Robert S.

Marcus | 1
Evaluating the State of Nature
Humanity is an infinitely complex and mysterious concept. Yet,
Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher, audaciously
approaches its obscurity in his book, Leviathanan account of his
radical political philosophy. This seminal work focuses on the nature of
humanity and, according to his prescription, its need for political
structure. Primarily, Hobbes insists on a fundamental equality amongst
all human beings that compromises their ability to peacefully coexist,
and thus, deduces them to a life that he illustrates as, solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short (Hobbes 78). As a solution to this inherent
conflict, he calls for a communal submission of power and rights to an
absolute sovereign, whose responsibility it is to provide peace and
common defense for all of humankind. Although Hobbes proposition
poses some valid and valuable ideas, his reasoning withholds certain
long-term considerations.
Hobbes is right in his assertion that all human beings share some
degree of fundamental equivalenceI mean we are all one species
after all. How permanent is this congruence though? Well, thats where
Hobbes and I diverge.
Hobbes breaks his theory down into three separate, but
complementary, equalities: the equality of strength, of prudence, and
of hope. The equality of strength claims, the weakest has strength
enough to kill the strongest, or in other words, every man has the

2
Robert S. Marcus
capabilities and resources available to him in that he can instill fear
within any other mandespite any physical or mental biases (Hobbes
76). Similarly, the equality of prudence suggests that all men have
the same aptitude to acquire wisdom from experience, and therefore,
an equal opportunity to reach a desired level of ability. Finally, the
equality of hope is a product of the first two. Hobbes believes that
since all men are equal in their strength and prudence, they are all
equally confident in their ability to triumph over the other in any
conflict, creating a perpetual state of violent civil warwhich he
generalizes as the state of nature.
I agree with Hobbes in that human beings share a common
capacity for strength, prudence, and ability. However, I disagree with
the conclusions he draws from there: his conceived equality of hope.
Even though all men are born with the same innate potential, it
is utterly irrational to assume that all of them will live up to their
absolute entirety. Sure, some will realize their natural strength; others
will learn from their experiences and develop their prudence; while
others will work to better themselves until they attain a desired level of
ability. However, no one will do all three. In fact, most people wont
even do any of these things.
This is a direct result of mans inherent fear of failurea
component of the natural condition in which Hobbes overlooks. This
fear is the anxiety level aroused by the success-failure cues [and is]

3
Robert S. Marcus
considered as the motive to avoid failure (Tseng 1). Humans have the
natural tendency to avoid things in which they foresee failure as a
potential outcome. Instead, they withhold themselves from these
desires and insist that they are inadequate.
Consequently, humankind will subconsciously deviate from the
natural state of equality. They will fall victims to their fear-induced
insecurities, self-boundaries, and doubts. Instead of recognizing and
maintaining their fundamental equivalence to their peers, they will
each formulate their own unique assessment of their respective
strength, prudence, and ability. Once they engage in this, their natural
state is completely overridden. This self-evaluation becomes their new
ceiling of potential, which they will then restlessly pursue. And since
each of these appraisals is entirely inimitable from the others, all of
these men will be in pursuit of entirely distinct desires.
In Hobbes explanation of the state of nature, he states: 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 76). So, in
accordance with this theory, if each of these aforementioned men has
an exclusive desire in which he is in pursuit of: none of them will desire
the exact same thing, which means none of them will become
enemies, and therefore will not wage war against each other.

4
Robert S. Marcus
Instead, all of these men will be able to coexist. They will pursue
distinct desires and will not inhibit each others success. Thus, contrary
to Hobbes prediction, the state of nature will not reduce to a state of
perpetual war.
Furthermore, in regards to government, Hobbes contends that
the rule of an absolute sovereign is the only way to escape the state
of nature. He illustrates this ruler as:
One person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual
covenants one with another, have made themselves every
one the author, to the end he may use the strength and
means of them all as he shall think expedient for their
peace and common defence. And he that carryeth this
person is called sovereign, and said to have sovereign
power; and every one besides, his subject. (Hobbes 106)
However, if my argument against Hobbes theory stands true, and
humans are able to peacefully coexist on their own, how legitimate
would this rulership be?
In order for the rulership of one or more human beings over
others to be legitimate, two things must exist: (1) the body subject to
rule must be verifiably toxic and obviously incapable of governing
themselves and (2) the ruler(s) must have goals and values that
genuinely promote the common good of man, not their own selfinterests. If not, the state is vulnerable to the rise of a Communist,

5
Robert S. Marcus
Fascist, or other totalitarian government. In addition, if the rulers are
not in pursuit of the common good, their reign will yield corruption.
Plato, in his renowned book, The Republic, offers a great example
of such corruption. He uses an analogy of a group of sailors aboard a
captain-less ship. None of these sailors has any idea how to steer a
ship, nor does it even occur to them that there might be an art to
steering a ship. Yet, they all compete to be chosen as captain. Rather
than deciding based on capability and skill; whichever man could best
manipulate and deceive his way into power was triumphant.
Of course, the man with the most experience sailing would have
been the most effective captain; while the man that was chosen
instead of him will likely continue to manipulate his way to selfsatisfaction. He sought power in order to satisfy his appetite, not for
the good of the ship. Even though Plato uses this comparison to
criticize Democracy, it can be used just as effectively to speak against
the idea of absolute sovereignty.
Moreover, if the rulers are chosen solely by their ability to
acquire power, they will likely lead a corrupt and greedyand
therefore illegitimaterulership. On the other hand, if only the most
exceptional and virtuous men are allowed to be rulers, they will likely
lead a rulership that benefits the common good.
Despite the slight discrepancies in our beliefs, Thomas Hobbes
contributions through Leviathan are both valuable and thought

6
Robert S. Marcus
provoking. In agreement with his theory, I believe that all humans are
born fundamentally equal to each other. However, I disagree with his
notion that this equality is permanent, but rather I regard it as
temporary and eventually outgrown. Concerning absolute sovereignty,
I dont agree with him that it is necessary to control humankind, but I
do recognize its potential legitimacy.

Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1588-1679. Project Gutenberg, 2002. PDF
file.
M. S. Tseng. The Journal of Experimental Education. Vol. 39, No. 4
(1971), pp.
88-92
Plato. The Republic of Plato. Ed. Allan David Bloom. Rev. ed. Basic,
1991. PDF file.

7
Robert S. Marcus