Hobbes Why Should I Accept Government

Hobbes Why Should I Accept Government

Hobbes can be understood as trying to answer the following two questions

(i) Why should I (or we) accept law and government?

(ii) What form of law and government should I (or we) accept?

How does Hobbes answer these questions? Do you agree/disagree with Hobbes? (Provide reasons.)

Why should I (or we) accept law and government? How does Hobbes answer these questions?

Hobbes’s answer to the key question of “Why should I (or we) accept law and government?” is derived from the crucial and pivotal concept of his entire argument that is, self preservation is our ultimate goal. So therefore the overall, underling reason why Hobbes believes we need to accept law and government is because law and government is the only source that can provide the sufficient security we need to ensure self preservation. However we will start with how Hobbes justifies the reasoning behind this answer, with his invitation to the idea of what our existence would be like if there wasn’t any form of government and law or what is known as a �State of Nature’.

In this hypothetical �State of Nature,’ described by Hobbes as a social situation where it is everyman for himself, some key elements and qualities exist which we need to grasp to understand Hobbes reasoning. One of these crucial qualities described by Hobbes is the concept that all men have the potential to poses the same strength in both body and mind and therefore are equal. Hobbes reasonings is that although some men can be born with “strength of the body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederary with other ” with the same concept applying to the mind, so Hobbes consider us to be all on the potential equal playing ground. Another key quality in Hobbes �State of Nature” is the idea of scarcity, that there are not enough resource, goods, lands, animals to provide for everyone. And from the combination of these qualities comes the third critical concept that Hobbes proposes, “from this equality of ability arises equality of hope in the attaining of our ends, ” that everyone has equal entitlement and desire for these goods and thus will both look to satisfy there needs or desires equality.

Hobbes derived from these ideas, what is known as the �Right of Nature’ and the �Law of Nature,’ both concepts cornerstones to Hobbes reasoning or justification of political obligation. The �Right of Nature’ “is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature….and consequently of doing anything which in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto .” So therefore due to the belief that self preservation is our ultimate goal, Hobbes’s �Right of Nature’ both justifies and entitles us to use any means necessary to achieve our end goal. Hobbes also declares the �Law of Nature,’ that “man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best persevered.” That is, we obliged by these laws to do whatever means possible to survive and to do whatever ensures us with the greatest form of security and self preservation.

From these key pivotal conditions of the �State of Nature’ and the nature of man, Hobbes goes on to state that we are destine for hostility due to three principal causes. These principle causes go as such firstly, competition as competition will cause man to attack each to gain. Secondly, difference, for his own safety and thirdly, glory. for his reputation amongst other.

It is though the composition of these qualities that Hobbes believes a �State of Nature’ will enviably deteriorate into a �State of War’ of everyone against everyone. He also believes that the condition of a �State of War’ “consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known” so therefore “the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary ” and hence be living in a state our security of ones self preservation cannot be promised and is in constant jeopardy. He also deems that during such a state there would be no agriculture, no industry, no trade, no account of time, no navigation, no knowledge, no arts and no science and “which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish