In Part I, Chapter XIII of Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes provides an account of human nature that is meant to further his primary intellectual pursuit: the unification of the study of humankind. The study of philosophy, for Hobbes, is nothing but the application of the laws of science to the laws of physical beings and political entities. At the time, Hobbes" views were highly controversial. Today, controversy remains concerning his account of human nature. In what follows I will detail the analysis of human nature that Hobbes provides, and will argue that it fails to be persuasive.
Hobbes lived in a time of great upheaval. The Civil War in England began in 1642, by which time Hobbes had fled to France. It appears likely that the strife and uncertainty Hobbes saw profoundly influenced his views of human nature. His own life, in fact, was often in jeopardy. Underlying Hobbes" political views was his profound distrust in our ability to live well under anarchy; Hobbes believed that peace can only occur with a powerful government in place.
Hobbes asks us to imagine, in the reading from his Leviathan, what life would be like with no state control. He calls this hypothetical situation the "state of nature," and while he insists it is not a historical state, it is nonetheless a useful critical concept. In the state of nature, all people are equal -- although you may be stronger than I am, I may have more friends, so we are both equally placed to realise our goals. In the state of nature, we all have the right to protect our lives. Without government, no one has rights that others don't have. Moreover, Hobbes was a materialist -- he believed that the world consists only of physical facts. As such, there is no moral imperative in the state of nature to which we must adhere. Instead, Hobbes tells us, "every man has a right to every thing; even to one another's body.".
Hobbes believes that persons are essentially egoists.
