Hobbes and Internationalism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Hobbes and Internationalism - Essay ExampleHobbes State of Nature It would be taxing for anyone vaguely familiar with Hobbes to not be awargon of his widely quoted stack of mans brutal and short life in the ground of character. For Hobbes, mans disturbity in the body politic of nature is the cause of his marvelous existence in that every man has the right to everything, which causes conflict. Man possesses an inherent selfishness which causes him to strive constantly for self-preservation, and in turn is the cause of his suffering (or seeking) competition, glory, and dis commit. Such a state is ultimately no society and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death (1996 xiii). This is not to say that man is a blundering, craft fool simply seeking to grab that which promises to bring greater comfort and success to his life. Rather, man is in possession of reason, which causes him to grasp an understanding of right and price conduct. Yet, because no formal s tandards of right and wrong exist in a state of nature, opinions and rights clash and differ. This is not to assume that Hobbes denies the universality of morality or essential law, rather man is governed by agreements and contracts. However, Hobbes contracts are a ingathering of the selfishness of man, and hence are not based upon any form of honour or trust because they will be valid to the point that an individual believes that another will not fall foul of his promise. An example would be that Y does not plug away Z because Y does not want Z to punch him. This contract is formed on pure selfishness, and only extends to the point that Z complies with the agreement. If Y find outs that Zs agreement lacks strength, he will quickly feel free to break his part of the contract. Such contracts, because they are without honour and because they are a product of selfishness, are very likely to be breached. If we are to apply these points on an international scale, some contradictions emerge. While on the surface it would appear that each state has the right to do anything, the existence of equality is highly questionable. Hobbes evidently thinks that a genuine condition of war exists between states (Hokestra 2007 118), though not their individuals rather their sovereigns who are constantly in the state and posture of gladiators (1996 xiii, 12, 63/78). The lack of common power on an international level today is evident, yet could this be utilised to lead to the conclusion that each state is constantly read for, or under threat of war? The temptation to answer this query negatively is back by the concept of equality. Indeed, there is a great deal of radical uncertainty surrounding the cooperation between states (Newey 2008 161). Though Hobbes saw men as equal in a state of nature, it could not be said that all states are equal the opposite is actually evident. America certainly does not feel the need to harbour pre-emptive aggression against countries such as Icel and, for example. This leads to the conclusion that internationally, states are in a state of war as man is in the state of nature (Bull 1977 49). This concept can also be applied to Hobbes view of man in nature as essentially unsociable states across the world often enter into mutually beneficial agreements. Even larger states provide aid to third world countries, particularly after crises and where poverty is extreme. Although these distinctions may be rather primitive, they gather much ground in establishing weaknesses in Hobbes theory being applied on an international level. Man in the state of nature is certainly more equal than countries in the