Thomas Hobbes

Modern Political Philosophy

Submitted to:
Dr. Robert Montaa

Submitted by:
Monica Clara M. Sumanga
4CA3

April 22, 2016

Thomas Hobbes was the one behind the foundation of modern political
philosophy. He set the terms of debate about the fundamentals of political

life precisely into our own era. Only a few have liked his principle, that the

problems of political life mean that a society should accept an unaccountable

sovereign as its sole political authority. However, we still live in the world

that Hobbes spoke of directly, a world where human authority is something

that involves justification, and is automatically accepted by a little, a world

where social and political inequality also appears uncertain and a world

where religious authority faces significant conflict. We can put the matter in

terms of the concern with equality and rights that Hobbes' thought that we

live in a world where all human beings are supposed to have rights, that is,

moral claims that protect their basic interests. (Clarkson, 2002)

We can see Hobbes standpoint if we compare him with well-known

political thinkers before and after him. A century before, Nicolo Machiavelli

had highlighted the cruel actualities of power, as well as remembering

ancient Roman events of political freedom. Machiavelli seems to be as the

first modern political thinker, because like Hobbes he was no longer willing to

discuss about politics in relations set by religious faith, instead, he viewed

politics as a discipline unconnected from theology. But according to Clarkson

(2002), unlike Hobbes, Machiavelli bids us no comprehensive philosophy. We

have to reconstruct his views on the importance and nature of freedom; it

remains uncertain which, if any, principles Machiavelli ties on in his apparent

acclaim of unethical power politics.

Writing years later than Hobbes, John Locke also had definitely
recognized the terms of debate Hobbes had set down that, how can human

beings live together, when traditional validations of authority are no longer

effective or persuasive? How is political authority justified and how far does it

extend? In particular, are our political rulers properly as unlimited in their

powers as Hobbes had suggested? And if they are not, what system of

politics will ensure that they do not overstep the mark, do not trespass on

the rights of their subjects? (Lloyd, 2002)

Hobbes' moral belief is difficult to separate from his politics. On his

view, what we should to do depends greatly on the position in which we find

ourselves. Where political authority is lacking, our basic right seems to be to

save our skins, by whatever means we think appropriate. Where political

authority exists, our duty seems to be quite straightforward: to obey those in

power. In his book Leviathan, written during the English Civil Wars, Hobbes

argues for the necessity and natural evolution of the social contract, a social

construct in which individuals conjointly unite into political societies,

agreeing to abide by common rules and accept resultant duties to protect

themselves and one another from whatever might come otherwise. (Carter,

2003) He also supports rule by an absolute sovereign, saying that chaos and

other situations identified with a "state of nature", a pre-government state in

which individuals' actions are bound only by those individuals' desires and

restraints, could be prevented only by a strong central government, one with

the power of the Leviathan, a sea creature, which would protect people from

their own selfishness. He also warned of "the war of all against all, a motto
that went on to greater fame and represented Hobbes' view of humanity

without government. (Garner, 2001)

As Hobbes lays out his thoughts on the foundation of states and

legitimate government, he does it systematically: humans make the state, so

he first describes human nature. He says that in each of us can be found a

representation of general humanity and that all acts are ultimately self-

serving, that in a state of nature, humans would behave completely selfishly.

He concludes that humanity's natural condition is a state of unending war,

fear and immorality, and that only government can hold a society together.

This is Hobbes' depiction of human nature, it is that we are in dire need

and helpless; we are easily led astray in our efforts to know the world around

us. Our capacity to reason is as fragile as our capacity to know; it relies upon

language and is prone to error and unjustifiable influence. When we act, we

may do so selfishly or in ignorance, on the basis of faulty reasoning, or

others' touching way of talking.

Hobbes' argument is that the alternative to government is a condition

no one could reasonably wish for, and that any attempt to make government

responsible to the people must weaken it, so threatening the situation of

non-government that we must all wish to avoid. Our only realistic option,

therefore, is a sovereign authority that is totally unexplainable to its subjects.

Let us deal with the "natural condition" of non-government, also called the

"state of nature," first of all. The state of nature is natural in one specific

sense only. For Hobbes political authority is artificial: in the natural condition
human beings lack government, which is an authority created by men. He

claims that the only authority that naturally exists among human beings is

that of a mother over her child, because the child is so very much weaker

than the mother. Hobbes acknowledges an obvious opposition, stating that

some of us are much stronger than others. And though he seem to be

sarcastic about the idea that some are wiser than others, he doesn't have

much difficulty with the idea that some are fools and others are dangerously

crafty. Nevertheless, it's almost true that every human being is capable of

killing any other. Even the strongest must sleep; even the weakest might

convince others to help him kill another according to Hobbes Leviathan.

(Garner, 2001) Because adults are equal in this capability to threaten one

anothers lives, Hobbes claims there is no natural source of authority to order

their lives together.

Hence, as long as human beings have not successfully established

some form of government, they live in Hobbes state of nature. On Hobbes

view the right of nature is quite simple to express. Naturally speaking,

outside of civil society, we have a right to do whatever we think will

guarantee our self-preservation. The worst that can happen to us is violent

death at the hands of others. If we have any rights at all, if nature has given

us any rights whatsoever, then the first is surely the right to prevent violent

death ensuing us. But Hobbes says more than this, and it is this point that

makes his argument so powerful. We do not just have a right to ensure our

self-preservation but we each have a right to judge what will ensure our self-
preservation. And this is where Hobbes' picture of humankind becomes more

significant. Hobbes has given us moral reasons to think that human beings

seldom judge wisely. Still in the state of nature no one is in a position to

successfully define what is good judgment. If I judge that killing you is a

sensible or even necessary move to protect my life, then in Hobbes' state of

nature, I have a right to kill you. Definitely, some may judge the matter

contrarily. Almost certainly you'll have quite a diverse view of things. We all

have to be judges in our own causes, and the risks are very high indeed: life

or death. (Carter, 2003)

For this reason Hobbes makes very confident claims that sound totally

immoral. "To this war of every man against every man," he says, "This also is

consequent that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong,

justice and injustice have no place in the state of nature". He further argues

that in the state of nature we each have a right to all things, "even to one

another's body. Hobbes is overstating his point, but the core is justifiable.

Unless people share the same moral ideas, not just at the level of general

principles but also at the level of individual judgment, then the challenge he

poses remains unsolved. Human beings who lack some shared authority are

almost certain to fall into dangerous and deadly conflict. (Clarkson, 2002)

In the 1964 film Fail Safe, Sidney Lumet discloses the mockery of the

nuclear arms race in one of the greatest Cold War films ever made. Lumet

motivates the audience to question the reliability of nuclear weapons by

placing them in the middle of a ill yet possible scenario which is through a
series of highly unlikely mechanical and technological malfunctions, the

United States has accidently sent a fleet of bombers to bomb and destroy

Moscow. After reaching a point of no return, the president, played by Henry

Fonda, is forced to either allow the Soviet Union to gun down the bombers or

compensate for the lives killed by dropping a bomb over New York City to

avoid commencing a nuclear war. Although extremely unlikely, Sidney Lumet

does an effective job providing the viewer with a possible, alternative

viewpoint on the apparent benefits of nuclear weapons. At the end of the

film, the President comes to a realization that nuclear weapons, although the

most powerful form of protection, are also a possible cause for the

destruction of our world.

The major setting, that Lumet presents in Fail Safe is not to be ignored,

especially with the amount of active nuclear warheads the US currently has

at its removal. Lumet wants the audience to realize that through our

countrys continuous production of nuclear arms, we are only more likely to

be at risk. The amount of destruction the U.S. can possibly inflict on another

country, almost seems to be lessening our own protection by increasing the

potential outcome, such as those presented in Fail Safe.

Thomas Hobbes believes that the sovereignty, the U.S. government,

shall authorize all the actions and judgments of that man, or assembly of

men, in the same manner as if they were his own, to the end to live

peaceably with themselves, and be protected against other men. Meaning

that the government must uphold its protection of the people under all
circumstances, which is a part of its social contract as postulated by Hobbes,

in which also states that individuals unite into political societies, agreeing to

abide by common rules and accept their duties to protect themselves and

one another from whatever might come otherwise. He also told of "the war of

all against all, that went on to greater fame and represented his view of

humanity without government. Just like what he also says that the

government must act as the Leviathan of the society and the peoples safety

is above any other things. Note that the state is composed of the citizens,

territory and commerce. Hobbes was the proponent of the term body

politic and it came from the famous Leviathan.

Thomas Hobbes has an important message for us people in the society.

Even though governmental structures have already changed radically and

political philosophies operate on very different bases, it is still common to

hear propositions that we must give up liberty for security. Such proposals

are directly correlated with Hobbes philosophy. Whatever happens, where

political authority exists; our duty seems to be quite up-front which is to obey

those in power. To bear with them as they take on as the head of the state

we live in, no matter where state of nature we are in. Others might judge the

matter inversely, of course.

REFERENCES
 Carter, A.C. (2003) . Great Philosophers: Thomas Hobbes: Social
contract. Retrieved April 3, 2016, from
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers

Clarkson, M.R. (2002). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved

April 3, 2016, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/

Garner, K.L. (2001) Leviathan Summary & Study Guide. Retrieved April
4, 2016, from http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-leviathan/

Lloyd, S. A. (2002). Hobbes Moral and Political Philosophy. Retrieved

April 5, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/

Sorell, T. (2003). Thomas Hobbes. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Hobbes

THOMAS HOBBES. (n.d.). Retrieved April 3, 2016, from

http://rjgeib.com/thoughts/nature/hobbes-bio.html