Aristotle Vs. Hobbes

Political thinkers throughout history have long debated the nature of civilization. Two notable political theorists, Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes, thought separated by thousands of years, thought and wrote about the origin and purpose of civilization and the effect and contribution different entities, such as the household and individual, have on political order. Their respective masterpieces, Aristotle’s The Politics and Hobbes’ Leviathan , outline their differing views on civilization and details its structure’s relevancy to politics and government.

Aristotle called the highest form of human civilization a city. A city, he argued, is the highest “partnership” of human beings. Various other partnerships, such as the relationship between a man and woman and master and slave, exist within the city. The city is the highest partnership, the combination of other partnerships. Because all relationships or partnerships exist for and are in fact formed to achieve some common good, then the city, by definition, “aims at the most authoritative good of all” ( Politics Ch. 1). The city, being a combination of partnerships pursing common good, is the first full partnership to secure complete self-sufficiency for all its citizens.

Hobbes refers to his idea of the pinnacle of civilization as a commonwealth, or the Leviathan. Hobbes rejects Aristotle’s idea of multiple partnerships forming the larger city. He writes that the commonwealth is “the multitude so united in one Person” (Hobbes Ch. 17). The state of nature for human beings is constant war, with violent death being the fear of every person and the pursuit of peace the ultimate goal of life. The commonwealth, then, is the means to this end: all citizens are willing to give their inherent right to themselves to one man or assembly of men in order to secure peace and to avoid violent death.

As stated above, Aristotle wrote that the objective of the city is to pursue the ultimate common good. The blacksmith and the carpenter live in the city to benefit from each other’s presence: the blacksmith makes tools, which the carpenter uses to construct buildings and other things for the blacksmith and others. Both benefit from the presence of the farmer, who uses the products of both to grow and reap crops. Households are formed to fulfill daily needs, and several of these forming a village cater to some nondaily needs. The city, however, with all partnerships combined, “exists for the sake of living well” (Aristotle Ch. 2). By entering into a partnership with everyone else in the city, all citizens benefit, and a common good is achieved. In contrast, the purpose of Hobbes’ commonwealth is not to provide good for anyone. In the state of nature, all citizens have the right to do whatever is necessary to defend themselves. The formation of the commonwealth is a preventive measure, and not a beneficial undertaking. If all citizens give up their right to defend themselves, all are more likely to avoid death, and a relative peace is secured.