Explanation Of Law By Thomas Hobbes

Improved Essays
Hobbes wanted an absolute monarchy, he believed that people were wicked, selfish, and cruel and that they would act on behalf of their best interests, basically that the humans only think in our self’s, “Every man for every man” Hobbes said. But in the other side we have John Locke that he basically wanted a democracy, he said that since we were born we have certain inalienable rights, that are: life, liberty and the right to own property, he also believed that the people were by nature good and that they could be trusted to govern themselves.
Humans constantly need rules, laws and consequences, without them is very easy that people can do what they want. Without the laws the families wouldn’t act like a family there would not be fraternity
…show more content…
So basically the conclusion is that if there were no laws it could be very difficult to have order and to everyone do the correct things, I think we could probably would not follow all the laws and the world would be a mess, because is very difficult to control ourselves, and as Hobbes said it is because we are naturally like this. But a thing that Hobbes and Locke were agree was that “people must give up some of their rights in order to gain protection and the security of basic rights.”
Good and evil are two concepts that the same man created, and with this concepts we can know now what is good and what is bad, what we can do and what we cannot do. So since the time that we are born the society tell us what are the bad things and what are the right things, and with this we are able to know what we are supposed to do and we know that if we do not follow the rules and the laws, not following them could give us consequences. But if we had followed the idea of Locke this could not exist, and I do not imagine a world without this, because for us is easy to break the
…show more content…
We as humans always want to be the first ones, powerful ones, the smartest ones, and in most of the times we do not thing in what other people want or in what is the best for all. Is cruel to say it but most people only think in their selves and as Hobbes said “Every man for every man” ,we are constantly fighting with each other to reach our own goals or what we want, without looking in others necessities or in what other want.
His most basic argument is threefold. (Leviathan, xiii.3-9) (i) He thinks that we will compete, violently compete, to secure the basic necessities of life and perhaps to make other material gains. And that is very true because with no consequences the people will react like this, with no

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes states that “in order to live a more contented life… men must give up their freedom to the State” (Document 2). He believed that people were naturally cruel and needed protection from themselves. Hobbes wanted rule by absolute monarchs. He thought it was the only way to keep people in check. His beliefs closely supported how many people thought back then.…

    • 490 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Philosopher Thomas Hobbes shows a similar theory about the nature of mankind in Leviathan as savage and without morals; however, he advocates for an absolute monarchy, believing that men can be controlled if they willingly give up their power. Other philosophers, John Locke in An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and…

    • 1331 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He also says that defense methods such as war or other methods that justify cruelty must be done. Machiavelli also believes that human nature is greedy and self-interested and that a leader needs to be feared and loved but mostly feared, because fear is consistent with self interest, and that a prince should attend to his own self interests and leaving people alone to keep the nation strong. But Plato's counterclaim to this would be that a ruler can never be just and it is not ok to harm others because that is contradictory to being just. That a ruler can not take actions to far. But because a “Philosopher King” is always seeking knowledge that knowledge would help decide the difference between just and unjust actions.…

    • 707 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Machiavelli believed The Prince should not be just feared, but also loved. However, Machiavelli admits that fear works best for law and order, which is the case here. Hobbes says that a truly free person is one who goes along with the sovereign. However, Hobbes believed that all subjects of a government had the right to overthrow a government that no longer supported them. Hobbes wrote his “Laws of Nature”, which were his recommendations for guidelines for society.…

    • 1312 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Thomas Hobbes believes humans are born evil, their natural instinct is to be envious, violent, and narcissistic, however, by fear and reason, they are capable of preserving peace. On the other hand, John Locke believes humans are mostly peaceful, good, and pleasant, but circumstances can cause people to be violent and war-like. Locke and Hobbes also differed in social contract theories, whereby John Locke believed that all people have rights that need to be protected by a government, yet the people should remain in power; Thomas Hobbes supported the idea that people are all bad, and because of that, an ultimate ruler needs to establish laws that man should abide by. Although these views seem very apples and oranges, there is a huge discrepancy. John Locke promoted the preservation of all human rights, and on several occasions disapproved of slavery, however, it turns out that he actually endorsed it and proposed that people should have absolute power over them.…

    • 1347 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    In my opinion, the proper use of fear is only to use it when it can benefit the multitude. Using fear to create safety and security for everyone are perfect examples of the properly using it in a justified manner. Some skeptics still may perceive using fear to establish and maintain political order in any way as wrongful, but without using it, it would nearly be impossible to escape the “state of nature” as described by Hobbes (69). Basically, the skeptics have to ask themselves would they rather be in a warlike state and face the constant possibility of death or live in a state at peace where they have to fear breaking the rules (Hobbes 69)? I think the answer is quite clear, despite having to sacrifice absolute liberty…

    • 1785 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is understandable that he felt he had no choice but to defy the law. He had real and reasonable concern and suspicion that the new plant would be more harm than good. It is government’s responsibility to submit to the will of the people, not the other way around. When this concept is not followed, it is not the “criminal” to blame but the out-of-line government who forced his…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    The major concern with the general will is the fear that the society will develop into a “tyranny of the majority.” The ideal conditions for the general will would be that everyone acted purely for the common good and possessed a perfect understanding of the issues. If this were true, the general will would theoretically be the unanimous decision of the entire community and the best laws would always be made. But this would clearly be impossible on a national scale; individuals and even the general will are susceptible to error. The majority can mistake what is truly best for the common good and still subject the entire state to its rule. When this happens, the minority, whose opinions are not given enough weight and ignored due to sheer numbers, are forced to conform to the misconceived rulings of the majority.…

    • 1442 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    To an understanding in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality that "the law had to be evaded in a thousand ways; inconveniences and disorders had to multiply continually in order to make them finally give some thought to confiding to private people the dangerous trust of public authority" (Rousseau 59). Although Rousseau's idea of a civil society took some developing, it still landed in the right outcome where equality among the people was the safest way to go, and not letting public authority rule their way of life. If this happened who knows how equality shows; it probably comes across as pure chaos. Ultimately, it goes to show that "unruly men [would] rush headlong into slavery" (Rousseau 59). There would be no protection to their being, they would simply be following Locke's idea of uncertainty where equality is presenting itself as an option.…

    • 1596 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes then argues that humans are “unable to control their desires and the more horrible you are, the more stuff you get, and the more honor you are given” (Rawlings 1-2). This is why Hobbes argues without power outside each individual society will crumble because everyone only looks out for themselves. Hobbes, argues that their needs to be something in society that helps hold a moral code amongst humans or our natural human nature tendencies may lead the society in the wrong…

    • 1219 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays