Thomas Hobbes Leviathan - Essay Example

Task Introduction Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is a counteraction and rejection to the proposition that everything happens naturally rather than artificially (Westerfeld and Keith 29). Hobbes views the human beings as artificial machines that were created by God through thoughtful planning and design (Westerfeld and Keith 29). He describes nature as the art through which God created the world and governs it, with the description of life as artificial due to the high imitation of man as an artificial animal (Westerfeld and Keith 29). Thomas Hobbes was a great systematic and universal mind of the seventeenth century, and had a wide range of philosophical interests that bore the Leviathan (Westerfeld and Keith 29). Problem Statement According to Hobbes, the artificial imitation of human nature (natural man) makes life a simple motion of limbs as controlled by critical inside parts of the human body (Westerfeld and Keith 35). Hobbes describes Leviathan as an artificial man or commonwealth that is stronger and bigger than the natural man (Westerfeld and Keith 35). Such philosophy tends to raise criticism and questions pertaining to mankind, in terms of challenges and options available to humans for survival. According to Hobbes, no covenant can be binding in the state of nature due to the fear of non-performance though, on the other hand, the only available option to evade the state of the nature is by making a covenant to recognize a sovereign (Westerfeld and Keith 35). This is contradictory due to inconsistency levels, as per the relationship between nature and the Leviathan or artificial man (Westerfeld and Keith 35). Significance of the Research and Thesis Statement This research and analysis seeks to explore on, and seal the gap between the artificial and the natural. It seeks to explore more on the interaction of the artificial man with the environment, and the nature of the artificial man (Westerfeld and Keith 35). There is also an exploration on artificer and the covenants made between the artificial man and the state of nature in enhancing survival without compromising on the rights of the artificial man (Westerfeld and Keith 35). Interaction of the artificial human with nature is not perfect and involves the adaptability of the natural laws, and the ability to cope with provisions of nature. Therefore, covenant-making is core for survival and recognition of nature as sovereign. However, there is no perfect and binding covenant in the state of nature due to multiple challenges arising from the sovereign nature. Nature remains sovereign over human, and hence covenants developed during the human-nature interaction must be binding despite the fear of non-performance. Leviathan Coping with the state of nature for both the artificial and natural human requires adaptability in coping with interactional challenges, in addition to moral challenges (Cahill, Hille and Metogo 14). Nature is considered sovereign as it is the art of God’s creation and governing of the world. Interaction with nature, therefore, requires some adaptability and coping skills for both the natural and artificial man (Cahill, Hille and Metogo 14). The artificial and the natural humans must adhere to certain conditions provided by the natural law for easier interaction and/or coping. Hobbes describes the artificial human or commonwealth as sovereign over the natural man, contrary to the fact that the natural man is considered sovereign over other artificial things (Cahill, Hille and Metogo 14). Hobbes concentrates on the theories and philosophies of political absolutism and sovereignty without giving ample evidence on his stated sovereignty of the artificial man over the natural man (Cahill, Hille and Metogo 14). The natural man has a high level of intelligence and thought as compared to the artificial man, who is remotely controlled and dependent (Cahill, Hille and Metogo 14). The natural man can make independent decisions and interact freely with the natural environment. Nature provides conditions for the survival of the natural man, with an exclusion of violation of his/her right (Schmitt 123). Hobbes’ theories of natural law and natural right are based on speculations and perceptions on political absolutism, and sovereignty (Schmitt 123). He compares the chief authority of the commonwealth to the soul of the natural man, in the terms of life and motion, without duly considering the impact of the state of nature on both the artificial and natural man. According to Greek philosophy, nature is a norm whose animistic personification and endowment originate from an intelligent, rational, ethical and/or purposive character (Cohen, Curd & Reeve 205). It also identifies the intelligent character as supreme and sovereign over any other creation, whereby nature itself is used in governing humans and the world at large (Cohen, Curd & Reeve 205). There are diverse customs and community laws that counter nature and natural laws, and guide the random human practices and laws (Cohen, Curd & Reeve 205). These laws are, however, in line with the provisions of nature and human-nature covenants set to enhance an active performance and survival. According to Aristotle, the moral law of nature provides the human with character transformation and adaptability, happiness, virtues, and the imperatives and moral obligation of good and evil, for the good of the human (Cohen, Curd & Reeve 205). There is a clear difference and distinction between natural justice and the legal conventions of both