...Bradley Podorsky, Essay 1, Page 207 question 1, 2 and 3 In this essay I will discuss What Hobbes means by saying that when humans live in a state of war everybody against everybody, there is neither justice or injustice. I will also compare Glaucon’s and Hobbes ideas of justice. I will also discuss whether selfishness is in itself a bad thing. Hobbes imagines that humans started off living in a state of nature in which each person is free to decide for himself what he needs, what he's owed, what's respectful, right, moral, sensible, and also free to decide all of these questions for the behavior of everyone else as well. In this situation where there is no common authority to find resolution these many and serious disputes, Hobbes imagined that the state of nature could easily turn into a “state of war”. Hobbes said in describing this state "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (Rosenstand 206). Hobbes argues that the state of nature is a wretched state of war in which none of our important human ends are dependably achievable. Human nature also affords resources to escape this wretched condition. Hobbes says that once the conflict reaches a life threatening point people will do anything to preserve their own lives, “where every man is enemy to every man” (Rosenstand 206). Hobbes argues that each of us, as a rational being, can see that a war...
Words: 1799 - Pages: 8
...Jillian Wheeler-Spence Philosophy 121 Essay 2 10/04/2012 In this paper I am going to be discussing the differences in Hobbes and Locke’s theory of the state of nature. One of the major differences is that Hobbes was a rationalist. His theory of the state of nature is really the starting point for a legal system. What Hobbes talked about was the time before government. He believed that by nature human beings were passionate and reasonable. That by nature we are all capable of taking care of ourselves. To Hobbes there was no such thing as justice. Everyone has the right to defend themselves. In my opinion he believed in the theory of due unto others as you would have done unto you. So for example if you didn’t want someone to steal from you, you shouldn’t steal from them. If someone did threaten you in anyway, then you were able to defend yourself by any means necessary. Hobbes believed that if there were no rules in place at all that everyone would just kill each other. So there needed to be some sort of government to help enforce those rules. He just wasn’t sure how to go about getting that government set up. He thought that a government should in place basically to help us keep our promises to each other. A government wouldn’t really had out punishment but just enforce the rules that we had already set. Those rules I believe were set by each individual. What I might think is the right thing to do, may not be the right thing for someone...
Words: 576 - Pages: 3
...or what is a dream, or at bare minimum prove that there are no certain marks to prove otherwise. He states, “…as I think about this more carefully, I see plainly that there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep. The result is that I begin to feel dazed, and this very feeling only reinforces the notion that I may be asleep” (First Meditation). In my attempts to contrast what Descartes argument was comprised of and what certain illusions made him feel this way about our perception of physical existence. I turned my attention to his famous dream argument originally brought forth in his Mediation on First Philosophy, and will be using different ideologies between a John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, two famous English philosophers who have attempted to refute Rene Descartes’s dream argument by providing useful and insightful situations to further explain against the idea, as well as provide my own insight in concluding that we are not dreaming right now. It should be noted that within the context of Meditations, which is atypical from traditional philosophical text, the narrator is considered ‘I’ and is intended to be a fictional character by Descartes. This invites any thinker in a search for inevitability to be able to relate. It should also be noted that what set the argument in motion, and what was seemingly the cornerstone of the idea itself, was in the deficiency of...
Words: 1316 - Pages: 6
...John Locke, Thomas More, and Thomas Hobbes were all political philosophers of their time. Thomas More, would be the least of a philosopher out of the three. Thomas More, a respected statesmen and prominent political figure and advisor to Henry VIII, was best known for authoring Utopia which depicts the social, religious, and political customs of a fictional island and attempts to define an ideal society. More’s Utopia portrays a humanist ideal world, where there is freedom and harmony between individuals and Sovereign themselves. The difficulty with Utopia is that it does not consider actual human behavior patterns. A society can accept the idea of perfect society, there is no need for “thank you” or “I’m sorry” in a society that runs on perfection and generosity runs like a spectacular waterfall. The problem is that Utopia wouldn’t work, a society would become susceptible to negative behavior, once one individual abuses the generosity of others, others will see the advantage and start to follow...
Words: 531 - Pages: 3
...How Are Power and Corruption Related? by Sebastian Sandoval "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." – Lord John Dalberg-Acton Macbeth and Lord of the Flies depict power and corruption. However in Macbeth's case it is his fear of being forgotten that leads to his ambitions for power and in turn corrupts him. In Lord of the Flies we see Jack's ambition to become chief corrupt him into doing whatever it takes to achieve that position. Both works seem to coincide with Hobbes theory that "man is naturally savage" and that savagery combined with the notion of power can only lead to one thing, corruption. In this essay the relationship between power and corruption will be explored through the lens of three texts: Macbeth by William Shakespeare (1623), Lord of the Flies by William Golding (1954), and Of Man, Being the First Part of Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes (1651). Let us begin with The Tragedy of Macbeth. Throughout the play, we see Macbeth change from a noble and brave soldier into a shadow of his former self. In the beginning we see an internal struggle with the decision to kill King Duncan. This is most clearly depicted in act I when Macbeth says, "We will proceed no further in this business. He hath honored me of late,"(1.7. 28-30 ). It is after the murder of Duncan that we begin to notice a sinister change. Macbeth begins to murder anyone who has or could get in his way even his friend Banquo. In act 3 Macbeth's plan is first revealed in his conversation...
Words: 734 - Pages: 3
...In the following essay I will examine the arguments for and against the idea that there is such a thing as a fixed and essential human nature. This is a debate which goes back to antiquity, to the time of Socrates and to his idea that a person must endeavor to know oneself. Thus founding the first philosophy, which was the study of man and of human nature. Firstly I will examine the argument for a fixed human nature in the form of the theory of argument from design and also determinism. Then I will proceed to examine the argument against a fixed human nature, in the theory of existentialism. Lastly I intend to show the evidence, as to why I conclude that there is no such thing as a fixed human nature, and that the theory of existentialism is the plausible argument. I will examine now, the idea that all humans have a fixed human nature. Plato and Aristotle were the first to concur on metaphysics as the first point of study. They differed to each other in so far as Plato had a dualistic approach and believed in a world outside of the changeable physical world, that we exist in. He thought this world, was just a world of appearances' another world known as the world of ideals or forms. Plato thought the only way we come to know the world of forms was through the intellect. Aristotle however was concerned only with the material world and what he could learn about through his senses. He rejected Plato's idea of an immaterial reality and was concerned only with this world as the...
Words: 2330 - Pages: 10
...There has always been much debate and deliberation throughout the years over the controversial topic of self-defence. This level of disputation is especially heightened when factors of innocents come into play, particularly that of an innocent threat. An innocent threat is that which threatens your right to live however is not acting from an intention to kill you. Such that - even though regarded as ‘innocent’ - still imposes an issue to oneself that if no action is taken this undeniable threat will kill you or cause harm. Therefore action proportional to the threat, I believe must be put under the banner of self-defence and as result be deemed permissible. Throughout philosophical history two main concepts upon innocence and self-defence have shone through; the restrictive theory and the permissive theory. The restrictive theory very much supports innocence as a holistic body in that even though a threat, the threat remains innocent thus it is impermissible to cause harm or death. On the other side of the spectrum is the permissive theory. This theory supports the man that is being threatened as it believes threats immediately lose their right to live, thus it is permissible to defend oneself. The restrictive theory is more so then not based on rights whilst the permissive theory embodies a more intuitive and consequential approach hence why it is better for worldly application. J.J. Thompson - a philosopher whose field is in ethics and applied ethics - is in full support...
