Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Stout
Writing Assignment 1
Philo 130
02/09/2005
Thomas Hobbes in an essay the The Leviathan contends that there is an inevitable need for a
sovereign power, or what we would call today the state. Hobbes argues that this is needed because the
state of nature is inherently chaotic and dangerous. I will argue however that while Hobbes might be right
on his issues about the state of nature, but his alternative is more dangerous and destructive. One would
then conclude that the state of nature would be a preferable to Hobbes alternative because state conflicts
are inherently going to be worse than the violence experienced in the state of nature if it at all occurs.
Before we attack the arguments presented by Hobbes, we must understand why argues what he
does. To do this we will look at the two main areas of his argument. First, his characterization of the state
of nature and how it’s inherently violent and bloody. Second, we will look at what he argues is the
alternative, the state, and how he contends the state should work.
Hobbes argues that all people are equal. He contends that although someone might be stronger or
more physically apt, that a person might make up for that with intelligence. He ultimately says that a
person will use their different attributes to continue a person’s quest to accumulate property and increase
their property amount. He argues that people as they age will ultimately become more knowledgeable and
wise. So as people age and become intelligent to make up for their diminishing strength and continue to
be productive. Hobbes argues that in the state of nature everyone has the right to everything because
property rights are not something that can be enforced without a state to dictate that X person actually
owns something in a legal sense. He also says that all people are rational and intelligent. This means they
are going to pursue peace and self preservation. Reason seems to be the main reason why these
characteristics are present in the state of nature or are present in a land without government. This land
according to Hobbes is one filled with danger lurking constantly, which creates a culture that doesn’t
CREATE INDUSTRY and creates a short and nasty life. (Blanchard, No Date)
Hobbes says that there are three main characteristics in the state of nature. The first is that people
seek peace but can use war to create that peace that is needed. He argues on the basis that it doesn’t make
2
Stout
sense for a group of people or a person to want to be in a state of war because of the danger to ones life
and property. This also prevents people from becoming wealthier. Second, he argues that when someone
treats you in a certain manner, that you should treat them in that same manner, and vice versa. This is the
justification for as to why if you don’t kill them, they shouldn’t kill you. Thirdly, he says that we
shouldn’t fight over small issues such as ones that don’t affect life or property. Hobbes says we should
keep peace, and show gratitude towards others who keep peace also.
While Hobbes thinks that these characteristics are present in the state of nature, he also argues
that ultimately there are reasons as to why people will go to war. He argues that when the government is
formed it will prevent the sources of disruption which are three, first, there is no justice, (Blanchard, No
Date Given) second, resources, and thirdly, power. Hobbes says that in the state of nature there is no
such thing as justice because its is every person for themselves and when it’s in that state there is no such
thing as right and wrong because there are no laws. He says that force and fraud are the deciders of good
or evil, (Blanchard No Date Given) a type of might makes right type of situation in the state of nature.
He also argues that there are limited resources, and these resources are critical to a person’s survival. He
says since it is critical to people’s survival that people will fight over these resources in order to survive
because people will want the same resources. Hobbes also says that people want power in order to
prevent future attacks, he says the way people go about this is by attacking one another until someone
feels they are the lone power and no one will be able to match and challenge them for power.
For those reasons Hobbes says that the state of nature will inevitably dissolve into a state of war,
and that the best solution to prevent the wars from occurring are to create a sovereign power, or a state.
He says that the state will operate through fear, it will have the ability to use armies and police to create a
fear that will protect and ensure the contract is intact. Hobbes says that when the state appears and people
create this state and sign into it that they must give up power to the government. He says that people when
they enter the state should do whatever the state says and that the state should do whatever is needed to
protect itself. Hobbes argues that the state can come together through force, in which control over the
group occurs because they don’t resist or they all consented when they were invaded or when people
to the majority in the decision of who is the sovereign power. He says that the state shouldn’t have any
problems because the state will control information and decide laws that will be enforced by helpers and
advisors that the state will choose. With all that power the state should function properly according to
Hobbes.
