Thomas Hobbes- Leviathan and State of Nature

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are political theorists with contrasting views on 'The State' and why humans have to obey the state and sovereign.

Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan  - a famous political thought text.

Hobbes

Hobbes said that without governance of any form, human beings are in a 'State of Nature' where everyone fights everyone, using brutal force to pursue self-motivated gains. In this state of nature, each man is entitled to everything, and hence conflict, fighting and death will result from the innate selfishness of mankind.

By forming a state, each man gives all his "rights" to the sovereign or leading body, which distributes and controls these "rights", often limiting them or restricting them for the good of the majority. An example would be to make murder punishable.

Hence a social contract is formed between the state and each person - and man has to obey the state because it is an act of mutual consensus for the benefit of everyone.

For Hobbes, man kind was born nasty, selfish and self-centered. The state of nature is brutal, nasty and short, full of death and suffering. Each individual fends for himself and has no security against attacks.

It is only when we give our rights to the state that we have a duty of care to the others. Natural psychology of the human mind and a desire for personal security drives us to commit to organized society.

Critique of Hobbes:

- He assumes that human beings are inherently nasty, selfish and greedy. We still cannot prove this and there's no solid evidence for what the true state of human nature is.

-He assumes men and women are the same in the State of Nature - are women as violent and savage as men in nature ? What about physical strength and struggle - if women are physically weaker than men, then does that mean in a State of nature, no one cares for the women ?

- He ignores family institutions - a male and his mate and children will be one unit instead of individual, selfish people. They, at most, can be brutal as a unit (or can they ?) but there is some form of structure and society already in place. Perhaps the woman obeys the man - is that a micro-state ?

- He ignores the possibility of corruption of the sovereignty. What if the powers are misused ? Hobbes does not mention that people should revolt or oppose. They should put blind trust in the state instead. This doesn't seem, to me, very practical in real life. Locke suggests a limited government.

- Can man kind ever be moral naturally ? Man may have the capability to make naturally good decisions even in a State of Nature. To what extent is Hobbe's state of nature true ? 

- Cooperation for mutual benefit rather than to avoid a brutal life (Dawkins)