Writing Homework Help

General description: Social contract theorists have held strikingly different views about the political meaning, logical function, historical plausibility, and normative significance of the social contract. Choose two thinkers who are associated with this doctrine, compare their respective contributions and assess their views on a topic of your choice.

Format: Please upload your essay as a WORD document on Canvas on the corresponding assignment tab. Use the following format: Times New Roman or Arial font, size 12, 1.5 space, 1-inch margins.

If you would like to explore a completely new subject that is also fine, as long as you use at least two different authors and compare their views on an idea or problem you think is important or relevant to their theories. The idea of expanding on the first essay is just an option, and for some may not be attractive or straight forward, but the overall purpose of this second essay is to accomplish a more solid discussion in which two different authors are put into dialogue with each other

Hobbes central idea and theme is based on free will and the best form of government. In his reasoning, he claims that a monarchy is the best form of government that is bound to promote peace and avoid civil war. His thoughts stem from his natural philosophy that human beings are selfish creatures at their core (Hobbes & Gaskin, 1998). His reasoning is questionable in that it urges man to surrender his free will to the monarchy. I addition to this, it assumes the worst of humankind. By following his principles, the world is bound to become a worse place to live in as it will rid it of all the life principles. For instance, after reading Hobbes philosophy, man is bound to believe he is selfish and may start acting worse as they would believe it is in their nature.

Considering how Hobbes emphasized this aspect in Leviathan, it may become easier for man to believe they are born selfish and that his suggestions on ruling are ideal. He uses the world Leviathan to illustrate an image of strength and power to stand for the Commonwealth sovereignty. Hobbes claims that a monarchy would create more peace. However, it would involve surrendering free will, implying that man would not have the ability to choose their will or be free to will (Hobbes & Gaskin, 1998). In my opinion, this is enslavement and denying man his freedom to live freely. Giving all the power to a monarchy may have its benefits, but in the long run, it has more disadvantages.

He claims that when all men are equal, they have hopes of attaining ends, implying that they have the power to destroy and subdue each other. His reasoning stems from the fact that he believes man as being evil and able to do anything in their power to be successful, making it easier for them to cause harm to others. However, I find that this concept would still be applicable if there were a monarchy since the rulers could also decide to destroy and subdue their subjects by imposing laws that are beneficial to them. Since man would be stripped of free will, they would have no say but to live according to the rules. As such, Hobbes ideology is questionable in that it only favors one party and fails to consider the downside of having a monarchy rule over a state.

I agree that people need a strong central government to serve and protect them. Lack of a government would be disastrous as there would be no rules to follow, and some people might take advantage of it. A strong government would protect the interests of all its citizens as it would act on the consent of the governed people that influence the U.S constitution (Hobbes & Gaskin, 1998). I would agree with this notion if Hobbes did not include the monarchy aspect and giving up a free will as it seems more reasonable and helpful to a country in the long run.

Hobbes is right that man is rational to want to preserve oneself. However, I don’t think this has to take a selfish turn where man acts on their primal instincts when the need arises. I strongly believe that men can still protect themselves without being selfish at their core and that giving up free will is a selfish act. Reason can be derived by considering other viable options to ensure that the government, rulers and citizens are in agreement and willingly follow the imposed laws.

Overall, Hobbes has a very convincing discourse on the best form of politics in his book Leviathan. It is extremely controversial, with most people agreeing with his claims and others disputing his ideas. I believe that it is not vital for the monarchy to be the truest and most correct form of government because a civil government can also be one if it follows the right directions.

That should be it to help you write the paper