State Of Nature Would Be State Of War

State Of Nature Would Be State Of War Thomas Hobbes set out to account for political authority with the use of the State of Nature. He illustrated what life outside of society without any overall authority keeping anyone in check would be like. Hobbes identified the State of Nature with a State of War but used war in an extended sense, to include not just armed hostilities but any situation where there is no reasonable expectation that hostilities will not erupt. He argued that the known readiness to engage in acts of aggression amounts in itself to a State of War. Specifically there are three principal causes of quarrel (lev) which throw people into hostilities. These causes are competition, diffidence and glory (Lev p. 88) and together they ensure that the State of Nature is a State of War. The State of Nature put simply is a situation in which human beings have no government, no political institutions and the feelings that they engender and no executive forces such as a police force or army in other words, it is a condition of anarchy. The State of Nature is an idealisation, a model. (Engaging P.19) Hobbes uses the State of Nature to justify political authority, or as Hobbes calls it, the commonwealth. He does not describe literally everything that would be the case in the absence of political arrangements, but only those things that matter for explaining political authority. What Hobbes did, was to identify features of human nature and the human condition that are universal, that in no way depend upon political authority relations, and that are relevant to explaining political authority causally. The State of Nature can be considered as a condition from which people are to escape if political authority is to be justified. So the sole alternative to political authorit y is the State of Nature, however according to Hobbes, the State of Nature is unbearably nasty as what is crucial to the state of natures justificatory role is the fact that life in it is pretty grim. Therefore the sole alternative to political authority is unbearably nasty, hence imposing political authority is justified. Hobbes attempted to illustrate that subjection to authority is vastly preferable to anarchy the State of War; he held the view that if we had reasons to believe that political authority is much better than the State of Nature, then imposing political authority is justified. Hobbes attempted to demonstrate that the State of Nature is a State of War in order to justify political authority. He depicted the State of War as a place full of insecurity and uncertainty in order to further substantiate his claim. The State does not necessarily consist in actual fighting, but a known disposition thereto, during which there is no assurance to the contrary. (page 86 Leviathan). Hobbes depicted the State of War as a condition in which civilisation and its benefits are absent. Only through the organisation of society and the establishment of the commonwealth can civilisation be attained. One thing that Hobbes recognised about the natural condition of mankind was the relative equality of individuals within it. When Hobbes spoke of equality he did not mean equality in a moralised sense, but more the distribution of physical and mental endowments. Nature has made men so equal that, although some humans are manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind, these endowments are distributed in such a way that even the weakest, slowest and dumbest among them can kill the strongest, fastest and smartest. Hobbes claimed that when all is reckoned together, the difference between man and man is not so considerable, all human beings are, in other words, vulnerable to assault at the hands of all others. Equality, for Hobbes, is based upon the equal ability to kill or conquer others so inevitably equality leads to conflict, a State of Nature will be a war of all against all.(leviathan p. Vii) In the State of Nature, there are three causes of conflict: competition, distrust and the desire for glory. Competition leads to fighting for grain, diffidence to fighting to keep what has been gained and glory to fighting for reputation. These sources of conflict arise from what Hobbes calls the equality of ability (lev) in men. This natural equality of men is not equality of rights or of worth but an equality of ability, which leads to equality of hope in attaining ones ends and so to competition. The right of each to all things invites serious conflict, especially if there is competition for resources, as goods -are in relatively short supply in the State of Nature.(Stamford) So if any two men want a single thing which cannot be attained by both, they will become enemies (page 84 Leviathan) Conflict can occur for example when someone has come to possess a better piece of land. If an invader would have nothing to fear but that one mans individual power, then it is more than likely that someone will choose to invade this estate and attempt to deprive the owner of his possessions. But then the successful invader will then be in similar danger from someone else. It is an endless cycle of conflict in the State of Nature, which inevitably creates hostile conditions. However, Hobbes claim that all men are equal is false. The very young, the very old and the infirm generally pose no mortal threat to able bodied persons in the prime of life and therefore there would be no competition in some circumstances. Whilst it was not Hobbess aim to describe what is literally the case, this does demonstrate that not all of his reasons were convincing when explaining why the State of Nature would be a State of War. Hobbes further illustrated a State of as a State of War as it is a place where nobody feels secure, each person has a reason to attack any other person, for fear of being attacked first; this is what Hobbes referred to as diffidence. Because of this distrust amongst men, the most reasonable way for anyone to make themselves safe is to strike first, so attack can be seen as the best form of defence in a State of War. And, because each person has roughly equal killing power, everybody is both a potential killer and a potential victim. The fact that each of them is liable to aggression from others means that each person has to treat every other person as an enemy. People dont just regard everyone as possible enemies, in the State of War everyone is an enemy. Hence diffidence makes people invade one another for safety. Hobbes quite rightly held that the State of Nature would be a State of War therefore as people would fear that others may invade them, and may rationally plan to strike fi rst as an anticipatory defense, a natural human instinct to preserve their own safety. Hobbes also said that The State of War arises from the nature of some people, mainly those who want others to value them as highly as they values themselves. Glory drives people to attack others to raise their value in the eyes of others. Glory is therefore a source of unwarranted aggression and when there is no common power to keep people at peace, conflict will occur which Hobbes quite rightly said. Hobbes had a particularly good reason for believing that the State of Nature would be one of war as morality has no place in this pre-political world that Hobbes created. Everyone has an interest in killing everyone else pre-emptively, whenever possible, and this is acceptable as nothing holds any individuals back from committing any immoral acts, humans would merely act as their interests dictate. In a State of Nature, by definition there are no rules, not even unenforceable ones that might deter some from committing such acts. Therefore even moral restrictions to do or withhold from doing certain things for example, not to kill have no effect in a State of Nature. Hobbess view was that in the natural State of War there are no objective moral distinctions. In this State of War of every man against every man nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have n place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Hobbes assumed that the state of nature would be a state of war as taking people as they actually are, if you were to remove all political institutions, the natural proclivities that would ensue would lead to a state of war. Notably, without political institutions, the natural impulses to self-preservation are doomed to failure. In the state of nature, that is our unhappy predicament. Natural right of self-preservation (ch. 14): the liberty each one has to use her/his own power for self-preservation. A central claim of Hobbes: It is rational to give up ones right to self-governance to a sovereign, if everyone else agrees to do the same. (See chapter 17, section 13) The natural state of war, therefore, is the state of affairs in which the individual is dependent for his security on his own strength and his own wits. In such conditions there is no place for hard work, because there is no assurance that it will yield results; and consequently no cultivation of the earth, no navigation or use of materials that can be imported by sea, no construction of large buildings, no machines for moving things that require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no practical skills, no literature or scholarship, no society; and-worst of all-continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Perhaps we would imagine that people might fare best in such a state, where each decides for herself how to act, and is judge, jury and executioner in her own case whenever disputes arise-and that at any rate, this state is the appropriate baseline against which to judge the justifiability of political arrangements.

