Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes Analysis

📌Category: Books, Literature
📌Words: 1449
📌Pages: 6
📌Published: 15 May 2021

If we truly are (were), as Hobbes’ describes, unsociable, egocentric creatures roaming-free in the State of Nature, then why give it all up to be under someone else’s thumb? How does Hobbes justify the shift from individualism to Commonwealth and the social contract? This essay will discuss Hobbes’ work, “Leviathan”, and how I believe it traces a path from lone individuals to members of a society and how it biases certain relationships or ways of life.

Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher and scientist, best known for his 1651 book, “Leviathan”. In it, he defines his views on human nature, the creation of states, and the social contract theory. The tenet at the core of Hobbes’ philosophy was that humans are selfish, needing to dominate others for their own needs. Mankind is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, Ch.13, p. 149), and his natural condition is a state of war. Above all, human nature is chaotic; all men are born equally and free in the State of Nature. Each man is endowed with negative freedom, free from hierarchal constraints and free from any external restraints on his actions. No more than you would call a wolf evil for killing a deer, for its own survival, Hobbes did not believe man to be deliberately evil but rather, hardwired to look out for his own self-interest. Unlike ants or bees that instinctively work together for a common goal, man’s primary interest was personal glory, well-being, and survival and it would drive him to dominate others and demand respect. 

Although man is completely free with no higher authority to judge or punish him, Hobbes argues that certain laws of nature should be obeyed, although, in the State of Nature, there is no guarantee of such. The ‘fundamental law of nature’ states that man should strive for peace if he hopes to achieve it. To enforce it, there must be an agreement or covenant between men with each man performing his part, otherwise, man remains in a condition of war. Thus, not only must the agreement be advantageous to both parties, but it must also produce results superior to each man’s current situation. All creatures, including man, instinctively fight to survive, but man is driven beyond mere survival. He is motivated by material acquisition not only to improve quality of life but to gain power and respect. In the State of Nature, there is no common standard to qualify value or morality, so each man must rely on his own perception to determine it. Good and evil – morality is a personal definition, unique to each individual. Justice, therefore, is transient and immune to communal standards where no one is right or wrong. 

Ironically, it is the freedom afforded in the State of Nature that produces conflict in the right of nature. Man has the right to do what he wants, as long as he is capable of doing it, but in so doing, the freedom that each man is entitled to is limited by others’ actions: “Therefore, if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only, endeavour to destroy or subdue one another.” (Hobbes, Ch. 13, p. 148)

The pursuit of personal freedom causes conflict and threatens self-preservation. It is within this paradigm that Hobbes’ creation of society and government becomes feasible, for more than just instinct, Hobbes argues that man is imbued with reason. This constant conflict and State of War and the necessity for self-preservation will logically, lead man to agreement and co-operation, resulting in society. Since no man is assured of securing his own safety, they will put their disputes aside and negotiate for common survival. Individualism is thrown aside for the common good and mutual survival. To ensure that every individual fulfills his part of the agreement, an absolute monarch is necessary. The monarch is the only one who can punish those who would not abide by the rules of society and deter potential defectors. The fear of dying creates the monarch who will protect them against all others, while the fear of the monarch ensures that man will obey the rules and not revolt, “But as men, for the attaining of peace and conservation of themselves thereby, have made an artificial man, which we call a Commonwealth; so also have they made artificial chains, called civil laws,… These bonds, in their own nature but weak, may nevertheless be made to hold, by the danger, though not the difficulty of breaking them” (Hobbes, Ch.13, p. 211). Thus, this necessitates a covenant or social contract where natural rights are given up to live in a society that is conducive to their own interests.

Practically speaking, my opinions are those of one who has never lived in the State of Nature. Unlike Hobbes, who lived through more turbulent times, my survival experiences are limited to the jungles of the recess playground where it was every kid for himself. Nevertheless, I concur with Hobbes that man is not a sociable creature by nature and does not have the luxury to count on anyone else but himself for survival. Hobbes’ social contract would certainly favour situations in which supplies such as land, food, shelter, and water were low, competition for supplies was high, or a combination of both. The fact that man has little control over his environment makes a strong case for Hobbes’ political theories. The struggle for survival can be heightened through any number of circumstances such as drought, inclement weather, geographical location (deserts, Arctic regions). Under these circumstances, the struggle to attain necessities is acute and in a constant State of War. Conversely, in sparsely populated areas where the availability of land, food, and shelter was plentiful, there would be a lesser need for a social contract. However, with no clear delineation between right or wrong, anything done in the name of survival is acceptable. One may decide that rather than scavenging for food and constructing a shelter, it may be easier to conserve energy and take someone else’s. Even in our modern ‘civilized’ society, there are those who shrug off morality and use criminal measures to get what they need. Although I believe the willingness to yield to a Hobbesian social contract would be more pressing when the struggle for necessities is greater, given enough time, perhaps from illness or old age, all men would eventually have need of a social contract.

The preferred Hobbesian social contract would be one where all men felt they were being treated equal and governed by a monarch whose focus would be security and peace. The problem I fear is that the Hobbesian social contract may favour abusive relationships. It is not hard to imagine a charismatic figure coaxing his would-be subjects with kind words and false promises. Desperate times create desperate men that may be more susceptible to sinister characters. One need look no further than former president Trump. Although not in the State of Nature, his ascent to power was largely a result of perceived fear. In this case, the struggle for survival was not based on the scarcity of necessities, but rather, the threat to a way of life. White voters frustrated from years of wage stagnation and the ever-increasing browning of the United States were quick to lend an ear to Donald Trump. Here, standing before them, was the embodiment of the American dream. A ‘self-made’ man, an apex predator who had struggled for survival and had made it to the top of the heap and he was promising to do the same for them. Trump falsely laid all their woes at the feet of immigrants and minorities and he promised a return to eminence. The dominance of their culture and the greedy and selfish desires so eagerly sought by so many was just a vote away, and it worked. Relative to history, these are not trying times. These are relatively peaceful times. Trump had but to appeal to their greed and their perceived superiority, and they were willing to follow him anywhere. How much easier would it be under duress, in the State of Nature?

Every creature great or small instinctively fights for survival and man is no different. This simple yet concise statement is why man would shift from individualism to the Commonwealth. According to Hobbes, in the State of Nature, man has the right to compete and do what is necessary to survive. This competition creates conflict and produces a State of War that propels man to attain superiority over others. But eventually whether through age or circumstance, when man is no longer able to competently defend himself, his logic and reason will lead him to overcome his selfish flaws and cooperate with others for self-preservation. Hobbesian human nature is one that will do anything to satisfy its goal, even if it means exchanging freedom for obeisance of laws and authority to achieve survival. Leaving the State of Nature may be a difficult decision, but man’s natural fear of death supersedes everything else. However, I believe the creation of the Hobbesian commonwealth and social contract favours turbulent situations and times and relationships where weak-minded or vulnerable individuals are desperate for protection. Man will do anything, even surrender his personal freedom to survive, it is our greatest motivator and our greatest vulnerability.

+
x
Remember! This is just a sample.

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Order now
By clicking “Receive Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.