Hobbes and the Leviathan

The theory of the Social Contract states that in order to make civilians obedient and peaceful, there must be an agreement - giving up certain freedoms for a well-behaved society. By giving up freedom to the so called sovereign, the civilization forms a society full of order. The 17th century thinker Thomas Hobbes, names the sovereign as the Leviathan - the great biblical creature. It is also the name of his most famous philosophical work. The most interesting part of the Leviathan lies in the prequel of the contract, the natural state of human beings. Hobbes argues that the human nature in itself is malicious and destructive. His philosophy lies within the fact that the universe itself is working as a machine. In the universe, human beings are functioning mechanically as well, so feelings and moral viewpoints happen to be on the basis of instinct. What we can sense here is that subjectivity arises, and Hobbes’ argues that the subjectivism would overdue in the State of Nature. Hence, it would end in a “war of all against all”, since the number one interest for everyone is their own. Taking into account his philosophical standpoint and the hypothetical state of nature, he came to the conclusion that humans were obliged to make an agreement. Firstly, all people had to abide and accept some basic rules - laws, and then, they would need a representative to facilitate and set authority to the men (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.)

Food for thought: Can we argue that Hobbes’ state of chaos is not just hypothetical? When overlooking all the bigger wars that happened or are still happening in the century, can we somehow find a morally good nature in the human species? All the bloody Balkan wars, resulting in fratricidal conflicts, leaving mothers mourning over their sons fighting. The human innate urge to protect their own being and act in a mechanic way supports the Hobbesian idea of mechanistic nature. Are people doing anything out of altruistic, patriarchal means or is it all coming down to subjective well-being?