Political theory is something that continually requires us to think about the nature of humans, because that is, essentially, what politics is about: people. However, this of course leads to many different theories with nuances regarding the very basic capacities and capabilities of humans and how government ought to be organized in order to best utilize these capacities and capabilities. While there has been a plethora of theory regarding how a government ought to be run, Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan presents the most logical and tangible formation of government that would lead to the most manageable extent of utilitarianism that a government would be able to promote while still celebrating liberty. Although the ends and goals of politics may
…show more content…
While Machiavelli speaks to those who are in power and want to maintain it, Aristotle to those who want to live in their dream worlds, and Freud to those who believe government is nearly futile in the ability to restrict mankind’s most animalistic impulses, Hobbes speaks to those who want nothing more but stability. Using various lines of logos, Hobbes concedes that “the life of man, [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” in the state of nature but has the capacity to be so much more through the structure and formulation of government, which makes his theory the most persuasive (Hobbes 78).
Hobbes is not simply the most persuasive thinker through process of elimination; it is first because of his end goal of politics: security and safety. When he refers to these two abstract concepts, Hobbes does not skimp on explaining to what extent the sovereign is responsible for the people. He notes that by safety he means safety for “all contentments of life… by a general …show more content…
Felicity, as defined by Hobbes, is the endless want of mankind: the desire for one thing that only gets overwhelmed for desire for the next thing after that. Hobbes is not shy about admitting that humankind is rarely satisfied, and this constant dissatisfaction and state of nature does not exactly paint the most appealing picture of humans. Hobbes clarifies, noting, “The desires, and other passions of men, are in themselves no sin” (Hobbes 78). While we may inherently be somewhat violent, Hobbes maintains that our inherent state is not the state that defines us. Hobbes’s argument stems out of his witness of the Protestant Reformation and the English Civil Wars, which brought out the worst in man many had ever seen. Sometimes, this brutality is hidden, but that does not mean humans lose their capability to be cruel—only that during times of peace, this brutality and cruelty can be suppressed. This avoidance of the state of nature is what Hobbes knows government can achieve. Instead of ideally hoping that all humans seek to reach the ultimate good like Aristotle does, Hobbes concedes that humans at their worst want to dissociate and simply associate to prevent fatality. Hobbes may not be optimistic about the basic instinct of human nature, but he does think humans can be much more than their state of nature; he knows that humans can build and grow through
While Machiavelli speaks to those who are in power and want to maintain it, Aristotle to those who want to live in their dream worlds, and Freud to those who believe government is nearly futile in the ability to restrict mankind’s most animalistic impulses, Hobbes speaks to those who want nothing more but stability. Using various lines of logos, Hobbes concedes that “the life of man, [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” in the state of nature but has the capacity to be so much more through the structure and formulation of government, which makes his theory the most persuasive (Hobbes 78).
Hobbes is not simply the most persuasive thinker through process of elimination; it is first because of his end goal of politics: security and safety. When he refers to these two abstract concepts, Hobbes does not skimp on explaining to what extent the sovereign is responsible for the people. He notes that by safety he means safety for “all contentments of life… by a general …show more content…
Felicity, as defined by Hobbes, is the endless want of mankind: the desire for one thing that only gets overwhelmed for desire for the next thing after that. Hobbes is not shy about admitting that humankind is rarely satisfied, and this constant dissatisfaction and state of nature does not exactly paint the most appealing picture of humans. Hobbes clarifies, noting, “The desires, and other passions of men, are in themselves no sin” (Hobbes 78). While we may inherently be somewhat violent, Hobbes maintains that our inherent state is not the state that defines us. Hobbes’s argument stems out of his witness of the Protestant Reformation and the English Civil Wars, which brought out the worst in man many had ever seen. Sometimes, this brutality is hidden, but that does not mean humans lose their capability to be cruel—only that during times of peace, this brutality and cruelty can be suppressed. This avoidance of the state of nature is what Hobbes knows government can achieve. Instead of ideally hoping that all humans seek to reach the ultimate good like Aristotle does, Hobbes concedes that humans at their worst want to dissociate and simply associate to prevent fatality. Hobbes may not be optimistic about the basic instinct of human nature, but he does think humans can be much more than their state of nature; he knows that humans can build and grow through