Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: State Of War State Of Nature - 1,743 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Hobbes Leviathan is one of the many outstanding books on moral philosophy. Hobbes writes in a clear and engaging manner which makes his underlying thesis perfectly clear from the start: Man is a self-interested animal, and that this self-interest is enough to create authoritative and obligatory concepts of justice, citizenship, and morality. He states his thesis right from the start and is the basis for his theory that for all things dealing with ethical intuition the answer is generated from one thought, that is the rational self-interest of all humans. Although his theory sounds like the perfect society in which everyone is looking out for everyone, I believe that his theory attempts to define and in turn reduce our intuitive concept of morality into the simple term of self-interest. No matter how this argument is derived, there is a group of ethical situations in which the antecedent is true but the consequence is false. It is often the case where the self-interest of a person in the society is in direct contradiction of the society.

In this paper I will discuss a class of people that I will refer to as free loaders. Free loaders are people who try to get something for nothing and try to get it by any means possible. I will prove that Hobbes theory does not apply to all situations. In this paper I will show how free loaders direct Hobbes theory that self interest is the basis for morality. In order to better validate my thesis there is a brief summary needed to present the basic ideas of the book with emphasis on the points that are relevant to my paper.

Hobbes begins with two parts on nature: one is psychological and the other is physiological. The psychological assumption is that all men have desires, and that the goal of all men is to have power in order to get what they desire. I put fourth as a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that cease only in death. (pg. 58) The physiological assumption is that all men are created and remain equal in intelligence, morals, and goals. This equality among men means that every man can be and is a threat to every other man in that there is no one person so strong that he can not be killed and that there is no man so smart that he can not be outsmarted by another man. Given these two ideas Hobbes comes to the conclusion that in the absence of an intervening body, by nature, every man will be in a state of war and mistrust with every other man. This brings us to the point of Hobbes fundamental law of nature: that every man is entitled to every other thing, including each others bodies.

However every man must be willing, when others are so too, as far-fourth as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down his right to all things, and be contented with so much liberty against other mean, as he would allow other men against himself. (pg. 80) The next step for Hobbes is a logical conclusion, the creation of a commonwealth. According to Hobbes as long as every man has a right to every man life can only be poor and unsatisfying. To Hobbes it is in every man best interest to subdue himself to a higher authority figure on the condition that his enemies do the same. This is called a covenant. The covenant is a mutual agreement of the transfer of the rights of nature to a single sovereign power. A commonwealth is said to be instituted when men agree amongst themselves to submit to some man, or assembly of men, voluntarily, on confidence to be protected by him against all others. (pg. 110) Once a commonwealth is established, violating the covenant on which the sovereigns power rests is against everyones self-interest because the violation weakens the society, and in theory can lead that society back to the state of nature.

In short to break the law is to violate the law on nature, which is the law of self-interest. I realize that this is extremely simplified, however one point has been made perfectly clear: Hobbes believes that enlightened self-interest is the basis and root of morality in the state of nature and the commonwealth. That is, in the society each person can figure out for themselves what the morality of a specific action is. For Hobbes the state of war is by far the worst state to be in. Therefore any action that brings the society closer to the state of war is considered bad, any action that brings the society closer to a state of peace is good, and any action that has no effect on where the society goes is neither good nor bad. Mans intuition is very strong and comes from within, and comes out regardless of or even contrary to personal beliefs or gains.

The idea that Hobbes portrays in that moral actions are done out of pure self-interest just has no justification. Morals are something that are produced from within and you individually as a person decides what is morally right or wrong. However, whether or not we agree with Hobbes ideas I think that we can come to the agreement that there is room for situations in which our intuition differs totally from Hobbes theory. For example: Mary and Juan are drug dealers about to complete an illegal transaction. Both of them have taken extreme precautions to make sure that no one else knows about their meeting and transaction. They have also taken measures to ensure that they can not be linked together in anyway.

Knowing this Mary has the prime opportunity to kill Juan and get away from the deal with the money and the drugs. Mary knows that no one will find the body because no one knows where they met, and she will never get linked to Juan. So Mary takes advantage of the opportunity and kills Juan. In the situation that I have described above it seems that Marys actions were extremely morally wrong. However, Hobbes theory of enlightened self interest state that Marys actions were not wrong but right, and that anyone in the same situation should have done the same thing.

Why you might ask? Because of the law of self interest, which is the morality of the commonwealth is based forbids us to do that which is destructive [to our lives] or taketh away the means of preserving the same (pg. 79) Mary knew that there was no way she would get caught. Therefore there are no negative consequences, either directly, or indirectly. And it does not weaken the society in anyway leading it back to the state of war. Mary is a prime example of an enlightened self-interest action.

Mary knew that there were positive consequences (i. e. she got away with the drugs and the money) and no negative consequences (i. e.

the society is now better off with drug dealer Juan dead) to her actions. The right on nature allows Mary to do as she pleases in order to fulfill her right to self preservation. The right on nature is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature. (pg. 79) My example with Mary and Juan the drug dealers is not so unrealistic. It is safe to say that all of us at one time or another have found ourselves in similar situations.

Although Marys situation may not be the same situation that you or I have been in, it is now easier to conceive all of the possibilities that could happen to us and highlights the flaws in Hobbes theory. Hobbes recognized that his theory had holes for such situations and he provided specific arguments as to why Mary was acting against her own self interest. The first argument that Hobbes made was that Marys actions were actually against her own self interests because she knew that there might be a chance that there could be negative consequences for her actions and that she had no way of being absolutely sure that she could avoid those consequences. For first, in a state anyone who does what, as far as can be foreseen and understood by reason, tends to his own destruction, even though something unforeseen happens. (pg. 91) Although he has addressed the situation he has missed the point of my example. In this case Mary is certain with no sight of doubt that there will be no negative consequences. Therefore there are no unforeseen consequences for her actions.

Although our intuitions still hold Mary responsible for the crime Hobbes first rule can not apply. Hobbes second argument is that even though Mary may have gotten away with the crime she still acted immorally because her avoidance of punishment is based on the fact that no one else knows what happened. Hobbes says So, either he will be cast out an perish, or he will owe nothing and be cast out to the ignorance of others, which is contrary to right reason. (pg. 92) the first part of this statement is true but the second half does not hold true. Nowhere does Hobbes prove that relying on peoples ignorance is contrary to self interest. All Hobbes claims is that to rely on peoples ignorance is immoral because to rely on peoples ignorance is immoral. That is all the explanation he gives and that does not hold any weight in proving that he is right.

Therefore the second argument has no force behind it. In this essay I have given a substantial analysis to Hobbes Leviathan in terms of the problems of free loaders. I have defined and explained each part of my analysis and have given clear evidence to prove my thesis. In conclusion free loaders like Mary the murderer / drug dealer, are unavoidable bumps on the road for Hobbes theory that self interest is the basis for all morality. If these problems were small by nature or so far out there that we could not relate to them, we could disregard them as being exceptions to the rule. However the truth is that you and I find ourselves in this type or right or wrong moral dilemmas everyday of our lives.


Free research essays on topics related to: state of war, negative consequences, state of nature, hobbes leviathan, drug dealers

Research essay sample on State Of War State Of Nature

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com