Natural Law: Philosopher Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

Improved Essays
Student ID: 20388703
Ethics. Dr. Fisher
Natural Laws (Hobbes) - Critical Essay #1

“Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (Hobbes, 78), is how Philosopher Thomas Hobbes would describe his state of nature in his 1651 book, the “The Leviathan”. In Hobbes’ state of nature, also know as the state of war, there consists of no central government. Without this governing body or set of laws, the individuals within this state of nature are competing for scarce resources and resorting to anything as long as it assures them food, shelter, and mates. Individuals will always live in fear in this state of war, scared to progress or enrich their own lives with the fear that they could be killed or have their possessions stolen at any given moment. For
…show more content…
These extreme conditions and casting of individuals to fend for themselves in an all out war makes the state of war an undesirable place to live. Fortunately for these individuals, there are opportunities to guarantee their well-being in this state of nature. Hobbes notes that the social contract theory is an agreement among two individuals within a society built on trust and verbal agreement. Whether this be an agreement to not steal each other 's crops, or stealing money, or even killing each other, social contracts allow individuals to form a bond that will help each other to succeed within their society. Hobbes elaborates by explaining that “he which declares he thinks it reason to deceive those that help him can in reason expect no other means of safety than what can be had from his own single power” (Hobbes, 90). In other words, two individuals would understand that this is in the best interest for the both of them in the long run, since breaking the social contract would make themselves vulnerable to thievery and murder, there is more incentive to abide by the social contract you form, since the benefit of safety and the ability to flourish far outweigh the consequences. Bonds formed by …show more content…
Hobbes’ state of nature is of neutral morality. Since the environment is amoral, only the individuals within it can disrupt this neutrality. Individuals can choose to act immorally by lying, stealing, or committing murder since there is no culture to indicate to them that it is wrong. However, if they choose to not abide by their natural rights, they are prone to the same consequences from the acts they commit. While cultural relativism looks back at the culture to decipher right and wrong, Hobbes’ viewpoint suggests that individuals are right until they commit a crime and then they are deemed wrong. The issue is in a state of nature, we cannot look back to a culture to decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral in a state of war when there are individuals who are not bound by laws or a governing body to oversee them. Additionally, Hobbes would agree that the idea of cultural relativism itself can serve as its own governing body over a culture. It can serve as a set of invisible rules that are followed within cultures when the individuals within them question the morality of an act. Similar to the state of war, social contracts help to anchor the relationships and common interests of individuals. Culture in itself serves as

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    In a Kantian world with moral laws, capital punishment does not seem to be a theoretical solution for punishing murders. But when someone does commit murder those individuals render their rights, and henceforth would acknowledge their action with consequences, such as capital punishment. Jeffrey H. Reiman presents various argument against the use of capital punishment with no adequate evidence of effectiveness. Capital punishment is a reasonable method to punish offenders for crimes committed, and is used for extremes heinous acts; it is also used under great scrutiny. Instead, Jeffrey H. Reimn conveys the notion of any violation of moral duties should be dealt with that same manner to the offender.…

    • 1490 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    No one force them to do an unlawful action; the only one that can is themselves. It essentially ignores the primary deviance and seriously underestimates the influence that other variable have on the person behavior instead, it focus on the future occurrence. The labeling theorists pay too much on the process on the labeling and forgotten the cause of the action. Anyone can try and fight the label that is given to them and redefine themselves. The labeling theory had made it more difficult to compare studies and generalizes finding on why individual committed crime.…

    • 1427 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Once a person finds an unjust law and breaks it, they must “accept the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice…” (King 384). Being punished for a crime, despite being morally innocent, is important for one’s own sense of justice. It is better to receive a punishment than to admit lies that one has not done, otherwise there is no point; therefore, hypocrisy. Thoreau argues that it is important for a person to be aware of unjust laws by thinking for one’s self, and King states that a person must be ready to accept punishment. A person must not blindly obey a law simply because it is from their government, and they must be willing to receive the punishment that is…

    • 853 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    His guidelines to morality allow for a paradoxical course where a seemingly immoral act such as a suicide bomber can completely coincide with ethical principles within the guidelines he has set. The person evil in a case such as this would be a complex evil centered within the self but not realized with the self. The consequences do not matter to Kant. The ability to choose whether or not a person will act on what they know to be morally right and posit that into a universal maxim is the true meaning of freedom according to Kant. And this ability to choose which makes us free also makes us responsible.…

    • 1002 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Does it matter how we protect the lives of the maximum, even if it hurt a minimum? Absolutely not. Finally, what could be done to protect the citizens, could torturing the man lead to their protection even if it is illegal? Yes, torturing the man seems to be completely ethical under the terms of Utilitarianism. This theory specifies what we should do based off of a case to case basis, sometimes it would benefit to torture a person, and sometimes not.…

    • 907 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Individuals will reject the option to offend because they are fearful of the certainty, swiftness and severity of the penalty. General deterrence focuses on overall society and its basic understanding that punishment is the consequence for committing crime. The individuals themselves may not have offended, but understand there are consequences for illegal…

    • 1340 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Given this, would Van Den Haag allow for partial clemency in recognition that Williams was seemingly reformed and doing good works? I believe he would not, especially given the apparent lack of remorse or apology on the part of Williams for the crimes he had committed (as described in the case study from the governor’s denial of clemency). He would view the execution of Williams as the best bet for society in sending a strong statement that murder will never be tolerated or treated less harshly than is warranted, rather than relying on the supposed appeal of Williams’s alleged conversion. Moreover, he would likely say, even if we were wrong in our utilitarian calculus in this regard it would still be giving to Williams nothing more than his just deserts. At the worst, a convicted murderer was forced to suffer the just and moral consequences of his actions.…

    • 877 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Machiavelli's The Prince

    • 400 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Machiavelli hence suggests that it is in the ruler’s best interest to set aside previous beliefs about politics and look at the truth. Through the process of seeking truth, Machiavelli is extremely aware of mankind's shortcomings (Prince, ch.17). Being aware of these failures enables him to see that in order to live a safe life one must embrace these flaws. Thus if someone acts in a “rotten” manner he will likely be feared rather than loved (Prince, ch.17). While being feared might seem unnecessary to some, Machiavelli goes on to note that being loved is a much more dangerous way of life because, love, is held by men who are “wicked”.…

    • 400 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Locke Vs Glaucon Analysis

    • 1219 Words
    • 5 Pages

    So, having presented how two similar starting points lead to very different paths, are there any similarities one can draw from both philosopher's accounts? In Book II of the Republic, Glaucon offers a “social contract” explanation for the nature of justice What men want most is to commit injustices without consequence What men want least is to be subject to injustices without the ability to fight back Justice, as such, is the result of the contracts between men to avoid these extremes (justice as the middle ground). So, for the fear of becoming victims of injustice, and without the ability to be unjust with total impunity, people agree to enter the social contract. Locke’s path to the social contract is somewhat parallel to Glaucon’s proposal.…

    • 1219 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This sovereign power will protect the commonwealth by instituting laws and punishments that hold people accountable for their actions. It is meant to suppress the desires of men by maintaining a threat of fear over them. Punishments are established in order to restrain the ruthless ambition men have when it comes to attaining their wants. In the natural condition there is no “visible power” tied to the “fear of punishment” (106). That is why it is necessary to have a commonwealth, or sovereign authority to force people to uphold the contract.…

    • 1634 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays