In this paper, Thomas Hobbes ' view of society from his book The Leviathan will be discussed as well as challenged. His philosophy is that our human state of nature is ultimately a state of war. His premises, reasoning, and conclusion of this view will be explored in order to better understand his claim. In The Leviathan, Hobbes argues that our state of nature is a state of war. The goal of this book was to prevent Civil War and to show people that any sovereign is better than none at all. What he implies by the state of nature is the state society is in when there is no government, no civil authority, and no legal system. He claims that in this state, there is a constant threat of war. There are three main premises that Hobbes ' discusses.
…show more content…
The point in Hobbes ' argument that I would debate would be the transition from step seven to eight. I do not believe that this claim about the power-lust of some is very concrete. The problem with this claim is that it focuses only on the negative aspects of human nature. It assumes that mankind 's lust for power leads to the overpowering of others. However, in his writing, Hobbes refers to the power-lust of “some”, meaning that not all men lust for power. If this was the case, a state of nature would not result in a state of war. By focusing on the good parts of human nature in those that do not lust for power, the sequence of events may not occur in the way Hobbes claims. If “some” men do not lust for power, they will not be concerned with their status or honor. Therefore, this situation would not result in a state of war. If this flaw was brought to Hobbes ' attention, I do not believe that he would be able to rebut it. The reason being that by saying that only “some” lust for power, he leaves a gap which men could not end up in a state of war. If man does not lust for power, this will not lead to status concern which is the last step leading to the state of war. Because Hobbes uses the term “some” he leaves room for a possible different
The point in Hobbes ' argument that I would debate would be the transition from step seven to eight. I do not believe that this claim about the power-lust of some is very concrete. The problem with this claim is that it focuses only on the negative aspects of human nature. It assumes that mankind 's lust for power leads to the overpowering of others. However, in his writing, Hobbes refers to the power-lust of “some”, meaning that not all men lust for power. If this was the case, a state of nature would not result in a state of war. By focusing on the good parts of human nature in those that do not lust for power, the sequence of events may not occur in the way Hobbes claims. If “some” men do not lust for power, they will not be concerned with their status or honor. Therefore, this situation would not result in a state of war. If this flaw was brought to Hobbes ' attention, I do not believe that he would be able to rebut it. The reason being that by saying that only “some” lust for power, he leaves a gap which men could not end up in a state of war. If man does not lust for power, this will not lead to status concern which is the last step leading to the state of war. Because Hobbes uses the term “some” he leaves room for a possible different