According to Hobbes the most fundamental natural law is to seek peace, “every man should endeavour peace, as farre as he has hope of obtaining it”. Peace in the state of nature cannot be obtained and it is out of this fear that we may begin to look favourably on adapting some form of society. Hobbes describes nineteen laws of nature that would naturally form the framework of a society. The idea of the social contract is developed, “the mutual transferring of rights”. This refers to man relinquishing some of his former rights in order to achieve peace and the golden rule, put into the negative, “do not do onto others what you would not have them do onto you”.
Hobbes holds that “it is impossible to subjugate a man without first having placed him in the position of being unable to do without another.” Thus, the lack of organizational interdependence in primitive society prevents inequality. Similarly, the lawlessness of early society makes conflict impossible: war “can exist neither in the state of nature, where there is no stable property.” Thus, both philosophers consider equality the natural human orientation, but establish equality on radically different terms: Hobbes’s is chaotic and Rousseau’s harmonious. These assumptions inform their considerations of inequality (or lack thereof) within a legitimate
On the other hand, Hobbes claimed that people could not really know what is right or wrong in the society, and thus could only leave well under the supervision of a common master. The approach is strong in that it traces the need to have an authority. It is weak because the disadvantages of each of the approach are not addressed. Of all the political philosophers, Hobbes is presented as the most powerful in grappling with the problems that endured during their time. In this case, Hobbes is seen to advocate for an authority that would determine what the people needed to do.
Then who is the right one? Well, if we were obliged to choose one of them, my suggestion would be for Aristotle, even though Hobbes makes definite, original and precise statements and observations on the manner and attitude of human’s nature. Why I do not prefer Hobbes is that he fails to notice and discern the natural and particular goodness of nature of man. Let’s examine Aristotle’s standpoints, then Hobbes’, and make a finish with comparative
In this essay I will investigate the concept of freedom by offering an analysis of Hobbes’ Leviathan and Machiavelli’s The Discourses, because I want to show what reaction Machiavelli would have had to Hobbes’ proto-liberal definition of liberty as “the absence of external impediments” in order to help the readers understand how Machiavelli would criticize the concept while offering a deeper analysis of it. Thomas Hobbes is one of the biggest supporter of Absolutism and the total supremacy of the State on the individuals. He has lived his life in a climate of absolute insecurity and lack of certainty. That is why he wanted to completely reform the human way of thinking. His main goal was that of giving the geometrical strictness to politics
Intrinsically, this theory does not perceive other purposes or obligations to deliver more resource or salary to people that need most of resources and to the people that deserve most of resources. Utilitarianist especially pay attention for doing best things that create happines in whole society. However, utilitarianism largely prefer a specific distributive action. For example, they give priority to decrease wealth of rich people for delivering it to the poor people - distribution of goods or resource. Furthermore, in companies, utilitariansts can prefer to take away the salary of board of directors for expanding salary of permanent workers of the company.
Rule utilitarian’s believe that they must obey the rules and must have a moral code in order to fulfill and maximize happiness and pleasure. Meaning that rules and laws that produce better results should be enforced. Rule utilitarianism focuses on the deontological theories, meaning that their principle is that we as human beings should not do evil, and should be optimistic and that the good will follow after that. This type of theory focuses on the rules and duties that the individual must use in order to reach the greater happiness and pleasure. In addition, rule utilitarianism has adapted a couple of outlooks that emphasize the importance of the moral code after the action has been committed.
Thomas Hobbes also had a significant impact on political thought (Sorell, 1996). For example these ideas that the people were selfish and brutal and also his ideas regarding the role of government and resulted in more investigations by other philosophers like John Locke. After the Revolution, the ideas of Thomas Hobbes also had considerable impact on Federalists in their arguments to adopt the Constitution (Hobbes, 1986). Hobbes believed that all the people should have equal rights and therefore no person should have more power as compared to others (apart from the King, who should have absolute power). As a result of the ideas of Hobbes, it was believed that the people cannot survive if a strong central government is not present to protect them.
Hobbes argues that men are created generally equal, and it is from this equality that flows distrust, as from equality in being “ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies.” From distrust “there is no way for any man to secure himself, so reasonable, as anticipation” and thus flows the essential belief in a brutal state of nature, that is a state of war of all against all. Hobbes believes this state of war occurs not only during times of battle, but when “men live without a common power to keep them all in awe.” Hobbes believes that in this state of war, among other things, “there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building...” Hobbes then advances the framework by making the logical leap that in such a state, of war footing and actual war, “nothing can be unjust.” As “where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice.” Finally, a state of nature results in a “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” human existence, and it is from this ultimately greatest evil, that a Leviathan is thought to be justified within Hobbesian political theory, and men, equal and free
The republic is an enquiry into the nature of justice. This required redesigning the polis from first principles. Plato argued that truly good conduct and the truly good state have to be based on true knowledge of things in themselves; that is, of the forms or ideas that underlie the world of appearances. Plato seems to have had an unlimited faith in the power of the mind. Plato was looking at justice starting from the individual and then, to make things clearer, in the state.