Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Reflection Essay
Reflection Essay
In Hobbes's argument that all human beings are by nature equal, Hobbes maintains that every human being can be murdered by another human being, which is a crucial tenet of his egalitarianism-based argument (Hobbes, 1999). His point of view is that people tend to grab what they desire by force, regardless of whether or not someone else already has the item they want or whether or not other people need it. He bases his opinion on the following three premises: rivalry, glory, and uncertainty.
Naturally, if one person attempts to reject, the other will fight back and ensure they receive the object by whatever means necessary. If, on the other hand, the person who is refusing to take the thing is more knowledgeable or skilled than the other person, the latter will not fight back. Hobbes suggests that those who exhibit this trait believe that they are invincible and that no one can beat them. This sort of individual exploits the belief that they are unbeatable by others and, as a result, is more prone to instigate conflicts. If in some way, they prevail in these battles, they will convince themselves that they have become more robust, and their egos will lead them to feel that they are superior. Hobbes asserts that humans tend to want everyone to comprehend that they are as strong as they believe (Hobbes, 1999).
Hobbes suggests that individuals cannot have faith in their abilities or power if they do not believe in themselves and their qualities. As soon as they get these sensations, they have a high propensity to immediately begin a battle to persuade themselves that they are strong. Hobbes contends that if one person discovers they are equal, others would agree since individuals are inherently similar. This is the basis for his argument. People with the glory feature tend not to agree with others because they are confident in their superiority; as a result, these individuals are more likely to initiate arguments. Naturally, individuals are aware of rivalry and glory, and as a result, they will be pushed to attack, which will lead to a lack of confidence. (Hobbes, 1999)
References
Hobbes, T. (1999). The misery of the natural condition of Mankind. Political Thought, 11-14.
Hobbes Leviathan Thomas Hobbes thought that all human beings were equal in the state of nature, but all equally greedy, violent, vengeful and brutal. As he argued in Leviathan, this was a universal trait of humanity and that the purpose of contracting to form a state and civil society was basically to keep order. As he put it in his famous formulation in Chapter 13, the state of nature was a
Hobbes vs. Locke Thomas Hobbes and John Locke each provide intriguing opinions concerning the state of nature, but their thinking differs when considering the form of governing that each promotes as being the most effective. The individuals in Locke's example of a government appear to have greater security than those in Hobbes', as the latter considers that there would be nothing wrong with people renouncing some of their rights in order
John Locke, who was a near descendant of Hobbes, differed most strongly in his political opinions and indicated that the 'state of nature' of which Hobbes talked would be preferable to having a sovereign government or absolute ruler and therefore be subjected to the whims and ideas of that person. Locke was not anti-political, but he did not share Hobbes' belief that having one ruler and therefore establishing one set
Therefore, the welfare of others cannot be relevant to judging what one ought to do. This is a very interesting argument, but it does not establish its conclusion. Although it may be that every human being has a right to preserve his own life, one would like some evidence in support of this key premise. Even if there is a human right to self-preservation, it does not follow that
He favored a large and powerful government able to enforce its will on subjects, in order to control their natural unruliness. Locke, on the other hand thought men in the state of nature were good, but that due to their need to be secure in their property and to protect themselves from outside forces, they banded together to form a state to benefit themselves individually. He favored a limited
The traits of the character are regular male traits from the society of that time. The character does not seem to be someone in particular (such a as a well-known knight or king), but a general representation of authority. And his name is Leviathan. The expression on his face is rather neutral, although the look in his eyes might transmit how heavy ad difficult the burden of authority is. This implies