From Thomas Hobbesleviathan From Equality Of Ability Ariseth Equal ✓ Solved

From Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan : “From equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies […..] Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in the condition which is called WAR; and such a war, as is of every man against every man [……] In such a condition there is continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.†1) The following statement is NOT presupposed in the passage above: a) All people are essentially equal. b) Human nature drives people to be enemies with one another. c) The state of nature is a constant state of war. d) Nobody can harm anyone else as long as there is equality of hope.

2) The passage implies the solution to the problem it describes for individuals living in the state of nature. That solution is: a) Equality of ability. b) A common power to keep them all in awe. c) Continual fear and danger of violent death. d) A war, as if of every man against every man. From Jean Jacques Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origins of Inequality among Menâ€: “if we consider man just as he must have come from the hands of nature, we behold in him an animal weaker than some, and less agile than others; but, taking him all round, the most advantageously organized of any. I see him satisfying his hunger at the first oak, and slaking his thirst at the first brook; finding his bed at the foot of the tree which afforded him a repast; and, with that, all his wants supplied.†3) It follows from this passage that Rousseau believes the following: a) Hobbes is wrong, because it’s impossible to imagine what man might be like in the state of nature.

Since society exists, we can only speak about social man, not natural man. b) Hobbes is wrong, because in the state of nature there doesn’t have to be competition and war between men. In the state of nature, man has simple needs, and they are easily satisfied. c) Hobbes is wrong, because men are not equal or free. Some men are born to be masters and others are born to be slaves. Some men are naturally superior to all the rest. d) Hobbes is wrong, because oak trees do not produce any edible fruit. It is therefore impossible for men to survive by eating oak.

From John Locke’s “Second Treatise on Governmentâ€: “To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.†4) The following statement is NOT presupposed in the passage above: a) Men always depend on the will of others. b) The state of nature is a state of perfect freedom. c) Understanding the state of nature is important in order to understand political rights. d) Freedom includes the ability to own possessions.

From Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan : “Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.†From John Locke’s “Second Treatise on Governmentâ€: “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.†5) Which of the following best expresses the relationship between Hobbes’ and Locke’s positions?: a) Hobbes thinks law is always a social convention, and Locke agrees. b) Hobbes thinks law is based on the laws of nature, and Locke agrees. c) Hobbes thinks law is always a social convention, but Locke disagrees. d) Hobbes thinks law is based on the laws of nature, but Locke disagrees.

From Jean Jacques Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origins of Inequality among Menâ€: “Above all, let us not conclude, with Hobbes, that because man has no idea of goodness, he must be naturally wicked; that he is vicious because he does not know virtue; that by virtue of the right he truly claims to everything he needs, he foolishly imagines himself the sole proprietor of the whole universe. […] There is another principle which has escaped Hobbes; which, having been bestowed on mankind, to moderate, on certain occasions, the impetuosity of egoism, or, before its birth, the desire of self-preservation, tempers the ardor with which he pursues his own welfare. I am speaking of compassion.†6) Which of the following statements is NOT true, according to this passage: a) Rousseau disagrees with Hobbes: Hobbes believes that man is naturally wicked, but Rousseau believes that man is naturally compassionate. b) Rousseau disagrees with both Hobbes and Locke: Hobbes and Locke believe goodness comes from natural man’s ability to recognize the law of nature through reason, but Rousseau believes that goodness comes from the instinct of compassion. c) Rousseau disagrees with Hobbes: Hobbes believes that man has a natural desire for self-preservation, but Rousseau believes no man truly desires to preserve himself. d) None of the above.

Paper for above instructions

The excerpts provided from the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau reflect key concepts in social contract theory and provide contrasting views on human nature, politics, and morality. The interpretations of these passages can lead to deeper comprehension of their philosophical positions, which remain influential in contemporary discussions of governance and human behavior. Below, I will analyze the key statements presented and provide justifications based on the philosophical frameworks established by these thinkers, ultimately addressing the queries posed.

