The Emergence of Society and Total Aggression - Essay Example

Thomas hobbes by The of the The of the School The and where it is located The Date Thomas Hobbes Introduction If one takes a close look at the society which is formed by humans, one can not help noticing that it is often regarded as an irreplaceable prerequisite for the development of the inner potential of a person. That is why certain scholars argued that life prior to emergence of society and government may be characterized in extremely negative terms. This paper will outline the views of Thomas Hobbes on the relevant manner and examine the role of the state to protect freedom of people from different perspective. Hobbes views on state of nature To begin with, one should carefully analyze what ideas the above mentioned philosopher expressed while describing the state of affairs before the society. In his fundamental work, Leviathan, Hobbes developed the concept of bellum omnium contra omnes and argued that existence of continuous War prevented people to enjoy various manifestation of civilization such as security, culture, navigation, arts, letters and so on (Hobbes 1996, p. 89). He concluded that “the life of man [was] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 1996, p. 89). Indeed, he makes a connection between the conditions that a person lives in and the ability manifest one’s potential. Keeping in mind that in the state of nature people were primarily preoccupied with their daily survival, there is no wonder that the quality of life was so low. In addition to that, the above mentioned war of all against all is conditioned by the fact that people could rely on their strength exclusively while securing their right; quite naturally, the weak would end up being dominated by the strong. With this regard, the role of the government is seen as an equalizer that brings harmony into social relationship by designing a force that can be applied individually or collectively. The obvious result of it is the end of the War and improvement of quality of life. Arguments for position of Hobbes As one can easily see the views of the previously mentioned philosopher show that the role of the state should be regarded as a beneficial one since it protects the freedom of the people. Indeed, there are many scholars who share such an approach. For example, it is often pointed out that in the state of nature people could do anything they deem appropriate and effective, including actions that are forbidden in the contemporary society, such as killing (Wolff 1996, p. 13). In other words, prior to emergence of the state, people were not able to feel security as they were afraid of their fellow citizens. It is quite understandable that under such conditions one could hardly experience any freedom. Another point that should be mentioned with this regard is that people agreed to give up a certain amount of their freedom for a particular, explicitly defined reason: they wanted to achieve peace (Feldman 2010, p. 59). It is quite understandable that restricting one’s freedom is often perceived as a negative action; however, if this process is universal and is conditioned by the desire to achieve a better state of affairs, then it might be considered to be acceptable. Indeed, on the one hand, the range of actions which were available to the people prior to the emergence of the society was limited, but one can hardly argue that not being able to kill others at will and have no punishment for it should be seen as a substantial limitation of one’s freedom. Finally, it is clear that the state of nature, as it was described by Hobbes, represented a chaotic system which was not effective or sustainable. In other words, the majority of people who were engaged in it were not able to benefit from it. Keeping in mind that grating a right to do anything did not appear to be the best organization of the social environment, it was rather logical of people to try to move in an opposite direction. That is why the emergence of the society is largely influenced by the failure of state of nature. Arguments against position of Hobbes In spite of the fact that many people readily adopted the view which was developed by Hobbes, there are scholars who presented their criticism of it. To begin with, it is often noted that within the framework of the society, people who gave up a part of their freedom become some sort of sociological units that are managed by the external force (van Mill 2001, p. 197). In other words, in the state of nature when the amount of freedom was at its peak, people could live life to its fullest, but when they were partially deprived of it, they could no longer experience the entire range of actions which diminished quality of their life. In other words, while the government may have dealt with the security problem, it caused a different, much more serious one. The next essential point of criticism that is articulated with regard to the views of Hobbes is the universality of agreement. It is suggested that everyone willfully decided to restrict themselves; however, the reality shows that there are many individuals who refuse to play by these rules. Indeed, every crime is basically a protest against the common commitment to a peaceful life. All this leads to the fact that citizens are not able to rest assured that every person will follow rules and regulations (Pavel 2014, p. 4). So, this reflects the flaws of the current organization of the society and reduces the positive effect that is has on the people. Finally, the opponents of position of Hobbes usually point out the biggest flaw in his views. According to them the fact that people gave up a part of their freedom might be seen as the first step towards their possible oppression. Indeed, if citizens are controlled by the government, there is always a possibility that the latter might accumulate too much power and will no longer be responsible to them. As a result, the government who was originally designed to protect freedom of the citizens will turn into quite the opposite: it will take away the rest of it. In spite of the fact that this is quite a possibility, there is no doubt that such transition might be backed up by numerous historical events Critical analysis of position of Hobbes Now, it may be particularly advantageous to perform analysis of the position in question and possibly combine the views which were expressed above. Thus, in my point of view the validity of the idea of Hobbes and the positive effect of the state on humans can be supported by the comparison of the present state of affairs with the state of nature. Any objective examination will soon reveal that the people nowadays are able to develop their inner potential more than they used to. In addition to that, the problem of personal security or ownership is largely taken care of by the government. All this provides people with the ability to enjoy the previously mentioned aspects of civilization. Moreover, one should point out that the nature of relationship between the people and the government is often being misunderstood. The opponents of the views of Hobbes think that the latter took away part of the freedom of the former and this was the only interaction that happened between the two actors. Contrary to that, people and the state are engaged in a constant cooperation and the citizens are able to influence the state through elections or any other similar actions. That is why if the state was to acquire more power, the public would react to it. In addition to that, there is always a mechanism that entitles people to resistance in case they feel that the state is too oppressive. Lastly, if one develops a broad perspective on the issue in question, one will be able to see that the positive impact that the state has on freedom of the people generally outweighs the negative impact that it has. Indeed, scientists do not see the social environment and the framework that it rests on in one dimension only: the emergence of society gave rise to many problems that simply did not exist prior to it. However, just like every coin has two sides, the role of society is ambiguous. Nevertheless, the objective analysis of the current state of affair will show that the contemporary organization of the society may not be perfect, but it is the best what the humanity was able to come up with so far. Conclusion Having examined all the evidence which was brought up in the paragraphs above, one is able to state that the idea of state which was developed by Thomas Hobbes is extremely important since it was able to generate a deep discussion. This philosopher argues that life in the state of nature was of rather low quality which is explained by the hostility of the people. The emergence of the society was able to deal with this total aggression. Nevertheless, people nowadays are divided with regard to Hobbes views on the state and its role to protect one’s freedom. References Feldman, L 2010, Spaceships and politics the political theory of Rod Serling, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD. Hobbes, T 1996, Leviathan, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mill, D 2001, Liberty, rationality, and agency in Hobbess Leviathan, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Pavel, C 2014, Divided sovereignty: International institutions and the limits of state authority, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Wolff, J 1996, An introduction to political philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Read More