The Criticism Of Thomas Hobbes Leviathon

Improved Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes refutes Machiavelli’s arguments concerning an ideal prince by arguing against Machiavelli’s rejection of natural law, his subsequent alteration of justice, and his misapplication of the good life. Hobbes begins by refuting Machiavelli’s rejection of natural law. While both men cite the nature of man as violent whether in acquisition through force, or a standing disposition of war, Hobbes argues that this bent of men stands in opposition to natural law. While men remain independent sovereigns forever entangled in war, “nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place,” In war, every man has a right to everything, thus destroying any hope of security.…

    • 1056 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    They will continue to do as they please because they do not have consequences to impede their actions. There is no higher power or authority to keep men accountable. The absence of consequences is the very reason why the natural condition contains violence “for amongst masterless men, there is perpetual war” (140). A commonwealth in this term serves as protection for men who concede their powers for the sake of the contract. It is through the commonwealth where men are liberated from the natural condition and into a state of…

    • 1634 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He believes that without cultural motives such as laws, holiness, and profit, people have a basic human nature to act virtuously. On the contrary Machiavelli believes that humans have little morality and a malevolent nature. He states “for men forget more quickly the death of their father then than the loss of their patrimony.”(Machiavelli 228) this exemplifies his perceived shallowness of the human mind, and their obsession with wealth and possessions, over their emotions. This is exceedingly evident throughout his writings on governing, he implies the vice of the human race citing the need for many laws and regulations to keep the people's perceived malicious intents in check. Machiavelli and Lao-tzu had very different ideas about what it takes to be a successful leader.…

    • 1097 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Thus if one agrees with the condition of life in the state of nature, they would also come to the conclusion that a powerful person is needed in order to ensure peace and just civilization. It is also evident that humans in the state of nature are aggressive and selfish, creating a need for a sovereign who can lead them to peace. Hobbes states, “Where there is no common power, there is no law, no injustice” (Bailey and Martin, 181), so if there is no injustice there is no civilization. This means a powerful leader is required in order to create laws and mold what is unjust and just, allowing for peace, civilization and less chaos. Due to the conditions of the state of nature, man will consent to this power, as all human’s desire self-preservation, thus making an all powerful sovereign the proper solution.…

    • 1240 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes, in contrast, was pessimistic and believed that men are naturally selfish and are always looking out for just themselves. Locke also did not agree with Hobbes that man needs to give up complete control of himself to the government. Hobbes believed that the government needs to be in control so that men could be protected from each other. Locke believed that a government needs to be in control so that men could protect their natural rights. More differed from both Locke and Hobbes in that he was motivated by religious…

    • 849 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This is due to a lack of some common power that is so great, it can keep everyone else in a state of awe and perplexity. Reason, in this state, suggests a contract to reach peace, mainly because of a fear of death. By the contract, individuals invest all the powers and rights in an absolute sovereign. The only right they hold for themselves is the right to preserve their own lives. Now from the intention to the actual formation of a Commonwealth is a question about the laws of nature: What is the law of nature according to Hobbes and why is it rational to follow it?…

    • 1573 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Machiavellian rulers are normally seen as even more totalitarian and controlling than Hobbesian style (this probably stems from Machiavelli's idea that one of the best ways to establish a state is by force), which would undoubtedly hinder any efforts to establish a Machiavellian government in any sort of Western context. However, as previously stated, Machiavelli encourages his Prince to use violence and power to establish his rule, meaning that while the Prince might face initial resistance, if he were to squash it quickly, he could be successful despite the initial threats to his power. This sort of show of force would also discourage neighboring nations from interfering in domestic affairs (the Prince has shown them that it is in their self interest to not upset the nation with the strong and powerful army, whereas the nation that has elected a seemingly terrible leader does not wield the same sort of power or cause the same sort of fear). It then follows that if a society ruled by Machiavelli's sort of Prince were established, the use of manipulation and reputation that Machiavelli encouraged could undoubtedly help to maintain peace and calm (just as the similar characteristics that an all-powerful ruler maintains would assist one who ruled in the style of Hobbes's Leviathan). All in all, Machiavelli's tactics of fear are much more effective than any sort of trust or love that an…

    • 1758 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    By making a clear distinction between being a ‘good person’ and a ‘good leader’, Machiavelli contends that effective rulers must occasionally commit morally loathsome acts to ensure the stability of their rule and kingdom. Central to this argument is the notion that is justifiable for leaders to engage in ‘carefully calibrated uses of force in the short-term’ if it is motivated by a desire to prevent worse alternatives in the long-term such as political turmoil or civil war. Furthermore, by condemning human nature as being inherently wicked and devious, Machiavelli is ultimately led to a belief that ‘only the coercive power of the state could repress humanity’s worst instincts’. To demonstrate this phenomenon, Machiavelli in his magnum opus ‘The Prince’ refers to the onetime ruler of Florence, Girolamo Savonarola, to illustrate that tender hearted governance is often counterproductive towards achieving prosperity and freedom for society. Savonarola, who incorporated Christian values of equality and altruism into his political agenda in an attempt to purge Florence of its moral transgressions, was quickly deposed and executed after a short reign of less than four years by the ruthless Pope Alexander VI who viewed Savonarola as a dangerous rival.…

    • 1857 Words
    • 8 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
  • Improved Essays

    John Locke, on the other hand, takes a whole different viewpoint concerning the state of nature, and thus takes a differing viewpoint on how man and government should interact. Locke 's idea of the State of Nature is more that everyone is equal.. "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possesions and persons, as they think fit.." (p 80). Locke does not share Hobbes 's idea that men, left to their own devices, would be vicious and contemptable to one another. And this directly affects his ideals of social organization. To tie this…

    • 1081 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays