HargeisaPress — Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher in the 17th century, he was best renowned for his political thoughts about society, mainly written in his book of Leviathan in 1651. The scholastic opponents of him in the field of political science, mostly criticized that he lived with extreme fear. Remarkably, he never repudiated their claim, and in his literatures, Hobbes himself itemised as such ‘’fear and I were born twins together’’ (Hobbes, 1985).
He produced the most imperative philosophical texts in the 17th century ‘’Leviathan’’, which was the most persuasive book ever written in political science. What has made Leviathan so interesting in today’s time was the way that Hobbes took a new look at how society should function, or how best people would govern themselves.
Hobbes expounded what life of a society that lacks the authority keeping people in check would be like. His fear was based on what he called ‘’the state of nature’’, which he meant by the natural condition of a mankind. He also elucidated that the state of nature is a state of war, or ‘’war all against all’’ (Leviathan, 1651).
Hobbes’s theory of the state of nature is the imagination of what would exist if there is no supreme authority or a government, nor a human civilisation of the rule of law. According to his experience of the English civil war in the 1640s, he scientifically introduced that it is always the nature of human beings to destroy themselves in incessant pursuit of power struggle.
Consequently, the sequels of his experiment were life in the state of nature, in which he pointed out ‘’life of a man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’’ (Leviathan, 1651). Therefore, this essay will discuss Hobbes’s account of conditions in ‘the state of nature’ and whether his theory of human nature is convincing.
The essay will also illustrate the important terms of the Leviathan, especially, the state of nature, and what he meant by the sovereign, the commonwealth, the law of nature, the social contract or the covenant, and the natural man. By defining these terms, the essay will demonstrate how Hobbes’s argument of the state of nature convinces the reality of life that humans are in today.
Starting with ‘the state of nature’ Hobbes portrayed that the state of nature is a place full of insecurity and uncertainty. According to Hobbes, man of the state of nature pursues nothing, but in his own selfish desires and pleasures. He stated that ‘’individualism naturally leads to a war in which every man’s hand is against his neighbour’’ (Hobbes, 1985).
This ‘’man’s hand is against his neighbour’’ refers that it is the human nature, why people kill one another without any hesitations in the condition of the state of nature. For the reason that the nature of our state vigilance, while we are in dark places, or the reason why we close our doors, which is to feel safe, is a good example of what he called ‘all against all’.
Imagine where there is no government above us that dictates the rule of law, or what Hobbes explained the law of nature, and the resources are too scarce in the eyes and the minds of humans. In that case, Hobbes was right about his pure state of nature ‘’the natural condition of a mankind’’. This is to say that all humans are equal, because they have the body of the same feature, and the functioning mind.
Therefore, the equality of the human nature, the existence of fear of death, the scarcity of the resource and the unlimited human demand would result that everyone will naturally fight against one another. In the real world, it is more logic to find a place that power resides. Even though, those who critique Hobbes absolutism when defining the state of nature argue that he was nothing more than to support the absolutism of the Monarchy.
It is discernible that they were iniquitous about ignoring his definition of the state of nature. Because of the naturalistic behaviour of the humans, who are power seekers. According to Hobbes ‘’put for a generall inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restlesse desire for Power after power, that ceaseth onely in Death’’, (Leviathan, 1651). In his argument of the existence of the continual appetite for power, he introduced the ultimate aversion, which is ‘fear of death, and wounds’. In his idea of fear, one can extremely agree with Hobbes when we all experience the existence of fear among the natural man, who is the inhabitant of the state of nature.
He explicated the reason, why people need peace and stability in their lives in which he defined nothing more than fear of death. The most convincing part of his argument is what compelled man to sign a social contract, or to provide consent to the sovereign. In his terms sovereign is the supreme authority of the commonwealth, which he meant by the multitude of people (citizens of the state), who together give their powers and consent to the sovereign in order to gain peace and defence.
Hobbes pointed out ‘’ in pure self-interest and for self-preservation men entered into a compact by which they agreed to surrender part of their natural freedom to an absolute ruler in order to preserve the rest. The State determines what is just and unjust, right and wrong; and the strong arm of the law provides the ultimate sanction for right conduct’’ (Leviathan, 1651). This refers that there is a contract between the sovereign and the commonwealth in which he called the covenant.
This means, the act that the commonwealth gives up its natural rights and give or transfer them to the sovereign, and in return the supreme authority secures the peace of the commonwealth. It is like give and take contract between the Leviathan in other words, which is the metaphor of the state and the commonwealth. Hobbes described the Leviathan as an artificial person, who made up of the bodies of its citizens, where the sovereign is the head of that artificial body.
However, there are other political theorist, who disagreed the political thoughts of Hobbes. The first one is John Locke, he argued that the state of nature is not a state of war. He explained the difference between two states of war and nature. Locke outlined that the state of nature is about people live together, for the reason that people is naturally governed by reason.
According to Locke ‘’The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions’’ (Locke, 1986).
This argument could easily be disagreed, as Locke claimed, men are equal, because God created as such, and that they have to preserve the existence of mankind and refrain harm or deceive from one another. Because, it is always cognitive what guides men in the state of nature. The reason why Locke’s argument is not as strong as Hobbes’s is because of the ‘’natural condition of a mankind’’ without laws, civilisation and government, what would have Locke’s reason to restrain the human nature?
For instance, the anarchic or weak states such as Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Libya. People of the world have experienced that human reasoning of passion, liberty and peace is not helping to secure nation states. Hence, this shows that Hobbes’s state of nature is more real in the eyes of the real world.
In conclusion, even though there are many other thinkers such as Montesquieu, who stated that humans would preserve their lives in the state of nature. And then argued that it is the formation of the society that created the state of war. In that sense, Hobbes’s argument is more logic than Montesquieu’s. Others like Rousseau and David Hume claimed different theories about the state of nature.
The former stated that people were born as a blank slate, but it is the environment that influenced them. Where the latter argued that justices derives, because of the selfishness and generosity of men. What has made Hobbes’s account of conditions more convincing is this quotation ‘‘If men are naturally in a state of war, why do they always carry arms and why do they have keys to lock their doors (Leviathan, 1651).
This ‘’carry arms and keys to lock their doors’’ refers that the state of nature is a natural condition of a mankind, which human beings persistently seek to destroy themselves to pursue power. To avoid this state of nature, Hobbes claimed that general rule is to be discovered in order to forbid humans to destruct their own lives by a covenant or social contract, which is the act to stop natural rights and transfer them to the sovereign, and in return it will provide peace and common defense to the citizens of that state.
Mohamed Hagi Mohamoud. Department of Politics and International Studies. The University of Warwick. Email:m.hagi-mohamoud@warwick.ac.uk, mohamedomar1@hotmail.com.
Reference List
Hobbes, T. (1985), Leviathan, London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Lively, J., and Reeve, A (1988), Modern Political theory, London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Locke, J. (1986), Second Treaties on Civil Government, Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Montesquieu, B. (1977), The Spirit of the Laws, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rousseau, J. (2004), Social Contract, London: Penguins Books Ltd.
Hume, D. (1993), an enquiry concerning human understanding, Cambridge, US: Hackett Publishing Ltd, Inc.
Hume, D. (1990), Writing on Religion, Chicago: Open Court Publishing Co.