Introduction to Political Thought

Authors Avatar

                                                  Student Number: 452091

  Due Date: Nov 29/04

 Course: GV1700-

 Introduction to Political Thought

Thomas Hobbes

“Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man; [..]in such a condition, there is no place for industry…..no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death. And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”(Wotton, David, “Modern Political Thought” (Cambridge: Hackett Publishing 1996), 171) 

This is how Thomas Hobbes, a well-known 17th century philosopher considers the state of nature to be. He had concluded in many of his works, (especially in Leviathan), that humans were naturally selfish, and constantly in a state of war.

“Again, men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary, a great deal of grief) in keeping company, where there is no power able to aver-aw them all. […] Hereby, it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in aw, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war, as is of every man, against every man.” (Wotton,170). 

He went on to state, that humans want to get out of the state of nature to protect themselves from their evil neighbours. Therefore, every human seeks “self-preservation.” Hobbes gives a solution to humans’ state of nature, and that is to give up our rights to a sovereign; to form a contract with any government to protect us, in exchange for obedience to the sovereign. However, Thomas Hobbes fails to see the inconsistency in his argument. If the state of nature were really as Hobbes depicts it, there would be no way of escaping it, not even through any form of government. There are many points to prove this. Firstly, if everyone is constantly fighting for power, then the question of who will become sovereign will arise, and this would lead to chaos itself, and consequently, back to the state of nature. Secondly, all forms of government have disadvantages in one way or another, where not everyone can function properly, therefore, this too would lead back to the state of nature. If the state of nature were really a state of war, then our lives would be nothing but fear and misery.

          According to Hobbes’ state of nature, human beings will always have a desire for objects for as long as they live. Hobbes goes on to say that because each person desires and believes he has the right to so many objects, people will inevitable come to desire and try to appropriate the same object..  This would also mean that Hobbesian people could not work with one another. This leads to the argument that people would eventually all want to become sovereigns, because they all seek power. It is impossible for people in the state of nature to come under one agreement; and therefore impossible for them to agree on a sovereign, or his powers. Also, John Locke challenges Hobbes’ notion that people’s risks in the state of nature is greater than that under a commonwealth. Locke states:

Join now!

  “..Remember that Absolute Monarchs are but men, and if government is to be the remedy of those evils, which necessarily follow from Mens being judges in their own cases, and the sate of nature is therefore not to be endured, I desire to know what kind of government that is, and how much better it is than the state of nature, where one man commanding a multitude has without the lease liberty to anyone to question or controle those who execute his pleasure?  And in whatsoever he doth, whether led by reason, mistake or passion, must be submitted to? ...

This is a preview of the whole essay