First of all, it is mandatory to explore the realistic version of Thomas Hobbes, which outsmarts the ancient philosopher. Hobbes explores the competition between human beings which begin due to the scarcity of goods in the contemporary world.
Hobbes implies that men are equal, which will be further discussed in this essay. However, through this assumption Hobbes claims that human beings fear each other, and retail power to safeguard themselves. Hobbes claims glory as another human psychological factor, which drives human beings to conflict. Pertaining to this realistic yet pessimistic view on human psychology, Hobbes justifies that state of nature eventually become state of war, each against another. I would like to cite one of the most famous lines of Hobbes, which shows the extreme realistic version of the philosopher:
And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
– Hobbes 1991
The essay would particularly talk about Hobbes’s assumption of men having equal power. This assumption is criticized by many scholars, where they advocate that there is a difference in the distribution of power capabilities.
Hidden aspect
However, the essay does not focus on that famous critique, but rather it highlights a hidden aspect of Hobbes. I would claim it as the ideology on equality Hobbes had in his mind. True, it might be fluid, but Hobbes showing a more humanitarian side implies that every human being acquires the same amount of power, either it be physical or mutual. Therefore, I argue that rather than criticising Hobbes on his assumption, the contemporary society must appreciate his regard on ‘equality’.
The essay would now tackle on the criticisms placed on Hobbes, the essay takes a Hobbesian view as it tends to criticise the criticisms of Hobbes. First of all, I would emphasise the criticisms under Hobbes before arguing on them. As explored above Hobbes is criticised under his claim that men are equal, showing analytical power differentiations of states, by taking Hobbes methodological individualism into a wider concept of statism.
Another criticism of Hobbes is the lack of morality in Hobbes’s state of nature. Scholars argue that even though states are self-interested, they do not compel war due to the morals in the international arena.
Another criticism of Hobbes which combines with the criticism of morality is that, people in states do not die as a whole, where Hobbes implies in his methodological individualism that death of a human being puts an end to the relations, but the international arena is wider and a complex strategy with mutual connections.
Absolute chaos
The other criticism under Hobbes is that, the international system being anarchic, without a leviathan, still exists, whereupon Hobbes claims that the state of nature without a leviathan will go to a state of war of absolute chaos and violence. To conclude, the essay would now argue on the above criticisms. Hobbes’ inclination of equality can be justified with contemporary examples. Ukraine, despite being a small power, which has only a population of one third of Russian population, still managed to fight back with a great power, for more than two years.
Therefore, the distinction of Hobbes, that men are equal i.e. states are equal can be taken into consideration. Nuclear weapons can be used to counter argue on criticisms of Hobbes. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the most valid examples which show that the international arena lacks morality, like Hobbes’s state of nature.
The massive number of deaths under nuclear attacks can be shown in how death can be implicated as the means to an end, whereupon Japan has to surrender under the massive loss they faced. The final argument to counter critiques is that, whether the international arena is stable, or as Hobbes describes a state of war with chaos.
It depends on the idea of stability one has, whether the absence of a world war means stability or consideration of hidden conflicts among states from which one may claim that the international arena is unstable. It is up to you to decide. And as Hobbes implies ‘curiosity is the lust of the mind’, the curiosity of future international relations keeps awake almost everyone’s mind consciously or unconsciously.