Hobbes has obvious arguments, and for the purpose of this paper I will concede most if not all of
his descriptions of the state of nature, but ultimately, his alternative is just a bad one, THE STATE IS
BAD. Let’s first look at why the state of nature isn’t going to be that bad. The laws of nature dictate that
its rational that a person wants peace and prosperity, this can’t be achieved during a war, so by his own
logic a person doesn’t WANT to go to war. This means that although someone wants a lot of power, that a
person wont go to war just to achieve that power, because it would take away from their own prosperity,
as its hard to gain possessions when someone is in a state of war because the state will increase taxes in
order to fun the war. Since money is a zero sum affair, it means that in order for the government to
increase its funds, it must steal funds from the people. Not only is war a financial burden but also a
mental burden, because when someone is so focused on the war they are unable to figure out how would
be the best way to get rich. So, my argument is ultimately that war may break out, but only briefly, and
the rest of the time the state of nature will be a peaceful because of the desire to accumulate wealth.
While the state of nature may be more peaceful than not, a statist world is one of constant
violence. This is true because of the logic that is used that dictates international relations, and that is
realism, no not in “the Prince” sort of way, but new school realism, stuff that actually makes sense. States
decide whether or not to go to war in a sort of way that is a formula, they say, is the benefits of attacking a
country going to outweigh the possible consequences, if yes, go ahead and attack, if no, don’t attack. This
is what is written by both Mearshimer and Waltz. They conclude that countries are constantly going to go
to war because they are going to think that their security is going to be increased by either increase in
land, or by destroying the enemy country. Ultimately this theory means that nuclear war is going to be
inevitable, because a country is going to asses that using a nuclear weapon will be able to destroy all of an
4
Stout
opponents approaching military, or in another instance might be useful for destroying the entire second
strike capability of the opposing nation. One way or another, these weapons will be used.
What makes this particularly dangerous is that all the major superpowers currently have neutron
nuclear weapons, (Ruddy, 97) and are accordingly waiting and anxious about using them (Chalko, 03).
This is especially problematic because the use of one of these weapons will cause extinction. This will
occur because of the radiation that will emanate from the weapons use. This radiation will work its way
towards the center of the earth, there it will overheat the core of the planet and cause it to explode killing
The only way to stop such a disaster is to be in the state of nature. There are couple reasons this is
true, first, today all the militaries have long complex codes and keys of all sorts that are needed to use the
weapons that are there. When we are in the state of nature, these codes will all be spread out throughout
the country, and with 256 million people in the US alone, getting all the codes necessary is going to be
quite difficult. Second, there won’t be new weapons because people will be individuals, and the state of
nature doesn’t promote a culture of industry and economic growth. This is especially helpful as it will
mean that people won’t have anything but scrapes of papers which have no value. This means that the
resources that people do have won’t be the right kind, nor will they be able to be brought together as
needed in order to create new weapons. Thirdly, The same resources won’t be valued. The reason that
intelligence of how to build weapons, is valuable is because we are trapped inside a system that wants
economic growth and is sponsored by the state. When we are in the state of nature this resource base isn’t
going to be the kind that is needed to survive, because its exchange rate without the state is zero, things
like food, water and shelter will become the resource base that has value.
Even if you buy Hobbes’ argument that the state of nature is bad, and I didn’t convince you that
war won’t be constant, Hobbes has no argument as to how state of nature would create such devastating
weapons and use them killing more people than in the state of nature. Without this comparison it’s
impossible for Hobbes to win that the state is a better alternative than the state of nature.
5
Stout
Works Cited
Blanchard, Kenneth. Ph.D, Professor of Political Science, Northern State University. POLS 462; Modern
Chalko, Tom J. Ph.D, MSc, Head of Geophysics Division, MT Best, Australia, NU Journal of Discovery,
“Can a
Ruddy, Christopher, Analysis from Sam Cohen, Inventor of neutron bomb, Tribune-Review,