
“The condition of man… is a condition of war of everyone against everyone.”
— Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
When you think about the nature of society, government, and human behavior, you might find yourself discussing the works of political philosophers like John Locke or Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Their optimistic views about human nature and democracy align more closely with modernity.
But many of you probably haven’t head of Thomas Hobbes – an English philosopher from the 1600s.
While Locke’s theories on natural rights and limited government resonate strongly with modern democracies, Hobbes’ brutal view of human nature and his advocacy for a powerful, almost absolute sovereign often leave readers in a state of shock.
Let’s analyze.

The State of Nature: A Brutal Reality
Hobbes’ most famous work, Leviathan, introduces the concept of the “state of nature”—a theoretical time before governments and laws existed.
According to him, in such a world, life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Without the stabilizing force of a governing body, humans, driven by selfish instincts, would be in constant conflict.
The only way to escape this chaos, Hobbes asserts, is to surrender individual freedoms to a powerful ruler—a sovereign with absolute authority.
This worldviewcontrasts with the more hopeful theories of philosophers like Rousseau, who believed that humans were inherently good but corrupted by society.
Hobbes, however, saw human beings as motivated by basic desires and fears—specifically the fear of death.
This pessimistic view led him to the conclusion that only an all-powerful ruler, or “Leviathan,” could impose order and prevent the inevitable violence of human nature.
You might find yourself questioning this outlook, especially when considering the progress made in human rights and democratic governance.
But Hobbes was writing at a time of political instability and civil war in England. His ideas were not just philosophical musings; they were a response to the turmoil he lived through.
Hobbes advocated for a government with absolute power, one that could quash dissent in the name of stability.
In a world where democracy, personal freedoms, and individual rights have taken center stage, Hobbes’ emphasis on the necessity of a nearly omnipotent sovereign feels out of place.
Even in his own time, Hobbes faced resistance.
His thoughts on the divine right of kings, his criticisms of religious influence on politics, and his stark views on human nature alienated many thinkers.
Monarchists, who would normally support a strong ruler, rejected Hobbes because of his dark portrayal of human nature and his insistence that the monarch’s legitimacy depended on his ability to provide protection—if the king could not secure peace, the social contract would be nullified.
Moreover, his materialistic and mechanistic understanding of human beings clashed with emerging ideas in psychology and philosophy, particularly those championed by Descartes.
Hobbes’ theories, which suggested that human thoughts and actions were determined by physical forces, were less appealing in a time when thinkers were exploring the possibility of an immaterial mind or soul.
In the wake of the Enlightenment, which emphasized reason, individual rights, and the possibility of progress, Hobbes’ views seemed increasingly outdated.
He was seen as a product of a more chaotic, authoritarian past rather than a forward-thinking philosopher.

Hobbes’ Legacy: Modern Realists and the Cold War
Despite his lack of popularity in philosophical circles, Hobbes’ influence continues in surprising ways.
His political realism, especially the idea that humans are inherently selfish and driven by fear, has shaped much of modern political theory.
International relations theorists, particularly those who identify as “realists,” owe a debt to Hobbes.
Realists view global politics through the lens of power and self-interest, seeing conflict as inevitable in the absence of a central governing body.
During the Cold War, the global rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union mirrored Hobbes’ idea of an international “state of nature.”
With no global Leviathan to enforce peace, the world’s nations were locked in a constant struggle for power and security.
While Hobbes did not foresee the specific conflicts of the 20th century, his ideas about the balance of power and the inevitability of conflict have continued to resonate in international political theory.
Locke vs. Hobbes
To truly understand why Hobbes’ ideas are often dismissed, let’s compare him to another giant in political philosophy—John Locke.
Locke, a contemporary of Hobbes, had a fundamentally different view of human nature and government.
Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that humans in their natural state were not inherently selfish or violent.
He believed that people could govern themselves and form governments that existed to protect natural rights—life, liberty, and property.
Locke’s optimistic view of human nature made his ideas much more appealing during the Enlightenment and in the development of modern liberal democracies.
The founding fathers of the United States, for example, were influenced by Locke’s theories on the separation of powers and the right to revolution.
Here’s a simple comparison of their contrasting views:
Hobbes | Locke |
---|---|
Humans are driven by self-interest and fear | Humans are rational and capable of self-governance |
The state of nature is a state of war | The state of nature is a state of peace |
An absolute sovereign is necessary to maintain order | Government must protect individual rights, with checks on power |
The social contract is a surrender of all rights to the sovereign | The social contract preserves individual rights |
Absolute monarchy is the ideal form of government | Democracy, separation of powers, and the right to revolution are key |

The Unspoken Value of Hobbes’ Realism
Although Hobbes’ philosophy may seem too authoritarian for modern sensibilities, there’s a reason why his ideas continue to be studied today.
Hobbes was, in many ways, the first modern political scientist.
His insistence on a structured, methodical approach to understanding politics and society laid the groundwork for the study of political theory in the centuries that followed.
His brutal realism has an uncomfortable truth—society is fragile, and human nature is not always as noble as we might wish it to be.
In a world where power dynamics and human selfishness still shape global politics, Hobbes’ insights remain relevant.
Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, there’s something to be learned from his view of the human condition and the necessity of order.

Explaining The Leviathan In a Simple Fashion
In The Leviathan, Hobbes presents his thoughts on human nature, government, and society.
It’s like a big blueprint for how he believes the world works and how we need strong leadership to keep everything from falling apart.
Go back in time and imagine that you and your friends are playing in a huge sandbox. You each want to build different things, and sometimes you don’t agree on how to use the sand.
At first, it’s fun, but soon, everyone starts fighting because no one is agreeing on the rules.
Some kids start to grab more sand, others try to stop them, and everyone’s arguing.
The sandbox starts to feel like a mess, and no one is really having fun anymore.
Now, imagine that there is a big, strong kid who steps in and says, “I will be in charge of the sandbox. I will make the rules and make sure no one fights.”
This big kid isn’t going to play with the sand like everyone else, but instead, he will make sure that everyone plays nicely and gets a fair chance.
Because he’s big and strong, no one will argue with him, and things will be calm again.
Hobbes thought that life before this big, strong kid came in would be a lot like the sandbox when everyone is fighting.
He called this kind of life the “state of nature.” In this state, people are always fighting and trying to get what they want.
But Hobbes didn’t just want a random strong kid to be in charge. He thought that people should all agree to give that kid the power to make the rules—he called this agreement the “social contract.”
When everyone agrees to follow the rules made by the strong leader, life in the sandbox becomes peaceful again.

A Key Quote from The Leviathan:
In the book, Hobbes explains this idea of the social contract with the following quote:
“The mutual transferring of right is that which is called a covenant.”
This means that people agree to give up some of their freedom (like the right to take sand whenever they want) in exchange for peace and safety.
By doing this, they make a promise to obey the rules made by the leader. This way, everyone can live in a more peaceful world, just like how the sandbox gets better when the big kid is in charge.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.