POLI 221: Fall 2018 - Hobbes' Analysis of Terrorist Threat

This essay analyzes Thomas Hobbes' perspective on a scenario where a person is held hostage by a terrorist. Drawing upon Hobbes' principles of competition, diffidence, and glory, the essay examines how these apply to the situation. It explores the concept of a "Warre," where every man is against every man, and the significance of time and the absence of societal structures in such circumstances. The essay then delves into Hobbes' views on justice, the fear of death, and the laws of nature, arguing that, according to Hobbes, the best course of action for the hostage would be to comply with the terrorist's demands to ensure their survival, even if it is considered unjust. The essay concludes by highlighting the primacy of self-preservation within Hobbes' philosophical framework.

“What Would Hobbes Say?” 0
Title: “What Would Hobbes Say?”
Assignment Name:
Student Name:
Course Name and Number:
Professor:
Date:

“What Would Hobbes Say?” 1
Contents
“What Would Hobbes Say?”......................................................................................................2
References..................................................................................................................................3

“What Would Hobbes Say?” 2
“What Would Hobbes Say?”
According to Thomas Hobbes, the three principles of a quarrel in context with the nature of
men are, competition, diffidence, and glory. In the circumstances of dealing with the terrorist,
the principles that can be identified are all three (Brotea, 2013). The first principle applies
through the invasion of the terrorist to gain something, the second principle means safety and
for the safety of the person and the third being glory, and the terrorist will kill the person for
glory. This is a situation of Warre, which explains that every man is against every man.
Though, Hobbes states that the nature of time and weather should be taken into consideration,
in the current situation of a terrorist holding a gun to another person’s head, this is partially
correct. The nature of time is important, but there is no relevance to the nature of weather.
The nature of time is important as during the current circumstances there is no surety of the
contrary reaction (Harris, 2009). There is an uncertainty that is attached to this situation and
during this time there is nothing works no knowledge, no arts, no society, no arts, no letters,
and the only thing that continues is the fear and the hanging danger of being killed. The other
thing that can help the man is his own strength nothing else will work. According to Hobbes,
nothing can be unjust, but there are situations that are unjust and the world do nothing about
it, because no one has the power to do anything. On this, there is a disagreement with Hobbes
as there are many situations and circumstances in the world that take place which is unjust.
There are laws but still, such incidents are unjust. The main reason why a man opts for peace
is the fear of death that continuously builds in a person, ultimately forcing him to bend the
knees and compromise for peace (Joanne Faulkner, 2009). According to Hobbes, these are
known as the laws of nature, but these are not the laws of nature, they are unjust situations
that have to be handled by making peace with the other man. This is the right of nature,
where a man has to make certain decisions for his safety and for his life, and thus the person
has to agree to the terms that have been made by the other person. The law of nature, forces a
man to commit to a thing otherwise the consequences will be destructive for his life. So, in
the current situation where a person’s life is in jeopardy the best solution to this problem is
that the person should give the terrorist money and save his life, as this is the law of nature
according to Hobbes, but it is unjust, which Hobbes will disagree with. A life of a person will
be ended if a person does not agree to the demands of the terrorist and just for his safety the
person has to compromise with the terrorist. This is the best decision for the person whose
life is in danger (Rossello, 2010).

“What Would Hobbes Say?” 3
References
Brotea, J. (2013). Hobbes, Augustine, and the Christian nature of man in
Leviathan. Leviathan (São Paulo), 1(7), 77.
Harris, J. (2009). Hobbes, Bramhall and the Politics of Liberty and Necessity A Quarrel of
the Civil War and Interregnum. Hobbes Studies, 22(1), 111-113.
Joanne Faulkner. (2009). The Eternal Jouissance of the Community: Phantasm, Imagination,
and 'Natural Man' in Hobbes. Theory & Event, 12(3), 15-40.
Rossello, D. (2010). Hobbes and the Wolf-Man: Melancholy and Animality in Modern
Sovereignty. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1(1), 5-15.