If a man in a Hobbesian State of Nature were presented with the choice of whether to enter into a Hobbesian social contract, would it be in his best interest to do so? In this essay, I will summarize the conditions of both the State of Nature and rule by a Hobbesian sovereign as well as present the benefits and detriments of both states of life. Having presented the facts of the choice, it will be evident that the man in the State of Nature should, according to his best interest, agree to the social contract. The State of Nature which the man is in while being faced with his choice must be made clear before it can be compared to any other state of affairs. The foundational principle on which Hobbes’ entire conception of the State of Nature
…show more content…
The fighting springs from one of three sources: competition, diffidence, or glory. The first of these is the most immediately obvious result of approximate equivalence of strength; people compete over things that they cannot or will not share. If two men, both knowing their strength to be approximately equivalent to the other’s, both desire a resource that cannot be shared, they will both attempt to secure the resource for themselves. As both men strive to secure the resource, competition will ensue and will almost inevitably end in violence (Leviathan, p. 75). The second spring of fighting in the State of Nature, diffidence, is simply the recognition that one is in danger of being killed and his possessions usurped at all times. That recognition causes once sense of self-security to evaporate and this is diffidence. Diffidence causes men in the State of Nature to attack one another out of fear that the other might attempt to usurp their possessions or their life. The final spring of fighting, glory, is the desire that men have to be valued by their fellow men as they value themselves. According to Hobbes, the possession and exercise of power is that which determines a man’s value in the State of Nature, so in order to assert his value a man attacks others (Leviathan, p.
The fighting springs from one of three sources: competition, diffidence, or glory. The first of these is the most immediately obvious result of approximate equivalence of strength; people compete over things that they cannot or will not share. If two men, both knowing their strength to be approximately equivalent to the other’s, both desire a resource that cannot be shared, they will both attempt to secure the resource for themselves. As both men strive to secure the resource, competition will ensue and will almost inevitably end in violence (Leviathan, p. 75). The second spring of fighting in the State of Nature, diffidence, is simply the recognition that one is in danger of being killed and his possessions usurped at all times. That recognition causes once sense of self-security to evaporate and this is diffidence. Diffidence causes men in the State of Nature to attack one another out of fear that the other might attempt to usurp their possessions or their life. The final spring of fighting, glory, is the desire that men have to be valued by their fellow men as they value themselves. According to Hobbes, the possession and exercise of power is that which determines a man’s value in the State of Nature, so in order to assert his value a man attacks others (Leviathan, p.