Given Hobbes’ Account Of Human Nature In The State

1893 Words8 Pages
Given Hobbes’ account of human nature in the state of nature, can one ever leave it? The well-known and oft-quoted assessment, “the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short,” is Hobbes’ unduly pessimistic and anarchical view of man in the state of nature. He believed the state of nature to be a state of war, where man would do anything for self-preservation, there was no right and wrong, and where there would be “continual fear, and danger of violent death.” The natural state of man is left when individuals give up their natural and anarchic freedom to do whatever they please, in exchange for personal security and it is this that Hobbes bases his theory on the need for government on. For a government to be established each individual must agree to this new establishment as if to say, “I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men.” This type of social contract works as a quid pro quo between the individuals and the sovereign: the power of the sovereign is absolute as long as the lives of the individuals are protected by the sovereign. Hobbes argues that the only way to establish such a power is for men “to conferre all their power and strength upon One Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills by plurality of voices unto one Will.” In short, Hobbes argues that man leaves the state of nature in order to gain personal security which is achieved through the creation of a civil society, with a governing body. Although this is a reasonable cause for the creation of government, John Locke is more specific about why this creation is needed. Of course, Hobbes and Locke have very different views on what the state of nature is, but they do both agree on one point: the need for security. Hobbes’ theory demands the need for security of one’s life, whilst Locke’s requires security
Open Document