Essay on "Synthesis Argument Leviathan and What Is a Just War"

Essay 6 pages (1764 words) Sources: 2

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Leviathan

Thomas Hobbes and Mo Tzu

Political philosophy drastically changed with the coming of the enlightenment in the 17th century, and the ideas of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and the Social Contract became generally accepted. Eastern philosopher was also greatly influenced by competing ideas, only thousands of years earlier, between the Confucians and the Mohists of China, in the 5th century BCE. The ideas of each time came out of a similar period of extended uncertainty and tumult in England and China, yet the outcome of the philosophers was extremely different. Hobbes believed that humanity was in a constant state of war, and that survival was the path to success. On the other hand, Mo Tzu believed in universal love, or the idea that one's own business is to be handled by them, and that war was a waste of resources by the state when humanity can actually live more productive lifestyles in peace. While the two ideologies presented are polar opposites, several similar veins of logic seek to explain the human condition, and provide explanation and resources for the ultimate future resolution to armed conflict between peoples.

Thomas Hobbes was notorious for his beliefs about humans entering social contracts in order to better protect them, rather than to better serve them, as Locke believed. The natural state of man was one of war, and only with the creation of society and the upholding of society's beliefs can war within a society be neutralized. Hobbes was writing at a time when Europe was split between religious struggles between Protestants and Catholics, and the power of the Sovereign vs. The Pope was still disputed. Hobbes believed that the natural state of war did not necessarily mean a constant taking up of arms, but rather a consent to the fact that one's own wealth and earnings were coming at the expense of another's, and that to rise in society meant that inherently other humans were to be put down. While this idea today may not seem very idealistic for the enlightenment, Hobbes was revolutionary to the thinking of the sovereigns of his time, and his prompting is what helped later philosophers such as Rousseau set the framework for the revolutions of the 18th century.

Hobbes explains the purpose and utility of war, but he also realizes that when a nation is conducting war, it is not conducting industrial power. This means that no nation, which is constantly at war, can ever seek to gain advantage over other nations, which is why humanity will always be in perpetual war with itself, unless war ends. Mo Tzu realized this same principle and decries war for not doing anything to advance profit or strength within a nation. The draining of resources, as Mo Tzu called it, was to take the industriousness of the state to a weakened state.

Mo Tzu was a Chinese philosopher writing at the time of the Warring States, approximately 475 BCE. Mo Tzu preached that humans should only do what is beneficial to themselves and/or others. This was in opposition to the common practice of the Chinese of the time, which was to hold loud festivals and hold embellished religious rituals, neither of which directly contributing to the well being of the individual. Mo Tzu also went against the established Confucian beliefs of a social structure, and the belief that a harmonious society is one in which each actor is in its place on a stage. Mo Tzu promoted the idea of equality, what he called free love, in order to break the established social fabric of the time. This belief caused great controversy in China, as the upper classes felt threatened by this new 'Mohism'. The most relevant aspect of Mohism was the idea that war was pointless, as it did not advance the well being of those involved. War was then a waste of resources, spending unnecessary funds and lives in order to pursue glory, rather than accomplishment. This principle of Mo Tzu's was a reaction to the times he was in, the senseless slaughter of the Warring States meant that no peace could be reached anywhere in China, and it affected the region tremendously.

The topic of human life is treated very differently between these two authors. Hobbes believes that human life is unpleasant, short, painful, and essentially unimportant. The rules of good conduct, as created by a society, are meaningless ultimately, and therefore no good nor bad put against another is being judged, rather only relative position between the two individuals is being realized. This relationship is tenuous and short, and should be taken advantage of in order to pursue the interests of those powers involved. By combining many levels of human life together as a society and putting a united effort behind a project, humanity can seek to progress further than any solitary individual can. This principle is well understood already by humanity by Hobbes' time of course, and had been in practice for thousands of years. The difference is the simplification and mass understanding that Hobbes was able to impart in his writing. Understanding the fragility of human life in that time meant also understanding the importance of the strengthening of the state, usually underneath a solitary sovereign.

