Question 1: Hobbes Leviathan
The creation of a commonwealth without a leader provided an uncharted political region for England. There were no regulations to govern the people. The monarchy came along after the 17th century after the insights of Thomas Hobbes. Later on, the parliament prescribed an executive form of leadership contributing towards a fluid political setup with corruption and factional fighting. Many individuals doubted the advantages of an unregulated democracy. Thomas Hobbes reflected on the political turmoil and wrote the Leviathan to contemplate on the fear and insecurity in England that led to the civil conflict. The aristocratic associations he provided resulted in his exile during the seventeenth century. This essay conceptualizes on the primary works of Thomas Hobbes concerning human nature.
The Leviathan piece advocated for the use of political absolutism. The power according to Thomas Hobbes was crucial to control the violent nature of human beings and provide a reasonable existence. The enactment of the absolute leadership did not depend on divine sanction or hereditary traits; rather it was the skill to obtain and maintain authority. His ideas borrowed from the concepts of Niccolo Machiavelli. However, Hobbes gave a more integrated political and social philosophy concerning the government. Nature enables man to have equal opportunities regardless of differences in the body or mind. The equality is the primary cause of the conflicts that arise between people.
Man always follows the quest of accomplishing his needs. Hence, when two people require the same item that they cannot enjoy together they automatically become rivals. They begin to culminate strategies to subdue and destroy one another. The nature of individuals is thus characterized by quarrels brought by glory, insecurity, and competition. Therefore, it is vivid that without a common power to unite and control the desires of men, conflicts would always occur due to the three aspects. Thomas Hobbes suggests that the only remedy for the issue is absolute monarchy to manage the nature of human beings.
Question 2: Differences in the view of humanity
Thomas Hobbes utilizes the Leviathan to depict human nature as unruly. Individuals can only be controlled by a creature (Leviathan) who is a ruler embodied by people who conform to his dominance to maintain general welfare. The persons will lose their individual power but gain security and stability. The image is an indication that Hobbes saw humanity as unruly. According to him, people needed a firm structure of authority to sustain harmony and peace. The Christians, on the other hand, portrayed their views of human nature using the notion of Imago Dei. The term refers to the image of God. It is a theological word that shows the relationship between humanity and God. They believe in a spiritual being as compared to the mortal god actualized by Leviathan.
Human rights should be formulated in a manner that they do not violate Imago Dei or the human nature. The depiction accords every person a level of dignity that should not be broken. Human beings are required to possess the ability to participate and apprehend like their Creator in an intelligible way. The concept puts a rational order regarding the moral capacities of individuals and their responsibilities in political, social, and personal life. The decision to construct a foundation concerning humanity using a religious perspective is not advisable since it may present conflicts. Some of the political doctrines extend beyond the realm of Christianity. The contemporary nature of the modern society is not accommodative to being forced to conform to religious concepts. Everyone has his or her moral guidelines that differ with those of others leading to quarrels. An absolute authority is an appropriate remedy to balance the interests of various people.
Bibliography
Molesworth W. The Mortal God: Leviathan, The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, vol.3. Pages 110-158, 1839.
Waldron, Jeremy. The Image of God: Rights, Reason, and Order. NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 10-85, 2010.
