Hobbes' View

Hobbes View

I agree with Hobbes’s view and many other posts. It is not just one of the six reasons why we cannot live together peacefully, it is many of the reasons and all six of them at times. Although it is many of the six reasons, one in particular stands out. All of the reasons: competition, comparison, reason, speech, free will/no fear and covenant boil down to free will. Animals that live unlike us, in peaceful harmony, don’t have free will. People being dangerous is the consequence of humans having free will and being able to do what they want. Hobbes says that with his government humans would give up their free will, which would never happen. That is why people can never live together peacefully.

Hobbes' View

I agree with Hobbes' view on the fact that we as people are dangerous. We as people have a natural tendency to argue with one another. Unlike the animals and creatures that roam our planet we have the ability to say whatever it is that comes to our minds and the power to use logic against one another. Hobbes stated clearly that the reason humans don't have perfect societies was because we were blessed with these abilities. He spent six paragraphs describing why we can't live in perfect harmony. I agree with that but like shannon said I dont believe there will ever be a time when we can all agree upon one leader or group of leaders. Our ability to use reason and voice our opinions freely destroy any hopes for a perfect society. I do not believe that his system would work.

Hobbe's View

I think that everyone might be a little confused about what a covenant is. A covenant is not a document, which everyone comes together and writes down little rules about what the sovereign and what he can and cannot do. Like I had previously stated it is a formal agreement that says all people give up their free will to the sovereign in exchange for peace and security. That is all it is. I am confused about McKenzie’s point though; as to how not being able to agree upon one leader, proves Hobbes view on humans to be false? I am really confused as to where this conversation is going, and I think we need to stay true to the main question Why cant mankind live sociably in nature? So far it sounds like people are both agreeing and disagreeing with Hobbe’s view saying that the characteristics Hobbe’s says humans have (competition, comparison, reason, speech, free will/no fear, covenant) can be used both for good and for bad. This is true. Although, Hobbe’s main reason for having one leader that looks out for the best for the country is because he believes people are dangerous when they are not controlled. This being said, it is completely true. And I just don’t see how anybody could even disagree with that. Without rules, the outcome will be awful and people would go crazy.

Hobbes View

I agree with Marcus. We can't elect one leader without controversy because of the reasons we can't live in the true state of society. Hobbes contradicts himself here where he says, " very many think themselves wiser, and able to govern the publics better, than the rest". If that is true and the Leviathan is human, how is it possible? He would have to be unanimously elected by the people and that is impossible because of what Hobbes states in those six paragraphs. We could elect someone but there would be controversy would exist because we have free will, voice, and reason.

Hobbes View

Going off Shannon's thoughts i think to make "Commonwealth" work among a society with the rules that Hobbes has set out must be changed for the sake of Hobbes reasonings. Can Hobbes truly make his six viewpoints as an ideal state work? Which are, reason, manipulation (speech/voice), ease/no fear/ free will, and covenant. As Hobbes states of making a will "unto one will" meaning gathering the communities vocies and pleasures making a consentment and having to abid by one leader. Suggesting the community to not go against their will even though we all conflict from viewpoints and point out others flaws and imperfections thinking we can be better? Hobbes also conteracts himself with his paragraph about the soverign power. He states as men come together by natural force and dont agree with the will power among the state that they have their life on the line. Gather all of Hobbes ideas togther this soluion does not work. In natural society even with rules people out power authority making it hard for a particular man in the common wealth to agree with every one peace and common defense. Making of this that Hobbes solution to the problem of social turmoil incorrect.

I disagree with Marcus' view that the people completely agree on one leader. Part of the use of reason is that everyone reasons differently. So to put this with Hobbes' view in sort of contradictory. Even when the majority of people elect a leader there is still conflict. For example in American politics the people elect the president and yet any decision made by the president is still a controversy.

Hobbes' view

I agree with Cornelius on that human instinct always ends in destructive behaviors because maybe what is best for one person isn't best for the community. I believe giving up free will for the good of society sounds nice, but could anyone here see themselves doing this? If we were to unite under one will and fear for the peace and security of mankind would it be possible for us humans to give up the thrill that destructive behaviors ignites inside of us? Hobbes' was right. As long as we humans are able to reason against these ideas and use our gift of speech to enact our own wills we will never live peacefully because we think ourselves wiser and able to govern the public better.

Hobbes View

I agree with Nick that there is no formal election process among the commonwealth. What I got out of it was that the people of the commonwealth get together and completely agree upon one leader or board of leaders. But I disagree with Nick when he said it was an agreement out of fear of the consequences. I don't think there would be any consequences for not coming together on one leader. I think the decision of who leads them is one of free will but once the leader, or group of leaders, is appointed is when free will and reasoning is thrown out of the community.

