Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan Essay Example for Free

Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan Essay Thomas Hobbes’ â€Å"Leviathan† is one of the most influential socio-political works during his time, extending even up to contemporary times. I for one will not be surprised to know that, precisely because the book itself is widely read and contains thoughts which are uniquely presented. Other than being a ‘revolutionizing’ approach to view society and politics, the â€Å"Leviathan† also shares a new way of understanding the structure of the society. Hobbes’ argument essentially focuses on the presumption that human beings are selfish and hungry for power, desiring to preserve their lives away from the harms of the chaotic state of nature. If I lived during the time when the book was published, I certainly will be surprised to some extent after reading the book since those years were the years of strict conformity to the existing status quo among the nations. In the book, Hobbes speaks about a sovereign, a person who will make sure that the people in the society will be accorded their safety against the threats of others. This proves to be of help especially when in a chaotic state where people will not hesitate to harm others, or perhaps even kill, just to preserve their own lives. A ruler will have to make sure that, indeed, the security of the people will be preserved under all conditions. However, I find rather difficult for the people under the violence of the state of nature to arrive at the decision to have a specific leader. Given the dire conditions of that state, is it really possible to choose among them a leader without ever arriving at more violence precisely because each of them has desires to preserve their selves? This might be a possibility, I think, since a chaotic state might be very difficult to tame down, especially for a single person. Nevertheless, it seems that Hobbes answers this question by positing the idea that although humans are selfish and seek power, they still have fear for their lives, or that they have fear of a violent death. With this in mind, it may be pointed out that the fear of a violent death gives ample room for a chaotic state of nature to be managed in one way or another. But is fear of a violent death a necessary condition for the people to begin thinking of choosing a sovereign among their number? I think that this may not be the sole necessary condition precisely because fear of a violent death may only inhibit certain violent actions of humans in the state of nature. They may hinder themselves from killing others or from inflicting violence upon others, but this does not altogether extinguish their desire for power and the preservation of the self. In the end, the selfishness of humans will still take a large role in their lives and in their decisions. What if Thomas Hobbes is truly right when he argues that the fear of a violent death will cause humans to eventually enter into a social contract and choose a sovereign? It may only mean that humans are compelled to enter into a social contract because their desire to preserve their welfare overrides their desire for power. But if the sovereign has already been elected, will the sovereign not resort to a dictatorial type of leadership given that the sovereign has the highest power in the state? I believe the chosen sovereign may have the tendencies of putting up a dictatorial regime simply because he still has that desire for power and that to secure the leader’s position in the state, the leader will have to make certain that there will be no possibility of a power-grab. Since the sovereign now has higher powers in the state above everybody else, it will not be difficult for the sovereign to eventually declare a dictatorial rule so that the leader can deprive all those who will desire to replace him in his position the chances of doing so. It seems, then, that the dire circumstances during the state of nature still have certain trickles of influences in the state after the social contract. Reference Hobbes, T. (1997). Leviathan (1st Touchstone ed. ). New York, NY: Touchstone.