¶ … Hobbes believes that the cruel nature of human beings causes the state of nature to be a war of all against all. To do this, we will explain the difference between collective and individual rationality and how it applies to human beings in the Hobbesian state of nature. Also, we will identify the assumptions that cause Hobbes to believe the state of nature is a war of all against all and explain why he needs them. By delving into this assumptions, we can abandon our philosophical heritage from Locke and understand the opposite position of Hobbes. Of the social contract theorists, Thomas Hobbes is the most extreme in terms of his view of human nature. Hobbes wrote a number of philosophical works, but the English Civil War with its horrible violence left an indelible impression upon him. In his magnum opus Leviathan that he published in 1651 he presents his view that humans are in a constant state of nature war with each other. In this state, everyone has a right to everything else. These unfettered rights among people leads to unending anarchy and suffering. Without establishing a social contract amongst themselves and without a strong sovereign, they would destroy themselves via their own selfishness and fight for personal gain. According to Hobbes, it is certain that during the time that me live without a common central power to keep their animalistic natures in check, they are in a constant state of war against every other person. Unchecked, this state of war is of every man against every other man. There is no individual rationality. Only a common rationality reigns that keeps this horrible violence in check that would otherwise leave on fear the danger of violent death. The collective security of the...

Hobbes centers upon demonstrating the necessity of a strong central authority to prevent societal violence and civil war. This is played out in the tendency of people to live to maximize the attribute of pleasure and to minimize pain. This state mediates between these needs and the people as a whole need to obey the central power that the collective whole has contracted with to preserve the entire civilization. In reaction to the religious and political hysteria of the war, he formulated a very mechanical basis of the state that was based completely upon a concept of materialism ibid.).
The above is especially played out in Hobbes use of Galileo's model of order with its heliocentric system. This would have been a reaction against the religious anarchy that Hobbes had seen in his life. Just as Galileo had imposed a secular order, so would the secular central government of Hobbes also impose a rational order upon a chaotic political and social system. The earth could not be the center of this system with its human frailties. Rather, like the solar system, there had to be a central physical power around which everything else orbits and pays fealty to (ibid.).

Certainly, in our liberal society, our reaction to Hobbes was immediate. Probably, he was more lauded and decried than any other thinker of his time. It is the opinion of this author that he would have been either loved or hated. There probably could have been no middle position.

While Hobbes has been attacked for promoting a strong and more authoritarian form of government, this author thinks that it is unfair to miscategorize Hobbes as justifying megalomania and dictatorship. This is the reason for Galileo. The order is rational and objective.

This author thinks that while Hobbes' views…