the natural and the artificial man (Cohen, Curd & Reeve 205). The natural justice applies to all, in general, regardless of their rights, perceptions and/or opinions. Hobbes describes nature as an end-directed process that puts man as an artificial or political animal, whose needs must be fulfilled through interactions with others. The formation of the artificial commonwealth is a result of natural teleological processes that lead to the union of males and females for the provision of basic human needs. This is as opposed to the natural human unity in villages and/or large communities for evolutionary development and the emergence of a natural political order for the good of humankind. The philosophy of Stoicism formulates the conceptual law of nature as a moral practice and norm, in the terms of ethics, logic, politics, and the universal law. Hobbes argues out that the natural law dictates grounding reasons in nature that are fair and known to the human beings (Cohen, Curd & Reeve 205). The survival of a natural human cannot be equated to the survival of a commonwealth (artificial man) due to the constraints by nature (Cohen, Curd & Reeve 205). The natural human must learn to adopt and form covenants with nature, to be bound in the state of nature, as compared to the control of the commonwealth by high authorities (Finnis 96). The authority of nature controls the natural human, and is sovereign to all natural humans (Finnis 96). The control of the commonwealth is likely to depend on the diversity and ability of the authorities, who are under the sovereign authority of nature and natural laws (Finnis 96). Commonwealth can be termed as the right reason in accordance with nature, universal, and static natural laws that prohibits natural wrongdoing, which applies for all nations at all times and binds all humans into obligation (Cohen, Curd & Reeve 205). God is considered as the supreme creator, author and promulgator of nature and its laws. According to the ancient Greek philosophers, natural law is an ordinance taught by nature to all living creatures, and is therefore unlimited to the human species (Cohen, Curd & Reeve 207). Hobbes’ perceptional conclusion on the natural law has been greatly criticized on the basis of evidence and factuality of his conclusive philosophical studies (Brandon 131). A Hobbes scholar, David Gauthier, pointed out several inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Hobbes’ philosophies on the law and state of nature (Brandon 131). He criticized Hobbes’ lack of exploration into the issues interconnected to the law of nature, arguing out that the character of the natural law was divine command, and hence making it genuine law. Gauthier criticized Hobbes work and termed the latter as a non-orthodox religious Christian of Calvinist persuasion (Brandon 131). Hobbes’s moral and political theory questions Hobbes’ understanding of the connection and relationship between civil law, natural law, and divine law, in addition to his perceived legal positivism that does not recognize the concepts of natural law (Brandon 131). Hobbes provides a rather confusing concept of the natural law in his statement that; no covenant can be binding in the state of nature due to reasonable fear of non-performance though the scapegoat to the state of nature is the formation of a covenant and the recognition of sovereign law (Brandon 132). Conclusion The statement is misguiding due to the clear relationship between the divine, civil and natural laws (Finnis 90). The natural law is all-inclusive to the human species, with God as the sovereign power or authority (Cahill, Hille and Metogo 14). The moral law of nature provides the human with character transformation and adaptability, happiness, virtues, and the imperatives and moral obligation of good and evil, for the good of the human (Cahill, Hille and Metogo 14). Hence, there is a clear difference and distinction between natural justice and the legal conventions of both the natural and artificial man (Cahill, Hille and Metogo 16). The critics to Hobbes’ work, such as Gauthier, are a clear indication of the discrepancies and contradictions in his work, and lack reliable evidence to support his conclusions and perceptions on the natural law (Finnis, p96). Contrary to Hobbes’ claim that no covenant can be binding in the state of nature due to reasonable fear of non-performance through the scapegoat to the state of nature, is the formation of a covenant and the recognition of sovereign law; covenants are core in the adaptability of the natural human to the nature (Schmitt 123). The natural law is all-inclusive and has to be recognized in the physical and moral living of the humans, contrary to his concentration on political absolutism and sovereignty that is negligent to the natural law (Schmitt 125). Works Cited Brandon, Eric. The Coherence of Hobbess Leviathan: Civil and Religious Authority Combined. Continuum Studies in British Philosophy. New York: Continuum, 2007. Print. Cahill, Lisa, Hille, Haker and Metogo Eloi. Human Nature and Natural Law. London: SCM Press, 2010. Print. Cohen, Mark, Curd, Patricia & Reeve, C. D. C. Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy, (Fourth Edition): from Thales to Aristotle: from Thales to Aristotle. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing. Print. Finnis, John. Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print. Schmitt, Carl. The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.Print. Westerfeld, Scott and Keith, Tompson. Leviathan. New York: Simon Pulse, 2009. Print. Read More