In Thomas Hobbes Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes introduces a world that has succumbed to lawlessness (anarchy), a world without institutions and enforcement; he calls this the law of nature, and claims that it is the result of human nature. Hobbes believed that people desire peace instead of anarchy. In order to maintain peace, society needs to introduce a social contract or covenant. The contract establishes that there must be a transfer of ones rights to someone else, allowing for the escape of the state of nature. Still, there is no guarantee that the covenant will be followed, and there needs to be someone that is responsible for the transferred rights. To this, Hobbes suggests the use of a sovereign. A sovereign will oversee all people and
…show more content…
Sovereign’s power cannot be forfeited, yet can still be negated via revolution. Hobbes states that the parties of the social contract are man and sovereign. This paper will address the aforementioned points and pursue the weaknesses in Thomas Hobbes’s arguments. Hobbes states “the condition of man is a condition of war of everyone against everyone... every man has the right to everything, even to one another’s body... There can be no security to any man” (I, 80, 4), claiming that the state of nature (result of human nature) entails the survival of the fittest, if one is too weak and unable to protect themselves they will perish. If the world were to maintain this warring lifestyle anarchy would ensue. Hobbes expands on human nature and claims that there are three main principals to this ideal; competition of man, diffidence, and glory. Competition entails man using violence to make themselves masters of wives, children, and cattle. Diffidence pertains to the defense of said things. And glory refers to the trifling of words, opinions, friends, and family, however even with all these ideals people still want peace. Hobbes creates a solution to this problem and names it the social contract. He describes the social contract as the
Sovereign’s power cannot be forfeited, yet can still be negated via revolution. Hobbes states that the parties of the social contract are man and sovereign. This paper will address the aforementioned points and pursue the weaknesses in Thomas Hobbes’s arguments. Hobbes states “the condition of man is a condition of war of everyone against everyone... every man has the right to everything, even to one another’s body... There can be no security to any man” (I, 80, 4), claiming that the state of nature (result of human nature) entails the survival of the fittest, if one is too weak and unable to protect themselves they will perish. If the world were to maintain this warring lifestyle anarchy would ensue. Hobbes expands on human nature and claims that there are three main principals to this ideal; competition of man, diffidence, and glory. Competition entails man using violence to make themselves masters of wives, children, and cattle. Diffidence pertains to the defense of said things. And glory refers to the trifling of words, opinions, friends, and family, however even with all these ideals people still want peace. Hobbes creates a solution to this problem and names it the social contract. He describes the social contract as the