Leviathan Vs Hobbes

In his work Leviathan, Hobbes likens the state of nature to a state of war, a brutal, continuous conflict ending only in untimely death. He contends that while through reason humanity is able to develop certain laws of nature conducive to peace, human nature is incapable of abiding by such rules. He goes on to suggest that a commonwealth is the solution by which such precepts can be enforced. However, by examining both Hobbes’ argument as well as the objections to his view, one can see how Hobbes’ Leviathan does not sufficiently address the desires which he believes incline people to peace. In order to understand why Hobbes believes that people cannot live peacefully in the absence of government, one must examine his conception of the laws …show more content…
Hobbes suggests that men are inclined to peace, and therefore to the commonwealth by a desire of commodious living, however, as he himself states, the rights and power of the sovereign are seemingly unlimited, and this comes directly at the expense of his subjects(XVIII, 333 - 335). However, taking Hobbes assumptions about the state of nature to be true, the sovereign is subject to the same human passions and desires as all men.. Hobbes envisions a commonwealth as a place where people might pursue knowledge, culture, and innovation that was limited by the instability of the state of nature (XIII, 321). However, to subject oneself to the rule of an erratic sovereign would produce an environment no more hospitable to these pursuits. While Hobbes considers the interests of an absolute monarch most tied to the interests of his subjects, he does nothing to explain further in what way this guarantees commodious living (XIX, 337). History has provided many examples of a monarch living a life of unimaginable indulgence while his people …show more content…
The rights of the sovereign entitle them to many violations of what might be considered essential to security. The sovereign reserve the right to send a subject to almost certain death by war, or even to take a subject’s life themselves (XXI, 339). While Hobbes implies that people have the liberty to disobey, such instances are tantamount to the violence of the state of nature that the commonwealth ought to guard against. It becomes difficult to distinguish between this and the state of nature Hobbes decries as so horrific that we must escape it at all costs. While Hobbes may be able to guarantee a life, he does not guarantee a life that is worth