The cause and righteousness of war are handled surprisingly similarly between Thomas Hobbes and Mo Tzu. Hobbes believes that war is simply the manipulation of weaker individuals in order to advance one's own interests. In the context of a society or a war against another nation, the sovereign epitomizes this idea. War to Hobbes can be glorious and can be profitable, but it is always fought by others in order to provide safety to the sovereign to make commands and rule for the long-term.

Mo Tzu sees war similarly to Hobbes in that it is fought by others for one's own interests, yet Mo Tzu does not see glory as an acceptable excuse for the conduct of man and the fighting of war. Rather, he believes that to get others to fight your wars is to make you responsible for their death, even if they went willingly. This means that sending 100 soldiers to their deaths means being responsible for 100 lives, and therefore deserving of justice for 100 deaths. This idea counteracts the entire notion of war for glory, or even for economic gain, as that will force another to lose their life or livelihood, even if that other is outside of society. This idea directly challenges hierarchy in every manner, not simply for conflict but also within family life, politics, and businesses. To be responsible for war and the death of hundreds means to be accountable for these deaths, although because war is labeled as something to die for with glory, everything suddenly becomes excusable.

In their heydays, even Thomas Hobbes and Mo Tzu had opposition to their beliefs. Hobbes' idea of individual war was opposed by John Locke, who saw the collection of humanity into organized society as a sign of the better aspects of man, ones which were more powerful than the base impulse for violence or retribution or domination, as the ancients had practiced. The Taoists in China, who believed that the entire cosmos was heavenly, and that Mo Tzu's emphasis on human life was ill fated because of the inherent worthlessness of humanity compared to its surroundings, on the other hand, opposed Mo Tzu. Mo Tzu placed human life above everything else on Earth, which was antithetical to the idea of respect for ancestry, which cannot be said to be human any longer. The Taoists discredited Mo Tzu on a spiritual and metaphysical level, two areas where humanity could not touch and that Mo Tzu could not provide satisfactory answers for. Despite the opposition to their ideas, these philosophers were instrumental to the aftermath of the violent events which had defined their generations.

In synthesizing the vastly different viewpoints but similar situations of these two philosophers writing in very different eras in very different regions of the world, we can see how two different cultures react to the threat of constant violence and the uncertainty of war. The idea of universal love is essentially the belief that humans are created equal and therefore deserve equal amounts of power and reward, regardless of strength or ability. This idea serves the dual purpose of invalidating the warlords which had ruptured Chinese life so violently during Mo Tzu's life, while at the same time providing direct and immediate benefits to the followers of this philosophy, who felt that to send human life to its death in the pursuit of war as the ultimate crime against humanity.

The idea of the social contract, that individuals combine strength in order to create a more stable life for themselves, is a core condition of mankind, as most philosophers will now recognize. The leviathan, the invisible warring force which guides the will of man, is one of survival and solitude in one's personal struggle within the world. This… READ MORE

How to Reference "Synthesis Argument Leviathan and What Is a Just War" Essay in a Bibliography

Related Essays:

Just War? Throughout History Essay

Set 3:

a) Why are conspiracy theories counterproductive?

When tragedy strikes, people look for an explanation and when they are not provided with an explanation which satisfies them, they formulate… read more

Essay 8 pages (2617 words) Sources: 8 Topic: Terrorism / Extremism / Radicalization

---

Just War Principles the History Essay

Just War Principles

The history of the United States is filled with a number of wars which most Americans feel were completely justified. However, it may be that the victories… read more

Essay 2 pages (694 words) Sources: 1 Topic: American History / United States

---

Just War Theory Term Paper

Just War Theory is based on the ideal that war should be "restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice." Adherents may… read more

Term Paper 4 pages (1174 words) Sources: 7 Topic: Military / Army / Navy / Marines

---

Just War Essay

Just War

War has always been a controversial issue, with times gone by having been witnesses to numerous wars, which have been performed for both justifiable and unjustifiable reasons. The… read more

Essay 4 pages (1260 words) Sources: 1 Topic: Military / Army / Navy / Marines

---

Just War Theory Term Paper

Just War Theory

At it's most basic, the Just War Theory provides a justification as to how and why countries fight wars. The justification offered is both theoretical and historical… read more

Term Paper 1 pages (358 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Military / Army / Navy / Marines

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>