Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbe’s pessimistic account of humans in the state of nature is often fertile ground for misinterpretation. A chief misconception of Hobbesian philosophy is that humans are basically evil because of their violent proclivities in the anarchic state before the creation of a commonwealth. A careful reading of Leviathan, illustrates that Hobbes does not think that humans are inherently evil. Although Hobbe’s permits all sorts of violent actions in the state of nature by humans to secure their self-preservation, his ultimate position as a nominalist renders the notion that ‘humans are evil’ moot. In this essay I will illustrate why a cursory reading of Leviathan can lead some readers to conclude erroneously that Hobbes thought humans are evil and why his position as a nominalist dilutes the common misconception.

Hobbes is famous for describing human life in the state of nature as short, nasty, and brutish. In this hypothetical world, all humans are equal and equality leads to diffidence, which ultimately produces a constant state of fear and suspicion ; the state of nature is a war against all. There are three reasons that Hobbes adduces in explaining why humans are prone to fight: competition, diffidence, and glory. Humans will compete for food, natural resources, and land; therefore, conflict will ensue to acquire as much as these. Since humans are equal, diffidence creates conflict among humans, e.g. if a person sees another approach her, she will attack the stranger first. Finally, humans are quarrelsome because they demand glory, i.e. proper respect and recognition, and when these are not met, fights will ensue. These pessimistic notions can lead to the conjecture that Hobbes think humans are evil are, but its erroneous.

Hobbes does not think humans are evil because we cannot call their violent actions ‘evil’ or ‘unjust’ because there is no law or authority that allows us to call it that. Once we have laws, a byproduct of the social contract, we can...