Recounted in Wootton’s edition of “Modern Political Thought” (2008), Hobbes’ “Leviathan” makes an argument for statehood premised in the social contract theory. In his examination of people (or “men”, as he solely refers to), Hobbes formulates the conflict that derives from the intrinsic “nature of man” (Wootton, 2008, p. 158). Primarily, Hobbes argues that there are three principal sources of conflict in the state of nature: competition, diffidence, and glory. As a result of these conditions, Hobbes states:
Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against ever man (Wootton, 2008, p. 159).
In other words, Hobbes argues that human nature, based on these three principles, is inherently conflictual and therefore require a greater power – the state – to control them. Furthermore, this nature of man is pervasive and generates enough conflict that it compels individuals to leave the chaotic …show more content…
As such, Nowak (2012) argues that throughout the history of mankind, human’s capacity for cooperation has prevailed, even though there are periods of instability in which defection succeeds. From a macro-level examination of evolution, Nowak argues that despite the unstable nature of cooperation, altruism predominates, and therefore cooperation is a defining feature of humans. With this considered, Nowak’s view contrasts starkly against Hobbes with Nowak arguing cooperation as an intrinsic part of human nature, whereas Hobbes argues that cooperation is only possible in not just any state, but an absolute sovereign
Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against ever man (Wootton, 2008, p. 159).
In other words, Hobbes argues that human nature, based on these three principles, is inherently conflictual and therefore require a greater power – the state – to control them. Furthermore, this nature of man is pervasive and generates enough conflict that it compels individuals to leave the chaotic …show more content…
As such, Nowak (2012) argues that throughout the history of mankind, human’s capacity for cooperation has prevailed, even though there are periods of instability in which defection succeeds. From a macro-level examination of evolution, Nowak argues that despite the unstable nature of cooperation, altruism predominates, and therefore cooperation is a defining feature of humans. With this considered, Nowak’s view contrasts starkly against Hobbes with Nowak arguing cooperation as an intrinsic part of human nature, whereas Hobbes argues that cooperation is only possible in not just any state, but an absolute sovereign