Hobbes View

I do not agree with Shannon because there is no election per say, but rather an agreement by all of the people on the same man to protect the state. Hobbes speaks of people sacrificing free will of reasoning to do what is best for the commonwealth. Thats why it is not an election because an election requires reasoning, but rather an agreement out of fear of the consequences.

Hobbes View

I agree with Franchesca and disagree with Hobbes. Hobbes thinks that everybody in the state " has to give up their right of governing myself to this man..and authorize all his actions in like manner". Of course people has to give up will to the government ,otherwise the government wouldn´t work. However people should have the right to elect their leader and share their own opinions. At the end, like Franchesca already said, everybody should determine the best for the state.

I agree with shannon and nick in saying that one leader uniting the people under one will would be ideal. However because men " think themselves wiser and able to govern the public better, than the rest" they revolt and cause conflict. Hobbes' view that people are dangerous when not controlled is completely accurate. People's instinct always results in destructive behavior.

Going off of what Franchesca said about giving up your will, you give up your will for the better of the state. As Hobbes stated about the common peace and safety. One must give there will to them to ensure he knows how to act and give the power and strengh to the man that is leading them because they owe him peace and defense in his position. Even though the community gives up there free will that doesnt mean there won't be any conflicting viewpoints among the citizens.

Hobbes' Views

I agree with Nick that a leader to unite the commonwealth under the "One Will" would be ideal. However at the same time Hobbes contradicts himself when saying that the commonwealth must elect some to unite themselves. Allowing such an election is prime opportunity to allow people to reason and then go against the government. It's almost as if it's human nature to totally screw up any attempt at a peaceful society.

Hobbes View

I disagree with Nick in saying that you must give up your will. Devon in my opinion was talking more about a dictatorship. By one person leading an entire community of people, chaos could erupt, especially if this one person was not elected into power. It would not make sense to "reduce your will" if the majority of people do not like the leader and did not chose him. It would make more sense if one person was elected though. As long as the leader understands the people's needs in the society, that is all that matters. They must have the determination to make the state better for everybody though.

Hobbes View

I do not agree with Devon's comment on how one leader is bad and how people do not have a say in a Hobbes "commonwealth". This is because in "Of Commonwealth" Hobbes clearly states that "...that they must reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will:" Which means that the all of the people, give up their own free will willingly to be ruled by the leaders rule. This is a good thing because the leader must know what he is doing if he was chosen by the entire commonwealth to rule and protect the people and state.

Hobbes's View

I agree with Shannon's statement "I honestly believe this electing a leader to unite the people under fear for peace and safety stuff is crap." There is no way that any group of people would long put up with a leader who makes them live in terror of the government. Whenever people become angry with their government, they tend to rebel, resist, or leave the country. One modern example might be Syria. The people there are rebelling against their oppressive government and leaving the country because they have become fed up with the government's policies. If "The Leviathan" were ever to come into existence, it would surely soon have a rebellion on its hands.

Hobbes View

Ben had a really good point about Hobbes View when mentioning comparison. Comparing each other can be very good and very bad in times. To some it may mean every single detail of comparison and it could bring people down but it could be good with leaders. If any average Joe off of the street wanted to lead our country we could compare his leadership ability with that of a previous president or another candidate. By doing so we chose who is better to lead the country. I agree that some things on the list are dangerous but others are good in a multiple of ways.

Hobbes View

Shayan said that leaders cannot please everybody. People have the ability to reason, so some people will always find something wrong about a potential leader. If everybody's reasoning was the same, then we could agree on a leader, and other things for that matter. However, everyone reasons differently, so everyone has different ideas as to who, and what is the best for a community. It is impossible for one single idea or person to please everybody's needs. This, plus the fact that people will be always in competition for that powerful rule means that Hobbes view is correct.

Hobbes view

I strongly agree with Mckenzie's statement that because peoples ability to reason is a flaw Hobbes points out, that the commonwealth would not be able to elect a single leader to enfore the "one will". Hobbes talked about how the ability to reason made people capable of manipulating words for their own benefit. So wouldn't the process of electing a leader even though they are choosing the leader to unite them give us highly dangerous human beings the perfect oppourtunity to manipulate each others words? Case and point : the presidental elections of the U.S.A. It's dog-eat-dog and it invites our leaders to compete and point out each others flaws. I agree with Hobbes' view on human nature for the most part, but i honestly believe this electing a leader to unite the people under fear for peace and safety stuff is crap. He said it himself, our goals in life are basically to put down one another.