For instance, Hobbes states that “he hath the use of so much Power and Strength 1881 conferred on him” (227) This refers to the sovereign power who the individuals, as a nation, unify their wills allowing for all the power to be given upon one man. The sovereign has many responsibilities towards his subjects ranging from the protection of his people, the education of individuals regarding property and lastly, the creation and application of the law in an equal manner. (229) Even though the sovereign is considered very essential for the wellbeing of his subjects, Hobbes does not allow his subjects any rights to defend themselves against the sovereign, even if he was careless and inconsiderate, creating a sovereign power that is above the law. In Locke’s case, he does not believe in one sovereign power. Instead, he believes that all humans are born both free and equal, in which individuals in the society are governed by natural law.
He believes that without these contracts, man would be in a constant state of civil war. The contracts ensure that peace can be established between men with security of survival. Hobbes says that, “it is a contract, wherein one recieveth the benefit of life” (133). To put these contracts in effect, “one must give up [their] right of governing [oneself], to this man, or to this assembly of men” (158). Having a sovereign ensures the safety and security of all men through a “coercive power to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants by the terror of some punishment greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenant” (137).
Commonwealth for Self-Preservation In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes forefronts the fundamental problem of human nature as war. Through examining sense, the fundamental building block of human consciousness, he argues that humans experience sense differently because they have different bodies. Since sense structures man’s motivational framework and behavior, differing sensory experiences mean people have no common understanding of what is desirable beyond self-preservation, which Hobbes equates to preservation of nature. War naturally arises when people are not in alignment because there are conflicting methods to attain conflicting goals in a world with finite resources. War is contrary to man’s most fundamental passion of self-preservation, so
Locke stands firm in the belief that people can incite a revolution against their government when it begins to work against what is in the best interest of the populace (Locke, p. 112). He places limits on these actions - such as what a conqueror is entitled to and what would justify as tyrannical behavior - but still justifies the right to instigate a shift political power. On the other hand, Hobbes finds private discourse against one’s sovereign to a disease (p. 197). He finds contempt in the populace under the sovereign, noting that most of were incapable of understanding the inner mechanisms powering the sovereign (p. 207). By deeming the collective population incompetent and likening their anti-governmental chatter to a plague, it is not a reach to assume Hobbes would not prescribe a right to revolution.
Building on the previous point made about his perception of human passions being the main tool in the decision making process, Hobbes argues that individuals’ decision to enter society and ensure security is based on the ultimate aversion. It is more predominant than the ultimate appetite, so the fear of death is greater than the greed for power and a social contract is made where all men lose some of their individual power and submit their rights to the sovereign who therefore has the ultimate power in the society. This vast amount of power given to him by the people is very effective in making laws by which he doesn’t abide. In a society, everyone has to only obey and fear the sovereign now, which provides security to the people by protecting them from each other and creating a sense of trust among them. Since all decisions are made by one sovereign, this kind of structure enables immediate decision making and resembles an absolute monarchy, the most effective government regime according to
He supports his argument with Hobbes’ view, who also sees ‘limitations upon the lawful authority of the Sovereign’ and Hobbes further sees the protection of the subject as a requirement for the sovereign’s qualification. (Pierson, 2011, pp. 11-12;
The state of nature is the condition under which man lived prior to the formation of state, where no person possesses political power. While Hobbes state of nature is ahistorical and is a hypothetical construct to help us grasp human nature in its purest form, Locke believes such a state has existed historically and that this is the state men are in naturally and will remain in until they decide to form a state. Firstly, Hobbes and Locke differ in what they describe people to be motivated by. According to Hobbes, people are self-serving and are motivated to maximize their achievements of good by power. Good refers to anything they desire; bad refers to anything they are averse to, instead of being based on impersonal moral principle.
Lia Rehman Marcus Haggrot Political Theory, Group 28 September 2015 Dissolution By today’s standards, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan presents an extreme absolutist vision. This seems to be exemplified in Hobbes’ counter-revolutionary stance, where he explicitly argues against justifications for revolt. Is there any situation in which revolution is permitted, and if so, under what circumstances is revolution justified? This analysis posits that first, Hobbes’ premises justify revolt in the face of insecurity but only when a majority of people are insecure, and second, that Hobbes definition of security is broader than mere physical safety, which in turn conflicts with Hobbes’ other statements. Therefore, physical and economic insecurity
Hobbes ' doctrine describes human in nature with respect to his desires. Humanly behaves according to aversion and appetite. If we ask why equality cause diffidence, Hobbes says all men desires the same thing. Moreover, he did not give any characteristic which provides to consider others during the steps which go to contract to the state. None the less, he mentioned three essential personal trade of savage men: free will, perfectibility and compassion.
Thomas Hobbes believed that people would act evil in a state of nature and there would be no society, war of every man, and life would be lonely, poor, violent and short. I do not agree with Hobbes for the fact that throughout history, people have been in a state of nature at one time or another