Explain The Three Flaws Within Thomas Hobbes Ideas

The age of enlightenment was a philosophical peak in history that set a course for the rest of time. Many different ideas were brought about that shaped the way we live to this day, especially here in the states. Two philosophers in particular affected the United States of America; Thomas Hobbes and Tom Locke. Both of these philosophers pasts formed their philosophy and the ideas they had, which affected the government of their time, and our government today.

One his theories, stated in his book called Leviathan said that people are not able rule themselves because of how selfish mankind is and they need to be ruled by an iron fist. His political theory was that was also stated in Leviathan was that we should respect government authority under all circumstances to avoid violence. Hobbes was scared of the outcome of the social contract which meant people could get rid of the government if they were unhappy with what they were getting. In order to make well with the social contract he states in Leviathan that people should be completely obedient to the government. His reasoning was that if there was no government, there would be chaos. Some of Hobbes’ beliefs were even stated in the Declaration of Independence. For instance, his belief that people should give up their rights that lead toward violence, his wanted a government that would allow people to live in peace, and that the government should prevent violence and

Hobbes believed that “it is not possible for people to have both freedom and peace, since the state of freedom is a state of unlimited greed and war.” (Document C). i believe that hobbes is right about how there are many selfish people and if it came down to you or them, who would you choose? It is most likely that one chooses to save themselves because at a certain time it comes down to survival. Hobbes thought that we should have a ruler such as a king or queen because “democracy- allowing citizens to vote for government leaders- would never work. Hobbes believed that without a strong government, people experience continual fear and danger of violent death and lives that are solitary, poor, brutish, and short.” This quote is important because many people who are not ruled usually lead to destruction and mayhem. According to hobbes “appointing a diverse group of representatives to present the problems of the common people to the leviathan. These representatives would only have the power to present opinions, since all final decisions would be made by the leviathan.” i imagine that hobbes presumes that the citizens will take advantage of anyone who is seen as a “good” person, this idea can provide the people with a voice and still be able to make the right

During the 16th and 17th century, Europe went through political disputes regarding government which created uproar and conflict. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes published his document Leviathan during the War of Religion in 1651. The War of Religion was a time period in which Europe was trying to establish its religion between Catholic and Protestant (Huguenot). The Holy Roman Empire in particular had tension about religious beliefs due to the Peace of Augsburg which entailed each ruler to establish a religion for their state, also known as a confession. The Peace of Augsburg also entailed that when a new ruler came into power, they could keep or change the confession of that state and its practices. This caused an uproar in Europe between

According to Rousseau, the best form of government is a direct democracy (Robison), but since Ralph fails to establish this form of government, the result is the boys falling into corruption and total chaos. Rousseau believes that civil society causes humans to become corrupt. His philosophy is centered upon the idea of “the general will,” which reflects society’s interest in a common good (Younkins). But individual desires can conflict with the general will, and civil society can actually damage the desire for a common good (Bertram). The general will in Lord of the Flies is the need to build shelters, establish a civilization, and most importantly keep the fire going with the ultimate purpose of rescue. However, the boys stop caring about these goals and Ralph is not able to unite them.

Political theorists, whether they are realists, or liberalists, over the centuries, have come into conflict over what they believe to be the utmost important task of the state. Hobbes believes the most important task of the state is to ensure law and order, rooting his argument in the idea of a sovereign ruler. On the other hand, Rawls, a modern theorist, firmly believes that a state should focus on realising justice within their society. While a utopian society cannot be achieved by either of these theories, I will highlight why Rawls was right in his assumption that the main focus of a state should be to ensure justice for all within their nation, through analysing and comparing the conflicting arguments of Hobbes and Rawls.

The question of whether man is inherently good or evil has been debated amongst religions, philosophers, and many great thinkers since the beginning of man itself. On one hand, there are those who believe we as humans are naturally moral beings, and it is society that makes us evil. However, others argue society is not only good, but needed to control our inhumane and animalistic tendencies. One of the most famous believers in this theory is English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. In 1954 novel Lord of the Flies, his idea is expanded upon. Set on an uninhabited island, a group of stranded British boys attempt to govern themselves with disastrous results. This essay examines how Thomas Hobbes’s theory of human nature is represented thematically and proved throughout Lord of the Flies by author William Golding.

