The Theories of Thomas Hobbes - Essay Example

The Theories of Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes lived from 1588 to 1679. He was a very well known English mathematician, who is believed to have given the modern political system much of its current foundation. His most famous work that has contributed extensively towards the western political philosophy is his book Leviathan, which was published in 1651. There was a strong background as to why Hobbes decided to get this book published. At the time when Civil War broke out in England in 1642 between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians that challenged the monarch’s rule was and culminated in the execution of Charles I, Thomas Hobbes got the inspiration to write down his ideologies in the form of Leviathan (Frick, 1999). Thomas Hobbes was the tutor of Charles II, and with this post to his credit he fled with the royal family to France after the execution of Charles I. It was during that time in which Hobbes’s was in close contact with the Royalist followers that he developed some of his most known theories regarding absolute power resting with one ruler who was the sole power that could restore peace in a State where chaos prevails in the absence of a strong ruler. Consequently, amongst Hobbes’s most profound teachings were the state of equality and egoism (specifically pertaining to human nature), Hobbes’s State of Nature and the Social Contract. Talking about Hobbes’s state of equality, he strongly believed that we as human tend to be very watchful of the differences that lie between all individuals: differences that distinguish the diverse individuals from each other. For example he said that some of us tend to perceive others as smarter or wiser than ourselves, however what we fail to take into account is that the bulk of the people around us are more or less the same as ourselves, particularly in thought. Such was the way in which Hobbes defined equality of human nature, that given a particular situation many of the individuals would react to it much in the same way. Moreover Hobbes felt that all human beings were materialistic beings, motivated by nothing so much as they are motivated by self-interest, thus the term egoism (Clarke, 1995). This self-interest which dominates human nature in Hobbes’s point of view is the root cause of all chaos and anarchy that has ever prevailed throughout human history. Hobbes believed that if ever in a dilemma, an individual will always choose the alternative which benefits him the most, irrespective the extent of damage that it may cause to anyone else. This egoism of man never allows him to be content with what he has. Rather it requires him to constantly desire more and more power than he already has. Consequently, Hobbes described his “State of Nature,” which was from the nature made by God as one would normally expect it to be. Hobbes’s State of Nature is one which any known State can undergo at a time of absolute chaos and anarchy, such that exists in the absence of an authoritarian ruler, to be more precise. All this very clearly points in one direction, that Hobbes was in favor of absolute power resting with the leader, something a lot on the lines of monarchy. To add to these theories was the Social Contract perspective which laid out the relationship between a government and its subjects as believed by Hobbes. According to Hobbes the Social Contract was one of political absolutism, in which one overruling authority needed to be present so that order prevailed. Hobbes felt that human beings were driven by fear, the strongest of which was the fear of death (Evers, 1977). Thus in order to prevail peace and harmony in a state, the subjects needed to be kept in awe of an authority that held the power to threaten their lives if they disrupted the peace within the State (Hobbes, 1651). Contrary to Hobbes’s view of human nature as inherently negative was Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s naïve view of human nature, in which he stated that human nature is inherently good, however it is the social forces that corrupt humans and thus result in all the negativity that dominates social interactions (Rousseau, 1762). The point of mentioning Rousseau’s claims here is to show how contrasting the human viewpoints can be and yet Hobbes believed that the differences between individuals are menial and by and large all individuals are equal in thought. Undoubtedly Hobbes was a supporter of the Feudal Manorial System, for the reason that it had a defined hierarchy, which once again embodied political absolutism. When the peasants gave up their land to the powerful landowners in lieu of protection from the barbarians and invaders, the landowner has absolute power and authority over the peasants and thus under Hobbes’s perspective is able to exercise control in order to maintain peace. The philosopher whom Hobbes was compared with the most in those times was John Locke who has an entirely different approach to human nature and the rights of men. Locke had a more liberal perspective and believed the existence of a bilateral relationship between a government and its subjects, much on the lines of the current American political system. Locke believed that human beings possessed natural rights which meant that they could not be trampled upon by an absolute authority. In contrast to Hobbes, Locke had a more optimistic approach to human nature and the worldly affairs which was much appreciated over the theories proposed by Hobbes. The common ground between the theories of Locke and Hobbes was that both sought scientific methods to substantiate their theories (Frick, 1999). Hobbes’s idea of absolute authority is one that reflects his complete faith in the royalty which as mentioned above was a result of his long association with the royal family, particularly is a time when crisis had befallen the royals. It appears that after concluding that human beings are egoistic individuals, motivated solely by self-interest and self-preservation, Hobbes failed to account for these traits in his absolute rulers. To elaborate the point further, why has Hobbes not devised any mechanism that would ensure that the rulers acted only in the best interest of the people? That was probably because when trying to do so Hobbes’s might himself have been baffled since his propositions do not leave him with a way out. According to Hobbes, the State has absolute power and cannot be challenged, more precisely for Hobbes the State would never go against the interest of its subjects. In his view he only regards authoritarian rulers as those who are strong and more inclined towards dictatorships rather than democracies. Consequently Hobbes does not touch upon the possibility of the rulers going against working for the best interest of their subjects. This has been taken as an implicit assumption which is very contradictory to Hobbes’s own teachings of self-interest being the prime motivator behind human actions. Moreover, while stating that human beings are motivated by self-interest, Hobbes failed to accommodate the notions of emotional bonds that we humans tend to make with our loved ones, for whom we are willing to sacrifice our personal interest and desire for self-preservation. Furthermore, a generalization of such sort cannot be made that there shall always be unrest and anarchy in a state where there is an absence of an absolute leader. Surely the current situation around us that we see exemplifies otherwise. Many of his contemporaries referred to his work as “Hobbism,” giving it the feel of a religion in itself. This was so because contrary to the general perceived view Hobbes did not even characterize the existence of God over the monarch. Thus, if one were to follow Hobbes’s teachings then even the belief of the prevalence of poetic justice over the tyrant rulers would be marred because it appears that Hobbes just could not imagine the absolute rulers to do anything wrong for their subjects. For these radically bold ideas which Hobbes fearlessly articulated back in those times, he was thought of as an Atheist by many of his contemporaries. Therefore, in the light of the above account it is evident that Thomas Hobbes has contributed extensively in the field of political sciences and psychology. However some of the major aspects of his findings have not been adequately substantiated. Works Cited Clarke, Antoine. (1995, March). "Hobbess Theory of Human Nature: A Warning to Libertarians." The Libertarian Alliance." Print. 12 June 2011. Philosophical Note Number 35. Evers, Williomson. M. (1977). "Social Contract: A Critique." Print. 11 June 2011. Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 1, Issue # 3 , 185-194. Frick, Carole Collier. (1999). "The Enlightenment." Print. 12 June 2011. Los Angeles : The National Center for History in the Schools. Hobbes, Thomas. (1651). "Leviathan." Print. 11 June 2011. London: Green Dragon. Rousseau, Jean Jacques. (1762). “The Social Contract.” Print. 12 June 2011. London: Penguin Classics. Read More