The Leviathon was written as a political fiction establishing the notion of a political community, establishing itself coherently with the social contract argument, which is “a clear device that connects three aspects of political theory: a specific view of human nature… of problems that would arise in the absence of political authority … of government best suited to solve such problems” . Hobbes addresses all three, which we will see by answering the problematique: How does Hobbes justify sacrificing individual liberty to be under the rule of an absolute sovereign, specifically that of a monarch? We shall explore why man chooses to leave the state of nature, which easily becomes a state of war, since the state of nature is a state of perpetual
…show more content…
He believed it essential to base his political philosophy on this conviction . By depicting the state of nature in a descriptive, rather than normative way, Hobbes shows that there is nothing unusual about the passions that drive man towards war against man. This happens because man seeks self-preservation, which requires attaining resources. However, “everyone is governed by his own reason and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies ”, proves this to be problematic since without a common power, man is then his own lawmaker and judge. This entails inevitable conflict when resources become scarce, shown on p. 82, rejecting Aristotle’s idea of man as a social animal, men caring more about conquest than community, according to Hobbes. Contrary to Aristotle, the purpose of government for Hobbes is security instead of virtue; therefore, government is born out of people’s desire for self-preservation. This demonstrates how Hobbes uses security as a form of liberty, in lieu of Machiavellian republican liberty …show more content…
It is due to man’s tendency to compete, act diffident and seek glory in his natural state that this state often leads to war , more so without a common power to keep men in place . One can argue that Hobbes over-emphasizes the dreadfulness of the state of nature to prove that rational individuals are willing to relinquish certain liberties to obtain the security provided by a Commonwealth, be it one with absolute power. His pessimistic view on people in the state of nature is contrary to that of Locke, who believes that subjects are equal in the state of nature not because anyone is capable of killing anyone, rather because no one is subject to any higher
He believed it essential to base his political philosophy on this conviction . By depicting the state of nature in a descriptive, rather than normative way, Hobbes shows that there is nothing unusual about the passions that drive man towards war against man. This happens because man seeks self-preservation, which requires attaining resources. However, “everyone is governed by his own reason and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies ”, proves this to be problematic since without a common power, man is then his own lawmaker and judge. This entails inevitable conflict when resources become scarce, shown on p. 82, rejecting Aristotle’s idea of man as a social animal, men caring more about conquest than community, according to Hobbes. Contrary to Aristotle, the purpose of government for Hobbes is security instead of virtue; therefore, government is born out of people’s desire for self-preservation. This demonstrates how Hobbes uses security as a form of liberty, in lieu of Machiavellian republican liberty …show more content…
It is due to man’s tendency to compete, act diffident and seek glory in his natural state that this state often leads to war , more so without a common power to keep men in place . One can argue that Hobbes over-emphasizes the dreadfulness of the state of nature to prove that rational individuals are willing to relinquish certain liberties to obtain the security provided by a Commonwealth, be it one with absolute power. His pessimistic view on people in the state of nature is contrary to that of Locke, who believes that subjects are equal in the state of nature not because anyone is capable of killing anyone, rather because no one is subject to any higher