Thomas Hobbes’ foundational point in his argument for the State is that human beings have no “summum bonum” or highest purpose

at
Categories
Tags

 

Thomas Hobbes’ foundational point in his argument for the State is that human beings have no “summum bonum” or highest purpose, as Aristotle taught centuries before: we are instead driven instead by one desire after another, with no goal other than the satisfaction of those desires and personal security. So are those two things connected — i.e., does living in a modern State mean admitting there is no purpose to human life as Hobbes claims? Is there something about the State with its sovereign power and central government that deprives us of any need for our final end, or happiness?
John Locke’s ideal government was one designed to protect everyone’s natural rights to “life, liberty and property,” and rule by the consent of the governed — making it very much a republic. But how was Locke’s modern republic different from the ancient Republic of Rome, as described by Polybius and Cicero? Explain one major difference.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “social contract” appears to overcome many of the timeless problems of political life, especially with the creation of the “general will,” or a perfectly unified society with a unanimous opinion on everything. Such a thing might overcome all of the problems of political life, but would it be worth it? Might there actually be something good about political dissent and conflict?

 

Sample Solution

Hobbes and Human Nature

Hobbes’ view of human nature, characterized by a constant pursuit of self-preservation and power, is often seen as pessimistic and devoid of any higher purpose. However, this does not necessarily imply that living in a modern state means denying the existence of a higher purpose. Rather, it suggests that the state provides a framework within which individuals can pursue their own goals and desires in a relatively secure and peaceful environment.

The state, with its sovereign power and central government, does not inherently deprive individuals of a need for their final end or happiness. Instead, it offers a means to achieve these ends by providing security, order, and cooperation. In other words, the state can be seen as a necessary condition for individuals to pursue their own purposes, rather than an obstacle to them.

Locke and the Modern Republic

While Locke’s modern republic shares similarities with the ancient Republic of Rome, there are significant differences. One major distinction lies in the concept of individual rights. In the Roman Republic, citizenship was a privilege granted to a select few, and individual rights were limited. In contrast, Locke’s modern republic emphasizes the universal rights of all individuals, regardless of their social or economic status. This emphasis on individual rights is a key feature of modern liberal democracies, and it sets them apart from ancient republics.

Rousseau and the Social Contract

Rousseau’s social contract theory presents an idealized vision of a society united by a common will. While this concept seems to offer a solution to many political problems, it also raises concerns about the potential for tyranny and the suppression of individual dissent.

While a perfectly unified society might seem desirable, it is important to recognize that dissent and conflict can be healthy forces in a democracy. Dissent can challenge the status quo, promote innovation, and ensure that the government remains accountable to the people. Conflict can also be a means of resolving differences peacefully and promoting compromise.

Therefore, while Rousseau’s social contract offers a compelling vision of a just and equitable society, it is important to balance the pursuit of unity with the recognition of the value of dissent and diversity. A healthy democracy requires a delicate balance between these two forces.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer