Paper Example on Hobbes and Aristotle Politics

Introduction

It is common practice for human beings to live in a well-organized community. Politics is always at the center of these communities, state or a commonwealth. So, what is the purpose of politics? Hobbes and Aristotle present contradicting arguments about this subject. While Aristotle believes that the ultimate goal of politics is to bringing happiness to the naturally ruled subjects, Hobbes points out that the purpose of a state and its leadership is to ensure that its citizens are leading a happy life. In my opinion, the main responsibility of a commonwealth is to make sure that its citizens are safe. Furthermore, a state that is safe is prone to be happier. This paper discusses the arguments as presented by Aristotle and Hobbes.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In Aristotle's view, a city-state came into being for the sake of life but remains existent for the sake of good life (Pierre 1). In short, he argues that the ultimate objective of a community and its political setup is to bring happiness to its citizens. According to him, a human being by nature is are political creatures. They are able to perceive and differentiate good from bad, just from the unjust among many other judgments. Thus, the political state is a platform, and a means to achieve a virtuous life which is often linked with happiness. Additionally, they are not self-sufficient. As a result, they have to coexist with each other in a city-state. In a commonwealth setting, everyone attempts to perform all their activities with the aim of chasing what they believe is happiness (Pierre 1). Aristotle argues that politics exists by nature because the human race is dependent on it. Besides, in a contemporary world, where wealth is a factor in the general happiness of individuals, a wealthy nation is a happy nation. Unlike the common argument, he believes that positions of statesman and king are meant to extend noble and virtuous actions so as to eliminate poverty and other sufferings. Being in control of a tyrannical number of subject and ensuring that they live a fulfilled life is the aim of a political state (Pierre 5). The constitution's ultimate goal in a city-state is to make people happy.

Contrary to the abovementioned line of thinking, Hobbes believes that society requires politics in the sense of law and order so as to ensure that safety of the commonwealth is secured. In his argument, he claims that human beings are often driven by their natural passions which incorporates partiality, pride, revenge, and love for dominion over others and the like (Hobbes 16). Therefore, the development of a city-state or a commonwealth is like a control mechanism that keeps people in check and ensures that they do not go overboard and cause mayhem in the community. Hobbes believed that the availability of restraint and fear of punishment for going against the rules and regulation are the factors that ensure the observation of laws of nature (Hobbes 16). Therefore, the existence of politics in the society is to ensure that human beings are protected from oneself and the others. If no power is put in place, or the one in place is not efficient for our security, then men are prone to rely on their capabilities and rise against their fellow kind. As argued by Hobbes in the Leviathan, men are prone to develop envy and hatred for one another due to their lifestyle of constant competition and comparison among themselves (Hobbes 18). And as a result, conflict and war can erupt, hence the need for specific limits and laws that can control their action. Hobbes political doctrines claim the ultimate goal of politics is to assure the community's safety by maintaining a harmonious and safe cohabitation among its citizens.

Hobbes' claim that human being is likely to stray away from the laws of nature is very compelling. This is very evident in any community settings. It is common to find the perpetrator, even within the family, who do things that might cause half to their fellows. That is, many cases of theft and violence are being reported in any community. It is in human nature to lead a life based on the law of honor. A person could be willing to go against the community norm and hurt another individual so as to quench his natural passion. Furthermore, the competitive human nature, comparison with others and need for pleasure can easily lead a person astray. And thus, the need for a political state with an effective leadership is key to ensure that such individuals live a contented life. Without the erection of fear, means of punishment and a clear system to actualize that, the community norms will be words that can easily be violated without any repercussion.

Aristotle theory of politics, especially the monarch and the aristocratic states is flawed. According to the scholar, the ultimate goal of politics is to bring happiness to the citizens. However, this is mostly not the case with aristocratic and monarchical government. In this types of government, especially the aristocratic government, the political setting is designed to suit the need and happiness of a small population and not the entire population. Although such leaders may be developing a better environment for the rest of the community, the main aim is to ensure that they remain in control of the society. As in the case of monarchies, the citizens of the commonwealth are not equal as argued by Aristotle. The noble family which is the key political figure in such nations are often considered more important than the rest of the society. Moreover, their treatment is not the same. Furthermore, it is not always true that everyone can perform actions freely for the sake of some good- happiness.

Conclusion

In summary, Aristotle and Hobbes have a contradicting view about politics. According to Aristotle, the establishment of a city-state that is politically controlled is meant to bring happiness to its dwellers. Additionally, he argues that men are political animals who cannot survive in isolation and require politics to survive. He further claims that the common community setting, where happiness is key to happiness, necessitates the existence of politics. Contrary to his compatriot, Hobbes presents a debate that politics is means of ensuring that the members of the commonwealth states are safe. That is, the natural passion of human beings might lead them to dangerous acts against other beings. Therefore, politics in the form of laws come in to ensure that human beings live a contented life within the set rules. In my opinion, although the two arguments are compelling, Hobbes presents a stronger and a more realistic doctrine. This is widely evident in today's world where lack of governance leads to anarchy and lawlessness.

Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. "Leviathan, or, The matter, forme, & power of a common-wealth ecclesiasticall and civill." (2010).

Pierre, Destree. "Aristotle, Politics. Translated, with introduction and notes, by CDC ReeveAristotle, The Politics. Translated, with introduction, analysis, and notes, by Peter L. Philipps Simpson

Peter L. Philipps Simpson, A philosophical commentary on the." Revue Philosophique de Louvain 102.1 (2004): 163-165.