Thomas Hobbes was a Realist who believed the purpose of the state was to protect the security of the state and to protect civil society from chaos and anarchy. The state was to give guidance in all accepts of life. Hobbs felt that once a monarch made a decree it was absolute and could not be changed. An individual was to spend his time and energy to serve the ruler and his family's wants, and in addition, to satisfy those needs of the state necessary to preserve good government, the government did not exist for the betterment of the people. Hobbes felt that the social contract was between the people of the state, it was designed to maintain order. Since the contract was between the people and not between the people and the sovereign, the sovereign had no obligation to the people. Hobbes believed that people should give up their personal liberties and dominion over others so that the state could protect them. Justice to Hobbes was whatever the sovereign said was the law and it was to be followed.
Hobbes understanding of human nature was a very negative one. He felt that with out government men would be in a consent state of war and life would hardly be worth living. The way out of this desperate state was to make a social contract between the people where a sovereign is establish above them to keep the state at peace and maintaining order. Because of his view of how nasty life is without the state, Hobbes subscribes to a very authoritarian version of government.
While Plato and Hobbes are primarily concerned with preventing social breakdown inside political communities, they also offer some guidelines for thinking about war on the international stage. Which of these two theorists, in your view, provides a better basis for understanding the causes, and the prevention, of international war? (You may, if you prefer, argue that neither theorist succeeds particularly well in this endeavor.
