Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan Hobbes Begins with a Bleak Picture of Human Nature. on Human

question 21

Essay

Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan
Hobbes begins with a bleak picture of human nature. On his view, humans are governed by their selfish desires, with each person calling "good" the objects of his own desire. Because humans are roughly equal in bodily strength and mental faculties, each is roughly equal in his expectation of attaining that which he desires. This leads to competition for scarce goods, which in turn leads to distrust and eventually violence. The natural result, Hobbes claims, is a war of every man against every man, and a situation in which life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." In such a state, there is no such thing as property and nothing is right or wrong, just or unjust. Every person is simply at liberty to do whatever they deem necessary for their own preservation.
Fortunately, Hobbes claims, we can discover by reason certain laws of nature, general principles that forbid us from doing what is destructive of our lives. The first of these tells us that we ought to seek peace insofar as it is available, and otherwise use whatever means we have to defend ourselves. From this principle, Hobbes claims, there follows a second: each of us should be willing to forfeit our right to all things and content ourselves with as much liberty against others as we are willing to allow them against us. The social contract that is thereby created is beneficial to all parties, as it secures each from harm by the others, requiring in return that each person refrain from harming others themselves. Enforcing such an agreement requires the establishment of a coercive power; otherwise people could engage in force and fraud without impunity. This coercive power establishes justice by ensuring that all parties keep their agreements.
-In Hobbes's view, the right of nature grants each person a considerable amount of liberty. Why does Hobbes think that they should give up some of this liberty, and how does he recommend that they do so? What is the result of giving up liberty in this way? Do you agree that doing so is desirable? Why or why not?