Words: 1387 - Pages: 6
...Essay Title: Is Global Civil Society an answer to War? Introduction War is not a modern phenomenon but as old as human existence itself. Wars are not like natural calamities or phenomenon but are very much part of human existential dynamics that seeks both peace and ability to survive acknowledging its natural competitive behaviour which unlike realist assumptions is conditioned and not natural. However, realism has dominated the field of international relations since the end of World War 11. It dominates political thinking, with exclusive emphasis on the state as the primary actor in world politics. Realists display a very overt pessimistic view of human nature, advocating with religious conviction that selfish human nature drives international relations into conflicts subjugating state to resort to organized violence and wars in order to gain upper hand and to always resort to wars to resolve international conflicts. Thus resulting in a system framed to maximize state’s military power in a predominantly anarchical environment. As a distinct school of thought, Realism emphasizes separation from domestic to international with little or no democratic structures within its sphere. Consequently, warfare has remained an institutionalized social order against the predatory behavior of others and consequently a legitimate instrument of survival. Moreover, growth in the size of armies and the development of weapons technology has led to an increase in the frequency of wars resulting...
Words: 3354 - Pages: 14
...technique that writer and feminist Virginia Woolf used a lot in her works. This “stream” is veryconfusing, because it describes the situation by every little thought of the persona who in this case is verydistractive and unfocused as a result of ingesting drugs - she changes her focus by the second.Ellie is a young student living in London. She has a lot of pressure on her shoulders because her parentshave made her take a course at the UCL which she is about to flunk if she does not hand in an essay aboutVirginia Woolf. Only, the problem is that she wakes up Monday at half past four in the afternoon realizingthat the essay, which she has not started yet, is due for Tuesday at nine.Her thoughts and actions are hectic and out of order. The hallucinatory drugs she has been taking and thealcohol she has been drinking all night make her unfocused, and as her printer has run out of ink, Elliedecides for herself that she has to go out in city to buy some ink before she can get to write the essay, eventhough all the stores are about to close.Ellie is as far from sober as she could be, and the big city itself is a jungle of distraction to her unfocusedmind. But she has a mission, a purpose, and she moves through the streets beside other Londoners with amission. It makes her feel like a functioning part in a greater machinery.On her way she comes across an iron railing where someone has left behind a black leather glove. Theglove is arranged so that the middle finger...
Words: 1151 - Pages: 5
...II. 2. Hobbes social contract theory best explains the basis of our government today. For me personally, I want to live in a society based on Hobbesian principles. It simply provides that there should be one authority that we will entrust our society to take full responsibility of taking care to it. People need protection and a government that will serve the societal needs and this is what the social contract theory wants to happen. I also think that this is the best system of government that will suit each society because the people have the power to choose to whom they will entrust the power to lead them in a society. I consider this the best of all political philosophies because the individuals tend to agree to be governed in order for the whole society to put into proper order. This principle is also the basis of Democratic form of government. If the society does not want the people in their government, they possess the right to revolt against it because they are the ones who vested the authority to them. In our country, the social contract theory is present. We had already experienced to revolt against our president twice which shows democracy. We also cannot question the efficiency of these principle based on what our country’s current phase because our political culture has been inculcated with corruption, and this principle was created with good intention of making the society better. Therefore, I would still choose to live in a society based on Hobbesian principles...
Words: 494 - Pages: 2
...Response Paper Thomas Hobbes was born in London in 1588. After his father’s early death Hobbes was raised by his uncle. Thomas Hobbes received his education at Oxford University in England. As the scene was being set for the Civil Wars ‘’Civil war meant that the country became militarily divided.’’ all divisions cut across one another for this reason Thomas Hobbes felt forced to leave the country for his personal safety. Then he lived in France from 1640 to 1651. In this point we can easily understand that social and political chaos affected Hobbes’s life and shaped his thought, but it never prevented his intellectual development. His early position gave him to read, write and publish. On the other hand Thomas Hobbes also likes travelling that’s why he traveled to other European countries several times. While he travelling he meet with other scientists. In 1651, Thomas Hobbes wrote his most famous work which was name is Leviathan. His main concern is the problem of social and political order. First one is how human beings can live together in peace and avoid the danger and fear of civil conflict. He believed that humans were basically selfish. They would do anything to better their position. Left to themselves, he thought, people would act on their evil impulses. According to Hobbes, people therefore should not be trusted to make decisions on their own. On the other hand if we look at Thomas Hobbes’s point of view about human nature we can say that; his view is a pessimistic...