First of all, the social contract theory, is the view that persons ' moral and political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. This means that in order to live in a good society people must follow established rules and not act on their own natural state.This social contract theory is associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its by Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory. A little bit of background of Thomas Hobbes, he born in 1588 and died in 1679,he also lived during the most crucial period of early modern England 's history. To have a better understanding on the

Thomas Hobbes proposed that the ideal government should be an absolute monarchy as a direct result of experiencing the English Civil War, in which there was internal conflict between the parliamentarians and the royalists. Hobbes made this claim under the assumption that an absolute monarchy would produce consistent policies, reduce conflicts and lower the risk of civil wars due to the singular nature of this ruling system. On another hand, John Locke counters this proposal with the view that absolute monarchies are not legitimate as they are inconsistent with the state of nature. These two diametrically opposed views stem from Hobbes’ and Locke’s different understandings of human nature, namely with regard to power relationships, punishment, and equality in the state of nature. Hobbes’ belief that human beings are selfish and appetitive is antithetical with Locke’s contention that human beings are intrinsically moral even in the state of nature, which results in Locke’s strong disagreement with Hobbes’ proposed absolute monarchy.

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have become known as three of the most prominent political theorists in the world today. Their philosophies and innovative thinking is known worldwide and it has influenced the creation of numerous new governments. All three thinkers agree on the idea of a social contract but their opinions differ on how the social contract is established and implemented within each society. These philosophers state, that in order for the social contract to be successful people need to give up certain freedoms in order to secure fundamental protections from the state, henceforth the state then has certain responsibilities to their citizens. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all believe that before men were governed we all lived in a state of nature. This state of nature was the conditions in which we lived before there were any political governments to rule over us and it described what societies would be like if we had no government at all. In this essay I will compare the opinions given by each philosopher regarding their understanding of the state and the law. I will also discuss how their theories have influenced our understanding of the law today.

Thomas Hobbes has been famous for his philosophies on political and social order. In many of his scholastic works, he maintains the position that in the presence of a higher authority the duty of the rest of mankind is to simply obey. The discourse on this essay will focus on his views expressed in his book The Leviathan. In this book Hobbes’ views are fundamentally entrenched in his description that in a society with no higher authority life would be nasty, short and brutish (?).This essay will engage in discussion by first laying out the conceptual arguments of anarchy and the human state of nature. Secondly, it will assess some of the opponent views to repressive government being the sure maintenance of political and social order. Furthermore an assessment of whether the theories of Hobbes are still relevant to the current understanding of International Relations considering the events and processes in this particular stage.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory of social contract, which states that we need moral, legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short. In this state, a man can kill others, and there are limited resources. This can soon lead to a state of war in which we are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals. So, in this state of war if a person was to possess a beautiful house or property, and had all the comforts, luxuries, and amenities to lead a wonderful life; others could come and harm him and deprive him of his fruit of labor, life, and liberty. Therefore, the state of nature is that of fear, violence, and distrust. There is only constant fear of violence and death, and hence the life of man will be solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short as Hobbes mentions.

Among the famous philosophers and political theorists, both Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes find recognition as the brightest representatives of their eras. It might be said that Machiavelli started a new phase in the development of political science shifting from the ancient idealistic approach to politics to the realistic approach of the modernity. In his work The Prince, the author develops an argument concerning the immorality of the politics and the political power while focusing on the image of a successful ruler. In contrast to this, Hobbes is concerned about the need for establishing of the social order and, in his Leviathan, he explains this idea through the theory of social contract between the people and the government. While

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, two titans of the Enlightenment, work within similar intellectual frameworks in their seminal writings. Hobbes, in Leviathan, postulates a “state of nature” before society developed, using it as a tool to analyze the emergence of governing institutions. Rousseau borrows this conceit in Discourse on Inequality, tracing the development of man from a primitive state to modern society. Hobbes contends that man is equal in conflict during the state of nature and then remains equal under government due to the ruler’s monopoly on authority. Rousseau, meanwhile, believes that man is equal in harmony in the state of nature and then unequal in developed society. Thus, both men would evaluate the statement that “in a legitimate state all men are free and there is no inequality,” differently. Rousseau would mostly disagree, holding that the state itself is the impetus for inequality. Hobbes would largely agree, contending that men are equal both in a primitive state of conflict and under a sovereign’s awesome power. These different responses result from the philosophers’ opposing views on fundamental human nature, civil society’s raison d’etre, and government’s inevitable form.

In Thomas Hobbes’s words, the life of man is, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” He does not hold a high opinion of man’s ability to enjoy life or at least go through it with endurance and perseverance. On the other hand, John Locke had more confidence in human nature. He believed that morality could be approached rather like numbers: obviously and easily. Everyone would know what good meant, just as everyone would know what five or ten meant. The balance of pleasure, or good, should offset the weight of pain, or bad. Even though humans may not be perfectly moral all the time, they could still know the natural moral laws and live by them. Hobbes disagreed. He spoke of the "war of all against all" rather a happy, peaceful society. Hobbes 's view on government was also different than Locke