Thomas Hobbes (Political Theory)

5 Elements of SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

1) Account of the state of nature 2) Account of the inconveniences of state of nature without political life 3) Account of agreement, social contract, that ends state of nature --Right of property out of self-preservation, need things from nature to survive without being stopped by others --Possibility of conflict w boundaries 4) Argument that humans might come up with type of exchange media as convenience, $$ 5) Lots of things you can do in state of nature, but inconveniences make you want to leave it

(1) What is Hobbes' view of the human condition in the state of nature? (2) According to Hobbes, why do men leave the state of nature and enter into a social contract?

(1) For Hobbes, the "state of nature" refers to the human condition without government. If humans were left to themselves without government, Hobbes claims, then life would be "solitary, nasty, brutish, and short." This means that human beings are essentially selfish and without government humans would hurt and kill each other without hesitation. (2) In order to secure self-protection and self-preservation, and to avoid misery and pain, man entered into a contract. They voluntarily surrender all their rights and freedoms to some authority by this contract who must command obedience. As a result of this contract, the mightiest authority is protect and preserve their lives and property -- Social Contract => A contract that people enter into with the sovereign where they give up their liberty in exchange for security -- Self-Preservation => The natural and reasonable tendency of man towards protecting oneself

(1) "Will, not force," says Hobbes, "is the basis of the state." What does he mean? (2) What makes his observation 'radical' for the time?

(1) He means that force is central to the state, its more essential attribute - "Human will and consent, not force, is the genuine foundation of the states power" (p. 195) -- "In agreeing to obey the sovereign government, leviathan, we also agree to accept the formal restraints on our conduct for the sake of ensuring peace" --**Necessary to have a coercive, supreme sovereign to enforce the contract (2) He was going against the government at the time and the peoples beliefs -- they wanted to ruled by someone because they didn't know any better. - That no one person should have the power to rule a society. -Both the English Stuart Monarchy and the Clergy looked upon his theoretical argument as dangerous and blasphemous ** "No individual can claim preferred or special social status on account of his superior brawn or brains, or still less can he or she claim any natural advantage based upon possession of property or wealth"

Having willed Leviathan (their government) into being, what can subjects expect from their creation?

A common authority, one w/ sufficient power to arbitrate conflicts arising from the subjects themselves A powerful government, holding all subjects in awe, is required for the preservation of life Each individual citizen is author of all the sovereign decrees, and he must not complain about what the sovereign does to maintain peace and order because, over the long run, he would be doing an injury to himself

Aristotle v. Hobbes

Aristotle would argue that science can only be what is, and cannot deduce what out to by what is. - For Aristotle, men are unequal when it comes to the highest things. -For Hobbes, men are unequal in all but the highest things

Locke v. Hobbes

Degree of evil: State of nature- abject poverty vs. war PREFERRED TYPE OF GOVERNMENT: -- Locke -> Any form of representative government -- Hobbes -> Absolute monarchy QUALITY OF LIFE IN A STATE OF NATURE: -- Locke --> people are born good and are corrupted by society, therefore they are better of in a state of nature -- Hobbes --> life in a state of nature would be nasty and brutish PROPERTY: -- Locke --> ownership of property is a natural right -- Hobbes --> property only causes competition and conflict

What motivates us to enter society, in Hobbes's view?

Fear of death, the desire for a bit of comfort, and the hope that by work we can attain these things. Although Hobbes doesn't say so explicitly, his idea is that life in the state of nature is simply too insecure and exhausting to put up with.

How does Hobbes' approach to studying politics and the origins of government differ from Aristotle and Machiavelli? Are there any assumptions about the nature of human beings that these thinkers share?

HOBBES - A philosopher that believed that the purpose of government was to provide protection and order, and in return the people would give up their right to overthrow or even question the government. - All human beings have "a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death" (p. 194/203) MACHIAVELLI - A Philosopher that believed the purpose of government was to end the state of nature and give people certain protections. But he also believed that governments should protect people's natural rights (Life, Liberty, Property). - Lions and Foxes of the political elite seek power ARISTOTLE - Man is a political animal, naturally forming government - Large groups of people can make better decisions because there is a multitude of perspectives and combined wisdom. SIMILARITIES: -- Locke & Hobbes --> Goal of governments should be peace at all costs -- Locke & Hobbes -- (yes they actually agree)- people must give up some of their rights in order to gain protection and the security of basic rights

Do individuals have "rights" in the Hobbesian state of nature? Why or why not?

The "rights" that they have are natural rights STATE OF WAR --> The natural state of nature where man has an inclination to fight with each other -- Everyone is equal --> everyone can kill each other b/c everyone's equal everyone has the same right to the same ends --> violent competition --Competition => A logical conclusion to the fact that men are equal and goods are scarce -- Constant fear of violent death -- No industry, cultivation, infrastructure, transportation -- Humans are brutish, poor, unsocial, and lonely EQUALITY -- The strongest person can kill the weakest, combined with the fact that most have equal intellectual potential means all people have an equal chance to achieve felicity. ---> Felicity => continual success in achieving one's objects of desire.