Help me study for my Philosophy class. I’m stuck and don’t understand.

Discussion needs to be 600 words

Hobbes, in his magnum opus Leviathan, provides us with an account of human nature upon which he grounds his conception of the natural rights of the human being. For Hobbes, we saw that justice is a condition that can only exist amongst people who have entered into the social contract. Before entering into this social contract, there is no justice or morality, and human beings find themselves in a state of “war of all against all,” in which there is only the most fundamental right of all, the pursuit one’s own self-preservation by any means whatever. Since this state of nature is necessarily a rather solitary, unpleasant, and violent condition, in which life has the general character of being “nasty, brutish, and short,” people choose to enter into what is known as the “social contract” in order to establish peace. In the social contract, we agree to trade away some of our rights of unlimited pursuit of self-interest in order to thereby gain some rights of security and liberty from our fellow human beings (I give up the right to steal from you, and you give up the right to steal from me, etc.). This social contract then forms the basis of sovereign government insofar as a sovereign, with the monopoly on the legitimate and overwhelming use of violence, is necessary in order to put this contract into force and thereby truly abolish the state of nature. Without the power of the sovereign, the social contract would only be a flimsy verbal agreement which anyone could violate at will, therefore the state of nature would remain intact. Firstly, is this a compelling account of human nature, the rights of human beings, and the nature of justice? Second, does Hobbes provide a convincing argument for the ultimate justification or grounding of the the State? Why or why not?

attached is the reading

peer response needs to be 300 words

Saniris Marschall

Hobbes presents us with three principle quarrels in the nature of a man. “…In the nature of a man, we find three principle quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory (page 77).” He explains that the first is when men do something for gain, the second is when men do something for safety and the third is when men do something for their reputation. He then says that this in turn causes competition between men and are constantly at war “and such a war as is of every man against every man (page 77).” I believe that this is a compelling account of human nature. I believe that us humans are constantly in competition with one another and we are always looking to defend ourselves and our property as well as always trying to have the best reputation. We can see this in terms of people applying for the same job, they are competing for the position. We all compete to find the best mate, best house, career, etc. When we achieve these things we want to defend them. We want to feel safe in our house, job, community, etc. And men are always trying to have a son so that he can carry on the family name/reputation. I think that Hobbes provides a compelling view of justice as well. He says that “where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” If there are no laws to tell you what is right or wrong, then anything is fair game and therefore you cannot say something is unjust.

I also agree with Hobbes about the grounding of the state. According to Hobbes there are only two instances in life, we are either at war or at peace. I agree with him that these are the only two states in which the world will be in at any given time. Hobbes says that we enter tho social contract when we decide to give up our right to do anything that benefits us and other do so as well. When we enter the social contract we do not infringe upon others rights, as they do not infringe on ours. This in turn creates peace between people. I agree that a social contract exists. My parents always taught me that my rights end where someone else’s rights begin. I do not have the right to steal from someone, just as they do not have the right to steal from me. This is exactly what the social contract depicts. I agree with Hobbes’ way of depicting human rights. When there is no social contract the only right everyone has is the right to do whatever they have to do to survive, and when two men need the same resource, the stronger prevails. But when there is a social contract people have different rights and they are not to infringe on other people’s rights. Everything becomes orderly but more complex when we have a social contract in place.