Firstly, Hobbes argues that under the state of nature, human beings are egoistic individuals who continually seek to satisfy their desires. There …show more content…
This ‘inconvenience’ is much preferred as the “perpetual warre of every man against his neighbour, are much worse.” This brings about the emergence of the social contract, where there is either mutual agreement of free individuals under the state of nature to submit themselves to a sovereign or the fear of the power of an existing sovereign. Sovereignty must be unconditional but there is however a contradiction and lack of justification since Hobbes has put forth the argument that there is natural equality of power the state of nature. The ‘first mover’ will only be willing to forgo liberty if others are also willing to do likewise but since Hobbes claims that human beings are egoistic and mistrustful of one another, it is therefore not a rational and viable option under the state of nature. This brings in the need for a second social contract which is the commonwealths by conquest, in which the superior force is used to command obedience to create a new political society. This is illustrative of Oliver Cromwell’s rule where there is de facto authority, in which ‘might makes right’. Hobbes’s theory of obligation states that ‘Covenants without the sword are but words and have no strength to …show more content…
Driven by the fear of divine punishment and the need for self-preservation, it leads human beings into a vicious and violent competition for scarce resources and status, which results in a state of war. Because of the state of nature, Hobbes champions the need for a coercive authority in order to subdue violence and maintain peace and order in the form of a social contract, which encompasses the fact that egoistic individuals need to submit to a sovereign as the sovereign is a tool of their