Thomas Hobbes and the Leviathan

Hey guys,

So I know we pretty much beat Hobbes' Leviathan to death in class last week, but when I read it, I really wrapped my head around it and found it generally interesting. The most intriguing part about Hobbes' theories was the part where he talked about the natural condition of mankind, and compared that natural state to the state of people when they live under a civilized government/social contract.

Today, we understand the essence of the word "freedom" to mean "being free" from restraint, rules, etc. So on a basic level, we would think that without laws or rules, people are for the most part in a "free," or natural state of being. Hobbes agreed with the "natural" part of that statement, but based on his musings from chapters 13, 17 and 18 (especially 13) He would disagree that people are the most free when their lives are void of laws and regulations.

Hobbes' description of the natural state of man is mostly negative — he basically says all hell breaks loose when people are left to their own devices, and that society is in a constant state of war, which is not to say consistent physical violence, but just general turmoil and disorder.

It's obvious why Hobbes described human nature in this way. He had to make the alternative to his plan seem horrible so that no matter what, people would think his plan for society was the better way to go. The most interesting part of this bashing of the alternative is that not everything about it is true, if taken out of context.

For example, while Hobbes did live in an entirely different era than we do today, I find it hard to believe that without law, even in Hobbes' time, man was constantly quarreling and competing, for either personal gain, safety, or reputation, which were Hobbes' proposed main reasons why people argue and fight. I think he made it seem like this would be the constant state of things so that people would fear such a state of living, and then follow Hobbes' societal contract to prevent such a natural, quarrelsome state of living at all costs.

While it might seem like a stretch, this approach is somewhat similar to the Bush administration's declaration back in 2001 and the years following, that there were "weapons of mass destruction" in the Middle East. Were there, or are there? Evidence (or lack of) over the past several years has pretty much proved these weapons don't exist, and probably never did. However, the Bush administration convinced the majority of the American people that these weapons did exist and also convinced them to fear them, so that the alternative the administration was simultaneously proposing — war — would seem desirable. What would our lives be like if we didn't do anything about these "weapons of mass destruction?" No one really wanted to find out, so they supported out country's entrance into the Middle East conflict.

A similar thing was happening with Hobbes' audience so many centuries ago. The way he proposed the natural state of man and compared his alternative to it was an effective way to convince people to support his societal theories.