Pre-Political Condition Recent challenges to the modern secular state make us to review the statements made by its theoretical founders like Hobbes. The present political condition was based not on the need of salvation or desire to realize political natures, but on their fear of death and desire for self-preservation. Hobbes argues that the desire for security is the most rational need of our nature. The human condition based on the need satisfaction is in harmony with human nature. This condition is fully able to solve the problem of anarchy. Hobbes was primarily a political, rather than ethical philosopher. While ethics focuses on the good for the human, political philosophy stresses the good for society.
There is a functional notion of the social good in Plato. Justice is the proper functioning of a society, where each plays the appropriate role, and no one disturbs or interferes with anyone else. This view was based on the natural analogy with health: the good state is the one functioning in a way that is best naturally. We see a fundamental similarities between the two views in comparison with the natural reasons for political condition. With the Reformation and the breakup of the Roman Catholic Church, when the connection between church and state started breaking, and when Reformation and the falling Roman Catholic Church began, religious wars spread throughout the European continent. It was the situation when Hobbes proposed the first modern political philosophy. Hobbes returned to human nature as the basis of the state.
The Essay on Rousseau and Hobbes’ Conception of State of Nature
Both Rousseau and Hobbes talked about state of nature but their understanding of state of nature and the first living of humanity is quite different from each other. Their views are similar in some points but mostly they contrast with each other. These differences in their thoughts are mainly because of their understanding of human nature and also their view of man. For Hobbes, state of nature is ...
But the Hobbes nature is found to be quite different from that described by Plato. Hobbes was a materialist. Taking his point from modern natural science, which rejected the Aristotelian world view, Hobbes declared the human was nothing more than matter in motion. In this case, reason was not the source that created good. Human reason, from Hobbes view was like a machine or device that was used for solving problems and calculating opportunities. There is not much difference between a computer and reason from his point. In the end, human being has simply the preservation and development of his own existence. The ethical view here is known as egoism.
The good is only the good when it meets ones interests. Hobbes stated that egoism works against social relations. It leads to competition. Competition, in its turn, created several things like enmity among people. It also created distrust, which led us to master others for our own protection. It is the matter of control over the environment. Competition led a lust for recognition from others.
Further, each one of us is capable destroying anyone else. At least, the believe that we can in the end use physical strength gives us a control over the external environment. People can use a lot of means for reaching their goals by making coalitions, using technology and political situation. Hobbes claimed that everything that we mentioned is the natural condition of the human race. Another fundamental similarity is Plato and Hobbes that it can result in a war of all against all in the consequence that all normal human matters like agriculture and industry, trade and politics are meaningless and finally will lead to total collapse. Life in the state of nature is poor, nasty and short.
The Term Paper on Hobbes And Locke Social Contract
Hobbes and Locke Outcome 2. Thomas Hobbes was born in Wiltshire, England in 1588 just prior to the Spanish Armada. Philosophy is defined by Hobbes as the reasoned knowledge of effects from causes, and causes from effects. Hobbes was educated in Oxford where he learnt about the great classics and also of Aristotle, however Hobbes disliked Aristotles approach that democracy was the best form of ...
There is no right or wrong, justice or injustice when we do not know zero count point. All the things come into existence only with the creation of the state. For Hobbes, although in the state of nature, there is no right or wrong, no justice or injustice, there are still a “right of nature” and “laws of nature.” The right of nature is that of self-preservation, and the only road to preserving one’s self is through seeking peace and staying in it. Corresponding to this right is a law of nature, which makes us to defend ourselves. We can defend ourselves best when we give up our liberty, our “right to all things.” There is a difference in views as to relations organization. In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Socrates’s antagonist Thrasymachus had claimed that an agreement between two people involved in a mutual existence is in the interests of those who do not have the power to commit injustice.
Hobbes could answer to this by pointing out that in the state of nature, everyone has the power to destroy anyone else by any kind of means. In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Socrates’s antagonist Thrasymachus had claimed that this kind of agreement is in the interests of those who do not have the power to commit injustice. Hobbes could reply by pointing out that in the state of nature, everyone has the power to destroy anyone else, either through contrivance or through collusion with others. So the contract is in the interest of the strong as well as the weak. Hobbes held that what we give up to form civil government is nothing more than inconvenience which results from the extreme liberty in the state of nature. In that state, each person must be the judge of right and wrong, which leads inevitably to conflicts. There is no recourse when there are transgressions, so the state is erected to adjudicate conflict.
