Compare Aristotle’s Claim that Man is a ‘Political Animal’ with Hobbe’s Claim that the State of Nature is a State of War.
Noah Park Ever since the existence of a civilization, the fundamental question of how and why; to identify and explain the human’s nature and how man is ought to live, has been the key element in philosophical world. Many philosophers provided and made public of how they viewed this world as, and the human in it, and experimented themselves with their approaches, however, no philosophers could possibly bring forth the same views as other philosophers nor yield an answer which do not leave a sense of doubt in our mind. None of the theories were incorrect, but none of them were right in the sense that even two
…show more content…
Hobbes argues that as a rational creature, we can all agree to lay down our rights and desire on the condition that others too will lay down their rights. Hobbes refers this as a ‘law of nature’ (SEP, 2008). He states, “A percept of a general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life or takes away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved…” (Leviathan, XIV). So, human will now develop the concept of justice and injustice which is whether or not to keep the sets of rules made within a community or not. However Hobbes claims this is not enough to maintain a civil society (SEP, 2008). “Bonds, by which men are bound and obliged: Bonds, that have their strength not from their own nature, (for nothing is more easily broken than a mans word,) but from feare of some evil consequence…” (Leviathan, XIV), therefore a need to establish an authority that can enforce the agreements becomes the main discussion of Hobbes’ theory which he calls to ‘contract out’. He calls this the ‘the very essence of the government’; for the purpose of people’s safety, we lay down our rights and obey to the authority in order for protection, thus we form a common-power which can bind ourselves rationally, to guarantee the sets of rules made to