In this paper, I will argue that Hobbes does in fact give us a

satisfactory moral account of the states authority over its citizens. In

Hobbes piece The Leviathan, he focuses on four different parts that
explain what reasons commonwealth may govern men, then he
establishes what he thought would be the best ways the government
could function in order to accommodate the desires of the people living
there during this time.
Hobbes begins with the idea of commonwealth and how men are
reactive creatures based upon the senses and objects in the world.
Men have constant wants and desires but since this is the case, there
is always a common want, which creates a ceaseless state of war.
Within this idea, men are able to kill each other and they are living in
constant fear of one another. Hobbes comes to conclusion that a state
with a great power will force social order in other words, when people
agree to a commonwealth there is a purpose that binds all citizens to
come together eliminating the need or desire for killing.
Part two emphasizes Hobbes idea that monarchy is the best form
of a government. He believes that in all other governments, sovereign
power is weak and doesnt successfully protect those living there from
outside threats or themselves.
He next speaks about how God exists in the wholly world apart
from the natural world. Since god isnt real and there is nobody that
can have actual conversation with him, Hobbes believes the members
of commonwealth cannot allow religious authority. He feels that
heaven and hell have no relevance and all that is necessary to being
religious includes obeying civil laws and preserving faith for God.
To conclude his writing, Hobbes focuses on what the life will be
like for those who have not chosen to follow his principles. The
Kingdom of Darkness is where he considers them to end up where
there is continuous manipulation. He includes that the main reason this
darkness exists is from people believing God to be present on earth.
Hobbes brings up the State of Nature, which was a theory he had
about what the lives of people may have been like before societies
came to be. He felt that this was a war of all against all where life was
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. If people wanted to breakout
from this authority, they needed to agree to absolute political
authority. Hobbes goes on to speak about what he felt was despicable
behavior during the State of Nature, defined as the absence of a
government that has a monopoly on violence. There was no trust or
promising that meant no contracts and this made for no social
coordination. He saw this as an opportunity to write his piece known as
The Leviathan that I had spoken about prior. The Leviathan created an
awesomely powerful force that had been created through mutual
agreement.
Ultimately Hobbes felt all of these reasons were beneficial to
creating a safe, powerful, and obedient state. He included his Laws of

Nature, which were general rules that forbid men to do what may be
destructive to their own lives or others. It affirmed human selfpreservation.
Personally speaking I feel Hobbes gives us a satisfactory moral
account of the states authority over its citizens in many various ways.
For example, there may be a case that the masses decide that they
neither want a fight nor a government or central authority. However,
they are willing to follow certain ways or rules for a better living. After
all, people do look for stability in their lives with some kind of order.
This is simply human nature. Take a look at the art of the living cult,
they are not a government or a central authority, however they are
willing to follow certain ways or rules for better living.
Hobbes philosophy was pretty straightforward, without a central
authority such as a ruler; there will not be any stability therefore
causing the State of Nature to be destroyed. A state that has great
power creates a strong social order thus the idea of commonwealth is
necessary. Hobbes feelings towards the states authority over the
citizens was moral because the ideals he created were more general
and broad making them easier to abide by. Rather than threatening
and scaring those who did not follow, he explained that their lives
could take a wrong turn into the Kingdom of Darkness or back to State
of Nature ideals where everyone was abrupt due to the fact that people
had the right to do anything and everything.
The people that were involved consisted of stakeholders like
people, regimes, and pseudo governments. If these groups were not
involved it was shown how poor and brutish their lives could end up.
The people that were involved created social order, a safe
environment, and came to an ultimate agreement of a central power.
At this time I believe central power was very important because people
were constantly after each other causing violence, death, and overall
trauma to their state. It was difficult to trust one another and when
agreements were made, people found it easier by forming a mutual
trust.
What was Hobbes true underlying principle for creating
The Leviathan and coming up with his other ideals? Hobbes was
seeking to show the state that there is a cause and effect structure
that comes along with rules. If X doesnt abide by than X will have
to suffer . He shows that when states come together with a mutual
agreement, it is not a fend for yourself situation. Hobbes system
shows somewhat of a team that forms to protect each other rather
than constantly fearing everyone. This seems completely moral
because if the citizens choose to all be on the same page of the states
ideals and rules, then they can have relief to feel secure in their own
state.
On the other hand, there is also the opinion that Hobbes does not
give us a satisfactory moral account of the states authority over its

citizens. Looking at this point of view, I can see there may be a few
possible reasons as to why one would feel this way. Hobbes talks about
commonwealth but his views of mankind without government are
absolutely terrifying to him furthermore he does not really address how
commonwealth came to be. Hobbes suggests the Laws of Nature which
he feels will surely lead people to self-preservation, this is true
although not always one hundred percent of the time. Hobbes ignores
constructive applications, his idea that citizens will just come together
to agree had really never been looked into before concluding that there
is no guarantee as to whether this be successful or not. Hobbes
believes that humans are naturally troublesome and will lead to chaos
given this argument; he doesnt really focus on the fact that this is a
large assumption to make.
Ultimately, Hobbes does a fine job at structuring different rules
and ideas that will in general form peace within the states citizens.
Given that the time was filled with people who were constantly on the
look out for their well-being, it is easy to see why a collective
agreement was necessary. Psychologically speaking our human nature
has something known as In-group bias. This can be defined as people
naturally dividing the world in in-group and out-group categories.
People who are comprised of our in-group category tend to relate to
what we are going through, feel more sympathy towards each other,
and create strong bonds to work towards a communal goal. I feel that
this was Hobbes vision with his authority of the state over its citizens,
for many people to have one goal creating them to work together for
peace and safety.