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 stake of chaos and war that made life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Only by transferring their natural rights of self-defense to a higher authority could they end this state of nature and find peace, order and security. Hobbes did not particularly care what form the government took after the contract, since its task was to maintain control over the instruments of violence and coercion and provide security. His sovereign state was highly authoritarian rather than democratic, and ideas….

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 to be provided with protection from the government. Locke emphasized that rights such as life, liberty, and the right to own property are inalienable and that it would be wrong for an institution, regardless of its intentions, to deny people of them.

From Hobbes' perspective, people cannot possibly be trusted as long as they attempt to govern themselves and it is thus essential for a form of monarchy to control them and to provide a safe environment. In contrast, Locke believed….

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 of rules and laws for everyone to follow would be the best thing for all people. He believed that the 'state of nature' of which Hobbes spoke would allow for happiness and tolerance, and that no one would bother the possessions or rights of others. By living in this kind of state, all people would truly be equal and independent, and there would be no need for laws or government because of the strong sense of respect and moral duty….

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 it is always right for a human being to preserve his own life. That someone has a right to do something does not necessarily imply that his act of doing it is right, for one can have a right that one ought not to exercise (von Hayek, 23). For example, one may have a right to free speech when one ought not to speak freely because this is not the time or the place; one may have a right to….

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 government able to protect its citizens which would act otherwise almost entirely on their behalf.
The framers of the constitution argued over these two positions, in an attempt to decide whether men needed more or less rule and how they ought to structure the government in order to achieve the right balance. In the end, they stuck a sort of compromise, making a limited government but building in potentialities for the government to grow if necessary in or to meet the….

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 awareness regarding his own role and the great importance of the consequences which his acts have. The territory is caught up between the sword and the sceptre. From this we can understand that the entire country is protected with the sword and that protection is guaranteed by the sceptre. There is however another interpretation that we can take into consideration, one according to which the character is trying to take over the territory.

The name Leviathan is usually associated with a….

This is significant for those that study politics today and actually seek to understand much of the reasoning behind it and the theories that encompass it.
Social contract is a theory that indicates that individuals have an agreement between themselves in order to form society. It is assumed that political and moral obligations of various people are based on this theory. Both Hobbes and Locke believed in the social contract theory, but the way that they developed it in their political thought and the way that they utilized the term were not the same. Hobbes believed that men are selfish by nature, but will choose to belong to the social contract rather than return to a state of nature. Locke, however, stated that the state of nature was a pre-political but not pre-moral place where everyone lived their lives as they saw fit, without interference from others. They were not,….

Nature by Hobbe and Locke
Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, bases his argument of an all-powerful and unlimited government on a scientifically modeled reasoning. He asserts that it is only a sovereign and an all-powerful government that has the authority to attract full obedience from the subjects thus preventing them from resorting to violent acts of rebellion, chaos, and violence.

Hobbes uses the desire-aversion principle and the man's insatiable desire for power to argue out his concept of the state of nature. He asserts that in the absence of ultimate power, humanity co-exists in a state described as equality. Equality implies that all humankind have expectations that equally match their individualistic fulfilled desires. Further, they bear equality in their desire fight for the unlimited resources as well as kill. Using deductive reasoning, Hobbes then argues out that eventuality of this state of affair is "war of every man against every man." In….

Question 2: The goals of the philosophies were meant to exercise a set of ideals. Which common tenets of enlightened thinking do writers Mary Wollstonecraft and Denis Diderot advance in "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" and the selection from "Encyclopedie." Contemporary connections: Discuss how you see the tenets you identified in these works as having informed/influenced our contemporary experience.

Although Mary Wollstonecraft speaks about the rights of women specifically, her "A Vindication of the Rights of Women" stresses the value of rationality and reasonable discourse in keeping with Enlightenment principles that were particular to many other Enlightenment thinkers, including Diderot. Wollstonecraft argues one of the defects of male oppression of women is that it limits female education, and makes women more irrational. When men criticize women, men have essentially created a self-fulfilling prophesy. Women have not been allowed full venues to enrich themselves, which is the right of all….

