Compare and contrast the views of human nature, the state and war of any two of the following thinkers: Thomas Hobbes and Thucydides.

His conclusion is chiefly that conflict is let on by human nature. It is a point in which Hobbes agrees with him. Human nature will continuously generate conflict as it “maketh men invade for Gain,… for Saftey and… for reputation”. Thucydides statement agrees in slightly different words that “security, honour and self interest” drives people into conflict. So it is that ambition and the pursuit of glory is the strongest motivation in a human being. In both Hobbes’s world of structural realism and Thucydides depiction of the Peloponnesian War the outcome of this pursuit in a world without regulation is depicted as “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short”. The near continuous warfare in the on the Greek peninsular proves this point. Thucydides’ example shows that humans, when lacking a regulatory system such as a sovereign, will always continue to war against one another. Hobbes also carries this view and describes the act of war not only as the times of active battle but those times in which battle seems possible

“So the nature of War, consisteth not in actuall fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is not assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace”

This focused definition of the war allows the conclusion that “all societies hitherto have existed… in a state of war.” Though Thucydides, as a historian, does not define it so bluntly, he shares the view with Hobbes. His insistence that “The strong do what they have the power to do” implies a constant source of tension as those who are second will always aspire to be first.

Hobbes however has a more optimistic outlook. At a very basic level he assumes that all men are equal. This leads him to conclude that there is a way out of the evil cycle of nature: education. This is the crucial difference between Hobbes and Thucydides. Though both agree that ambition is inherent in human nature and will inevitable cause conflict, only Hobbes points to a path leading away from it. The dilemma of conflict, “all states… will be subject to these fits of rebellion, as long as the world lasteth”, now seems easier to bridge, “Like enough; and yet the fault … may be easier mended by mending the Universities”. It is this education that will be able to “promote rational fear (and) obedience to the state”. In Hobbes’s eyes this means that education will lead to obedience to the sovereign; for total acceptance of the sovereigns rule is the only way to end infighting and therefore conflict, creating ‘eternal peace’.

The state is therefore a centrepiece of Hobbes’ peaceful world, or rather the Leviathan is. It is essential to Hobbes theory that the sovereigns power is absolute and unassailable. He is outside the political system where “no man who has Soveraigne power can justly be put to death, or otherwise in any manner by his subjects punished.” Only if he is sovereign into the last detail can he provide the security that will bring about peace. In effect Hobbes’s theory works two ways, education teaches the populous to be obedient, and in return the Leviathan provides the people with the security that is their strongest desire, and the Leviathans only aim.. There is a “mutuall Relation between Protection and Obedience” and this “has to be set before mens eyes”. In order to achieve this “the people must believe … that the state has right, as well as might, on its side”

Given Thucydides pessimism as to the greedy nature of humans, it is not surprising that he does not share Hobbes view of impact of the state. Though potentially important, it flaws as citizens are prepared to give up long term common goals for short term individual gain, as can be seen in post-Pericles Athens. “Private ambition and private profit” there, “led to policies which were bad both for the Athenians themselves and for their allies”. This, in Thucydides opinion “happens and always will happen while human nature is what it is”. It would continue to undermine the state and doom it to failure. The international system is even more blatantly anarchic. It is, in Hobbes’s words, a war “of every man, against every man”. However, even on this war-torn battlefield Thucydides presents us with some exceptional characters that sound his pessimism in a different light.

The influence of leaders on their troops, the eminence of Pericles and the impact of one man on the discussion of many speak for one of the importance of good leadership and the value of the individual and his morals.

Pericles, for instance, is depicted as a “wise” and “firm” leader under whom “Athens was at her greatest”. None of his successors combined his “brilliance, prudence, and patriotism” and “by quarrelling among themselves began to bring confusion into the policy of the state”. The resulting loss to Sparta shows that Thucydides realised the importance of good leadership, but his portrayal of debates proved that unlike Hobbes he placed the leaders firmly within the system.

This is not only true for the Athenian democracy but also for Sparta where the King’s opinion is disregarded in favour of Stehenclaidas’s more aggressive proposal. This disregard of the sovereign means a rise of the individual. It may be due to the historical nature of Thucydides’ work, but the History of the Peloponnesian War is not a purely structuralist work and does not fail to account for the individual and his morals. This is most visible in the Mytilenian Debate, in which Diodotus changed the course of the debate with an emotional appeal. This also emphasises the point that all people are different which was the original anarchic problem that both Hobbes and Thucydides acknowledged.

This joint recognition is the is the very basis of their agreement. But from there on paths diverge. Whereas Hobbes tries to find optimistic and sometimes idealistic solutions, Thucydides maintains that “Cities and individuals alike, all are by nature disposed to do wrong, and there is no law that will prevent it”. The theorist Hobbes, on the one hand, recognises a vicious circle in the cycle of war, the yearning for peace, security and the renewed struggle for immortality but assumes that the desire for peace is predominant in human nature. Thucydides on the other hand seems to accept that the yearning for peace is always and always will be second to the pursuit of glory to any price.

War therefore is for both Thucydides and Hobbes the state of nature, though Hobbes does try to change this. But his Leviathan seems to leave room only for the very slightest argument and discussion, as even that would be seen to disturb the peace. Peace of that dimension, without even the threat of war or violence seems unimaginable. War has inevitably scarred us and the knowledge of violence an its impact alone is enough to yet again awaken the pursuit of immortality.

“Those who really deserve praise are the people who, while human enough to enjoy power, nevertheless pay more attention to justice than they are compelled to do by their situation”

Bibliography:

• Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. Rex Warner (London, 1954)
• Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, editor: R. Tuck (Cambridge, 1991)
• Michael W. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace (New York/London, 1997)
• Gabriella Slomp, Thomas Hobbes and the Political Philosophy of Glory (London, 2000)
• Charles R. Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton, 1979)
• David Boucher, Political Theory of International Relations (Oxford, 1998)
• Peter J. Ahrensdorf, ‘The Fear of Death and the Longing for Immortality’, American Political Science Review 94 (Sept 2000) page 579ff.
• Michael C. Williams, ‘Hobbes and International Relations’, International Organization 50 (Spring 1996) pages 213-236
• David A. Welch, ‘Why International Relations theorists should Stoop reading Thucydides’, Review of International Studies 29 (2003) pages 301-319

---