Once one lays down one’s rights, then one incurs a duty or obligation not to interfere with others who wish to take that which has been renounced. One would do this only for something in return. A contract is only good so long as it can be enforced, which requires that there be a “coercive power.” Thus justice requires both a contract and the power of enforcement. Hobbes found many other conditions for giving up one’s rights, some of them sounding quite modern. Punishment should be for the end of rehabilitation, there should be no overt declarations of hatred Once one lays down one’s rights, then one meets a duty or obligation not to interfere with others. One would do it only for something in return. A contract is only good so long as it can be enforced, which requires that there be a “coercive power.” Thus justice requires both a contract and the power of enforcement. Hobbes found many other conditions for giving up one’s rights. The social contract requires that power be conferred on an individual or assembly, the sovereign.
The Essay on Leviathan By Hobbes Social Contract
Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan, during the course of his argument about the social contract we make to surrender our rights of nature a sovereign in exchange for order and peace touches the subject of liberty. Hobbes defines liberty as the absence of opposition (by opposition, I mean external impediments of motion). (Ch 21, p. 136). In his argument, Hobbes claims that this state of liberty is ...
Otherwise, there can be no confidence that surrendered rights will yield security in return. This security is needed for there to be any hope of enjoying the fruits of one’s labors. Hobbes listed various rights of the sovereign, including lawmaking, judging, and making war and peace. There is never a right to rebellion against the sovereign, since this is a breaking of the contract. The sovereign cannot break the contract, since the contract itself gives him the right to do what he thinks is appropriate. In a discussion of the best form of the commonwealth, Hobbes came down in favor of the monarch, where the power is invested in one person.
The main advantage is that the monarch’s public and private interests perfectly coincide. To understand the main point here, it is enough to compare the granting of stock options to corporate executives: if they have a personal stake in the company, they will perform better. From the other side, the origins of justice based on self-interest for Thrasymaschus provide Glaucon with an opportunity to see the importance of this development in Plato’s Republic: “They say that to do injustice is naturally good, to suffer injustice is bad, but the suffering of injustice so far exceeds in badness the good of doing injustice, that when they do injustice to each other and suffer it, and taste both, those who are unable to avoid the latter and choose the former decide that it is profitable to make an agreement with each other neither to do nor to suffer injustice.” Thus serving the individual’s interest, covenants are made that restrict doing harm to one’s neighbor, allowing for self-preservation and in turn permitting the formation of political association. These early forms of interests of the individual over riding the interest of the State were further represented in Plato’s Republic. Glaucon insists that the only reason individuals agree to treat each other justly is that the bad of being a victim overweighs the benefits obtained from being an executor of injustice. This concept, known as extreme individualism, holds that an individual’s only motivation for completing actions which are considered good is for the benefit of the individual and not for any external consideration. This view transforms the notion of the good to a selfish activity. It disregards any duties or obligations an person may have.
The Essay on Platos Justice
Platos justice In the opening of The Republic, Plato seems to say that justice is a balance of the soul. (Taylor 77) As Plato is debating this question, Thrasymachus joins in and presents the first possible definition of justice as the interest of the stronger, that might is right. Socrates enters the conversation and attempts to define justice. Socrates says that subjects obey their rulers and ...
Man must obey only himself, otherwise he is a slave to the society in which he lives. While the individual retains the right to obey only himself, that is as far as his self-interest may lead. Each individual must alienate “all his rights to the community.” It leads to mark the final similarity. It is the need to subordination to one power. An elitist Plato opposed to democracy. An extensive philological commentary on Plato’s Republic includes the following brief but telling observation: “The theory of ideas is not a democratic philosophy.” (Adam, 1902).
Hobbes held that what we give up to form civil government is nothing more than inconvenience which results from the extreme liberty in the state of nature. In that state, each person must be the judge of right and wrong, which leads inevitably to conflicts.
Bibliography:
Dietz, M. Thomas Hobbes and Political Theory. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1990. Lemos, Ramon M., Rights, Goods and Democracy, Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1986. Milo, Ronald, D.
ed. Egoism and Altruism, Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1973..