These ideas run in separate directions, but each seeks to provide a better understanding of what a human life is and why we should or should not serve a greater power than ourselves.
In conclusion, we see that the Leviathan is an important piece of work for man to understand his place in society and the role or lack thereof his life plays in the creation and maintenance of this society, with many parallels visible in ancient philosophical writing on war. Mo Tzu had exceptionally benevolent ideas for his time and the depressing period of Chinese history in which he lived, yet his enthusiasm for human life is remarkable. Mohism could never have worked in the time that Mo Tzu lived in, but 2300 years later, the rise of Mao Zedong and Communism in China drew heavily from the ideas of Mo Tzu. Universal love works well in the communism….

Machiavelli, Thomas More, Thomas Hobbes
Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes appear to recommend political actions and systems that take people "the way they are." In contrast, Thomas More and Aristotle appear to recommend political actions and systems designed to help people change the way they are. To what extent is this description of their approaches accurate?

According to the introduction to his text The Prince, Machiavelli believes that "the way humans act and should act are seldom the same." What Machiavelli means by this, however, is not that human beings fail to uphold their innately good ideals. What the theorist and advisor means is that a human being in a position of power does not have the luxury of asking himself what is good. A leader only can ask what is expedient for his state and what will continue his reign of power as a leader.

In direct contrast, the Greek philosopher Aristotle begins….

Q1. Who were the philosophes? Describe their major accomplishment as reformers. The philosophes were the founders of what came to be known as the Enlightenment, individuals such as Voltaire and Montesquieu who demanded that governments honor the rights of all human beings, not simply those who were of high birth. Their conviction in reason led them to support expanding equal rights to all human beings. Authors such as Mary Wollstonecraft created the architecture for what would eventually be equal rights for all women, much as Beccaria created the foundation of modern prison and judicial reform, and Locke the idea of a government that could be dissolved if the sovereign failed to protect the rights of the people.
Q2. What two forms of literature emerged during the Enlightenment? Give an example (title and author) of each one.
The journalistic essay, such as Mary Wollstonecraft’s “Vindication of the Rights of Women” (1792) and the modern….

Machiavelli, Thomas More, Thomas Hobbes
Under what circumstances is it just (or right, or ethical) to go to war? Why? Compare and contrast how Machiavelli, Thomas More, and Thomas Hobbes might answer this question.

Because of the rather negative perception of Niccolo Machiavelli's theories of political survival and expediency at all costs, one might be tempted to assume that the Italian political theorist believed that the ideal leader, The Prince, should go to war at any opportunity to demonstrate his strength as a leader. However, Machiavelli was not nearly so bloodthirsty or foolish. In fact, Machiavelli believed in self-promotion and the promotion of the existence of the Prince's political future and the state at all costs. War occasionally might serve as a means to this end but only should be undertaken in extreme circumstances. For instance, in discussing a specific political situation that plagued Italy at the time, he noted, that war….

Furthermore, that the intent of all princes should be to use all means necessary to maintain their powerbase.
The works of Thomas Hobbes were revolutionary during his time period. He used his understanding of human nature and extrapolated the need for absolutism within government. The Leviathan was revolutionary in that it expounded Hobbesian concept of a material universe. His essential premise is that everything in the universe consists only of matter in motion. Hobbes believes that all things have a material existence even God, and this allows him to derive a natural philosophy that fits within a framework for modern political thought. Hobbes main contribution is that he postulates a framework for human understanding, that we are in effect beasts in nature, until we have a framework of government. This understanding differs substantially from early philosophers who had a generally positive light of inherent human nature. Hobbes instead, believes that….

Nicomachean Ethics and Leviathan
In every society, there are tens of hundreds of individuals whose personal value system leads them to leading a life based on principles of honesty, trust, fairness and compassion. To that extent, justice, as a concept can and does exist quite separate from any system of government given any number of citizens who ensure that justice is done in their dealings with their fellow humans. However, viewed from the perspective that not all members of human society necessarily adhere to similar principles, justice in a society is largely dependent on a government that upholds and enforces it. ithout government and a legal system, it is more than probable that social anarchy would prevail with many humans resorting to pure self-indulgence, committing unjust and criminal acts purely for their own personal gain, with little or no regard to concepts such as the welfare of fellow citizens. Such a….