Pros And Cons Of Hobbes
There are two objections that interrelated to verify Hobbe’s assertions to be inaccurate. The first objection would be that the specific mechanism that initiates Hobbes’s assertion of the state of nature is actually not egoism, but rather, the idea of “uncertainty”. The second objection would be that the state of nature does not necessarily mean lack of government. Conflict, violence, and war are still very prevalent in today’s society although we have authority such as the government. The idea of uncertainty means that not everyone is motivated to kill for personal gain however; it may be the uncertainty of someone else’s actions that forces them to choose the side of conflict. Hobbes blatantly states that for a modest person, it is
…show more content…
However, one can object that even with authority, there is still conflict which may be because people are still uncertain of other’s actions. Here Hobbes admits that his descriptions of “state of war” are mainly hypothetical and may have never happened, we can still refer to the times civil war and look at how “savages” lived in the Americas. It is not completely true that general populations are all selfish in the way that egoism describes. Therefore, there is a high probability to prevent people from accepting Hobbe’s argument. Hobbes’s explanation for the government use should be weakened if there is no dependable way for majority of modest or peace seeking people to differentiate themselves from a the smaller amounts of power hungry/war seeking individuals. In other words, even when large amounts of the people specifically favor shared peace and cooperation; a law of nature does not guarantee the certainty that peace will arise. For example, there is clearly law enforcement or for some a spiritual enforcement (God) that says people should not steal; however, there are many who still defy the law and cause trouble in fulfilling their self-desires which can result to the victim feeling the freedom to kill or do whatever harmful to the offender because he broke the peace although enforcement was
However, one can object that even with authority, there is still conflict which may be because people are still uncertain of other’s actions. Here Hobbes admits that his descriptions of “state of war” are mainly hypothetical and may have never happened, we can still refer to the times civil war and look at how “savages” lived in the Americas. It is not completely true that general populations are all selfish in the way that egoism describes. Therefore, there is a high probability to prevent people from accepting Hobbe’s argument. Hobbes’s explanation for the government use should be weakened if there is no dependable way for majority of modest or peace seeking people to differentiate themselves from a the smaller amounts of power hungry/war seeking individuals. In other words, even when large amounts of the people specifically favor shared peace and cooperation; a law of nature does not guarantee the certainty that peace will arise. For example, there is clearly law enforcement or for some a spiritual enforcement (God) that says people should not steal; however, there are many who still defy the law and cause trouble in fulfilling their self-desires which can result to the victim feeling the freedom to kill or do whatever harmful to the offender because he broke the peace although enforcement was