INRODUCTION

Hobbes is the founding father of modern political philosophy. He was directly or indirectly known to have set the terms of debate about the fundamentals of political life right into our own time. His thesis based on the political philosophy proposes that a society, should accept an unaccountable sovereign as a sole political authority. He strives to make this modern system broad enough to account, on the scientific principles, for all the fact of nature, including human behavior both in its individual and social aspects.

He intends to show not what government actually infant is, but what it must be so as to control successfully bags whose motivation is that of machine. He exhibited human nature as governed by a single fundamental law.

 STSTEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The problem of social unrest in all ages generated a lot of questions and inquiring into the natural state of man. Many philosophers came up in attempt to answer these questions. Thomas Hobbes (1568-1679) an English philosopher witnessed this type of social unrest and strife in his country England in the 17th century. He witnessed the bitter fight between the king and parliament, which made him to flee to France twice during his lifetime.

So it is this background of abnormality of life situation that agitated Hobbes to delve into finding a solution to the problem of political anarchy. Hobbes advocated the coming together of people under social contract in other to achieve stable society who by means of covenant surrendered all their right and power to one man or assembly of men. This sovereign formed promulgated laws for the maintenance of peace and good of all the people. However, Hobbes did permit that if the sovereign fails to maintain order and peace, the subjects have the right to change the system of government.

 PURPOSE OF STUDY

In this work, therefore, the aim is to examine these rights as suggested by Thomas Hobbes, the great political philosopher of the sixteenth century and explore how those rights are distributed and preserved.

In order to facilitate the Hobbes view on politics, the entire work is divided into four chapters. Chapter One discuses the natural law and the state of nature, which he discovered before postulating the common wealth, as we will see in the law of social contract. Then Chapter two talks about the theories concerning the origin of civil society especially Hobbes’ social contract. It also delved into common wealth and the sovereign. Chapter Three takes a serious look on the concept of political rights, individual rights and the rights of the sovereign. This chapter came to a conclusion with the source of the weakness of the common wealth. Lastly, Chapter Four deals with the critical evaluation and conclusion on Thomas Hobbes’ State of nature and political right.

METHODOLOGY

In this work of Thomas Hobbes on State of Nature and Political Right is all about a Critique and the thematic study of the nature and right etc. 

LITERATURE    REVIEW

The problem of social unrest in all ages generated a lot of questions and enquiries into the natural state of man. It is in attempt to answer these questions that many political philosophical ideas came to lime light.

Plato’s pretext for discussing justice in the state is in order to illuminate questions about individual. He is clearly and also deeply concerned with the utopian republic, which he created.  He addressed the question of how such a political system could ever come about and concluded that the only hope is to rest power in the hand of philosopher king. In his book, the republic, he advocated that the philosopher is the best leader because he is the individual who would use his authority with utmost discretion. Plato holds thus

The state in its present form is like the ship lurching around in the hands of the unskilled crew. Only in the hands of a skilled navigator will it be kept under control: and the philosopher despised as he might be, is the only person in possession of the knowledge required to steer the state”.[1]

Aristotle, like Plato, opines that politics goes with ethic. He sees the society as natural and virtuous life as the end of man. It is the virtuous man that should be endowed with political authority over others. In a word, Aristotle is in support of the moral politicians rather than the political moralist who bend morality to suit their politics. For a person to rule, he must have rationality in order to bring out the master plan. He maintained that for any individual to be a good leader and a reliable authority he must be good and virtuous. And this for him could be obtained by three means thus;

                  Natural endowment we have at birth; the habit we form; and the rational principle within us .It follows that all these three power of man be turned to agree. The power of rational principle will play a great part in the              modification…’’[2]

Therefore, Aristotle holds that those who should wear the mantle of authority or leadership in the society most attain the virtues of justice, honesty and knowledge among others.

In the modern trend of thought, John Locke holds that the criterion for acquiring political authority is by public consent .By this he opines that it is the duty of everybody to democratically confer political authority on the elected body to rule the rest of the people for their common good.

You either get what you want or your money back. T&C Apply

Talk to us right now: (+234)906-451-7926 (Call/WhatsApp)

---