Hobbes on Equality and War

In Hobbes' Leviathan, he states, “From equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends” (Hobbes, 1651). This indicates a belief that individuals, regardless of their physical or intellectual abilities, compete for the same resources and desires. The excerpt mentions that this competition leads to enmity, emphasizing the human condition in a state of nature as one filled with fear and a "war of every man against every man" (Hobbes, 1651).
1. Statement not presupposed: The passage indicates that Hobbes believes human competition is a natural outcome of equality in ability and hope. Thus, the answer must be d) Nobody can harm anyone else as long as there is equality of hope. Hobbes' view posited that without a governing power, individuals are prone to harming one another.
2. Solution implicit in the passage: Hobbes suggests the necessity of a common power to prevent conflict. Therefore, the correct answer is b) A common power to keep them all in awe. This concept is central to Hobbes’ argument for an absolute sovereign or government as a stabilizing force in society.

Rousseau's Reflection on Nature

Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Origins of Inequality among Men, takes a significantly different stance. He asserts that in their natural state, humans are content and their needs easily fulfilled (Rousseau, 1755).
3. What Rousseau believes: He argues against Hobbes’ view of persistent conflict. Among the options provided, the most fitting interpretation is b) Hobbes is wrong because in the state of nature there doesn't have to be competition and war between men. Rousseau sees man as initially peaceful and suggests that societal structures induce inequality and competition.

Understanding Locke’s Concept of Freedom

Locke, in his Second Treatise on Government, states, “To understand political power right... we must consider, what state all men are naturally in” (Locke, 1689). He posits that the state of nature allows individuals the freedom to act without requiring the permission of others, within the bounds of natural law.
4. Statement not presupposed: Locke asserts the importance of understanding the state of nature to comprehend political rights. Hence, the incorrect statement is a) Men always depend on the will of others, highlighting that true freedom exists outside dependence.
5. Hobbes vs. Locke on Law: Hobbes views law as a construct contingent on societal agreements, whereas Locke posits a natural law governing individuals in the state of nature. The relationship between their views indicates c) Hobbes thinks law is always a social convention, but Locke disagrees. Locke believes in inherent natural rights that exist prior to and apart from governmental structures.

Rousseau's Compassion

Finally, Rousseau counters Hobbes' notion of inherent wickedness with his belief in compassion as a fundamental human quality. He states that not all men are predicated on egoism; rather, compassion tempers self-preservation desires (Rousseau, 1755).
6. Statement not true according to the passage: In this context, the statement c) Rousseau disagrees with Hobbes: Hobbes believes that man has a natural desire for self-preservation, but Rousseau believes no man truly desires to preserve himself is inaccurate. Rousseau acknowledges self-preservation but contends that mankind is also driven by an instinct of compassion.

Conclusion

In summary, the contrasting perspectives of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau shape a foundational understanding of political philosophy. Hobbes' emphasis on self-interest leads to a perception of conflict requiring an authority to maintain peace. Conversely, Rousseau asserts that a natural state of compassion mitigates conflict, while Locke promotes the idea of essential human freedoms grounded in natural law. Their theories continue to evoke critical discourse concerning human behavior, rights, and governance in contemporary society.

References

1. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan.
2. Rousseau, J.J. (1755). Discourse on the Origins of Inequality among Men.
3. Locke, J. (1689). Second Treatise of Government.
4. Waldron, J. (2002). God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations of John Locke's Political Thought.
5. Simmons, A.J. (1999). Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations.
6. Beattie, T. (2011). Philosophy and the Modern World: A New Introduction.
7. Reich, K. (2019). Social Contract Theories: Perspectives of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.
8. Ryan, A. (2003). John Locke: An Introduction.
9. Florence, D. (2004). State of Nature: A Political Economy of Conformity.
10. Dunn, J. (1984). Political Obligation in its Historical Context.
This synthesis presents a comprehensive understanding of the philosophical argumentation derived from the works of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau while addressing key questions contextualized within their theories.