relationship between the state and the individual. Hobbes and Locke, two brilliant thinkers, are notorious for being the founders of social contract liberalism. Before one can look at each philosopher’s social contract, we must first define what separated their thinking from the standard at that time, and what actually made them liberal thinkers. There had been one way of thinking in governmental rule for thousands of years which had been formed around the tyrannical ideals of hereditary privilege, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. These governmental ideals, which extremely lacked rights for the individual, had been spread all over the world for thousands of years and throughout many empires. What made Locke and Hobbes such liberal thinkers, was their ideas of a mutual relationship between the individual and the state. This was a mutual contract in which both parties had an agreement where they could coincide, benefit, and enforce the liberal ideals of liberty, equality, and justice. Now one must dive into both philosophers proposed social contract, to get a…

    • 4270 Words
    • 18 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    This phrase of Hobbes can be seen as a summary of all his views on man as a moral agent in building a peaceful society. In his definition of ‘deliberation’ as ‘the whole sum of desires, aversions, hopes and fears’, we can find two important features: (1) deliberation and reason are not equivalent, and (2) deliberation is not an exclusive faculty…

    • 1632 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes Vs Mill

    • 1168 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Hobbes offers support to his claim that nature makes men apt to fight one another, by showing how people act in their own self-interest. When people act in their own self-interest they look to preserve their own life. Hobbes believes in his definition of nature that man must use their own virtues of protection to ultimately preserve themselves. The way Hobbes describes the motivation is quite simple. For instance, in modern society, one may still lock our homes regardless if it is a perfectly safe area – this is due to Hobbes’ concept of, “self-preservation.” Nevertheless, the root of these actions is actually…

    • 1168 Words
    • 5 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

    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
  • Good Essays

    These two factors, which Hobbes saw as the primary responsibility of government, would allow us to come together and cooperate socially as well as economically . Hobbes concluded that men by way of beginning were equal in intelligence however it is the want for having the equal thing which made them quarrel with one a different. Men will by no means quarrel with one an extra if they don't seem to be willing to get one and the identical factor. He believed that competition, glory, and difference make humans bimetal and quarrelsome. It's an uncontrolled desire of human beings that transformed the entire concept of basic ideas of the society.…

    • 682 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays