Thomas Hobbes Leviathan Essay

Thomas Hobbes’ radical authoritarian description of the state in the Leviathan was largely sparked by the period in which his works were written. Having lived through a civil war, Hobbes wrote the Leviathan less than a decade after its end. The English civil war was a clash between the supporters of the monarchy and the supporters of the Parliament. Because of the chaos that had emerged in English society as a result, he believed that a central governing authority would be most effective; there was no need for a division of power into a parliament—executive, legislative, or judicial branches. In contrast, John of Salisbury found this division not only beneficial, but also necessary.
This paper will discuss the difference between Thomas Hobbes’ …show more content…
He reasons the hierarchy that he has established through the body is imperative to having a smooth-operating society. Hobbes would disagree, and instead argue that the sole purpose of the state is, in fact, to protect its citizens. This is where the idea of a “social contract” plays a role. Through this contract between people and the state, individuals ensure that they are removed from the “state of nature”. That is, a life outside of a civilized state without a central authority. Once one has agreed to the social contract, they take “themselves out form that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as has been shown to the natural passion of men when there is no power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants” (Hobbes). Hobbes believes that life in the state of nature is a constant state of war. Specifically, he says that there is “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes). He argues that it is not likely that men will lead a peaceful life without an overarching