Hobbes Vs Kant Analysis

Both Thomas Hobbes and Immanuel Kant envision the state of nature as one of insecurity, fear, and mistrust, with Hobbes stepping so far as to call the state of nature a “state of war.” Both philosophers accordingly believe that only under an externally imposed contract can this state of fear lessen and can interests be kept in check, even if competition cannot be halted. Hobbes and Kant emerge from the same place in evaluating the necessity of a contract between parties, but it is within the implications of their ideas of competition that the two philosophers diverge in notions of politics and morality. Kant, speaking with a teleological voice akin to Aristotle’s, posits that once a social contract is created amongst the people and their sovereign, …show more content…
I wish to place confidence in Kant’s logic, but Hobbes’ realism and his construction of a society that works productively and effectively even within such a realistic and bleak viewpoint are much more convincing. While Hobbes’ tenant that leviathans rule in regard to the people only because they can profit from the multitude’s prosperity carries less appeal than Kant’s conception of a moral and contractually obligated ruler, the Hobbesian understanding of the reason of leviathans supports a beneficial commonwealth in both theory and practice. On the international level, too, Hobbes presents an illustration of foreign relations that rings true with flawed 21st century “America first” rhetoric and frequent disregard for international law; he provides an imperfect truth but he thus allows for recognition of the faults of reality and still demonstrates how imperfect leviathans can rule for the benefit of their nations. Though we may wish to live in the realm of Kant’s theory, we would perhaps be better off to live in the realm of Hobbes’ realistic