Words: 478 - Pages: 2
...which made barter more easily. So, human mankind could expand their property and can be free within the boundary of natural law. If the property is robbed by another person then the owner of the property have right to punish the thief. But, protect own indivisual’s property more secure, people came to the idea of Social contract. The important point here is that Locke’s government made by citizen’s contract can never deprive property out of the citizen’s pocket. Even one penny. In other words, government can deprive life of one man but can never take his property. Also the reason why this is important is that this idea is very different from that of Hobbes. Hobbes thought that every single men is their enemy under the state of nature, so basically social contract stop human beings to kill each other and guarantee security. So Hobbes said, In order to secure majority’s property the government can collect...
Words: 332 - Pages: 2
...Social Contract Theory of John Locke Shannon Roundtree June 23, 2014 Patricia DeAngelis Differences of the Social Contract Theories There were three critical thinkers who played a major role in creating the concept of the social contract theory. The overall concept of this theory was to see how individuals could survive in a world regulated by laws and government. Each of these individuals had different perspectives on the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes’ view was that man was fearful and selfish. He believed that man desired a sense of security and order. If man wanted to have a sense of self-preservation and protection, they needed to enter into a social contract and surrender their rights and freedom. In other words, a government was created to regulate their lives. Thomas Hobbes also believed that individuals were free to take whatever they wanted and be greedy, and resolve disputes with war. John Locke’s view was different than Thomas Hobbes as he believed no individual has any power over the next and everyone has the freedom to do what they want. John Locke also believed that if an individual committed a crime, they needed to be punished. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that the government should adhere to the freedom of all individuals, but with constraints. His views were that individuals could not be free in modern society like they could be in a state of nature if property and laws existed. Key Principles of John Locke’s Social Contract Theory John Locke viewed...
Words: 1051 - Pages: 5
...Matt Smith Political Theory 2/7/02 Locke/Hobbes vs. the United Nations After WWII the world was in disarray after having witnessed the second global conflict. The countries of the world came together to form the United Nations, an organization comprised of the nations of the world in an attempt to deal with crisis and future events in a way that would deter the onset of another such conflict. Some believe that the United Nations should be a global governing body. Others may argue on the side of John Lock or Thomas Hobbes in saying the United Nations is a civic government for the nations of the world -- a Leviathan to ensure order and harmony between the states of the Earth. These people would be mistaken in their assumptions and interpretations of Locke and/or Hobbes’s thought. Both Locke and Hobbes would argue consistently that the United Nations would not work and does not make sense given the state of nature that man comes from. John Locke explained his theory of the state of nature in his Second Treatise on Government. According to Locke man exists in the state of nature as an individual coexisting peacefully with other human beings. The reason for this peaceful coexistence between people in the state of nature is because of a few simple rules. The first of these is the respect of people’s life, liberty, and property. A person’s life and liberty are forms of his property. If a person was to in some way take away another person’s property then that...
Words: 1411 - Pages: 6
...nature): realism (most basic/dominant) or idealism. Elements of soft/hard power. US foreign policy is made for ‘national security’. ▪ Why does conflict happen?—> The Stag Hunt: an inherently anarchic system. If one person cheats, then the next person cheats. (only takes 1 person to corrupt the system). Effort for agreement then tension happens to maintain agreement. ▪ The Pursuit of Power by states has long been put forward as the cause for the outbreak of war & conflict between nations. Power: Ability to persuade (manipulate) someone to do something that they wouldn’t otherwise do. States have power to protect their interest because the system is anarchic. Security: Power to pursue interests and do what is required to protect them. Hobbes assume evil intent in the international system “Peach through strength”. Represents the view by “realist” thinkers (Morganthau, Kissinger, Thucydides) Idealists (Plato, Locke, Rouseau, Kant) believe in man’s capacity for good & the construction of peaceful societies. Their role to establish collective security because of common interest that a system can be build to complement each other. So when 1 person breaks the stag rule, they punish that person. Idealism sees the world as it is and sees what they want it to be. Principle and peace ▪ One’s basic assumption about the international system and the nature of man affect what policies you tend to support. Realism: oriented around power & consumption among states for the resources...
Words: 630 - Pages: 3