Home vs. Alone Lfe

The college years are a time of growing independence for every college student. Freshman’s have to make decisions that will change the person they are now and mold them to be the person that they will become after college. During college, students learn to manage their time and practice different methods that make their lives easier. They realize that their decisions can make them suffer because of limitations. This is why some college students have a difficult time deciding whether they want to stay at home with parents or alone.Most students choose to move out so that they can develop their independence and responsibility by being alone in an apartment. Other students select to stay home because the cost of living at home is less expensive for them than the cost of staying alone renting an apartment. Therefore it may seem like staying alone in an apartment has more benefits at first, but in the long run, living at home can have more advantages. The most common reason for stu dents choosing to stay at home is that the cost of living in an apartment is too expensive to handle for someone who has a job that cannot cover the rent.Staying at home gives the student a better opportunity to save more money because a student that stays at home during college has less financial responsibilities. The most major responsibility students in apartments deal with is rent when conversely students that stay at home do not have to pay rent unless their parents ask for it. Even if the students’ parents ask for rent, there is a high chance that the amount that the parents ask for is cheaper than what the student would spend renting their own apartment.Not having to pay a high amount for rent can take a burden off of the student because some students that live alone in an apartment struggle to pay rent. Some students that choose stay in the apartments may first have to pay an expensive security deposit to acquire the apartment. After paying for the security deposit, r ent, and utilities, the student also might also have to pay for cable and Internet access because apartment living does not afford these same luxuries.Students are in charge when they live at their own apartment so they have to be responsible when paying these new bills in their apartment because these bills can help or hurt the student’s credit. For example, when students do not pay their rent and utility bills on time, they can suffer from penalty charges or eviction. Each time the student pays bills on time, they build credit which over time gives them a strong credit rating that can help them to get approved for an auto loan, a house or another purchase they may want to make.Unless the student has bills placed in their name, they do not build credit as much when they live with their parents. Additionally, students generally must sign a lease with their landlord before they rent an apartment. Not only must they pay rent by a certain date, they must also adhere to other ite ms outlined in the lease agreement. For example, if they have a pet, the student is responsible for cleaning up after the pet and ensuring it does not disturb neighbors.Students that live at home also have responsibilities but if they do not complete them due to illness or time constraints, another family member might complete them for the student. For example, if that student is responsible for mowing the lawn and they get ill with the influenza; their parents might mow the lawn for them. When they live in an apartment, they must complete their responsibilities regardless of how they feel or have to work out an alternate arrangement with your landlord.Students living in a house with their parents stress less about food, clothes, and toiletries because the parents may provide these necessities with shelter. Students that stay in apartments most likely have to run errands such as buying clothes, groceries and toiletries for themselves. The student at home also has the benefit of avoi ding the expense of buying furniture, linens and other household items. It is also easier for stay-at-home students to save more when it comes to laundry because students that live in an apartment may have to pay laundry fees to use washing machines and dryers.Unlike stay at home students that have a washer and dryer at home, the students in the apartment may have to travel to a laundry mat every week spending more money just to keep their clothes clean. Students staying at home can save more money also because these students generally do not have to worry about these expenses. Even if the parents do not provide these needs for the student staying with them, there is a better chance that they will help because the student is closer.Living alone may teach students to be more responsible but living at home gives students a better support network from their parents. When living at home the family ensures that the student’s basic need for shelter and security is met. Living alone means that you have more freedom but also that you will have to deal with troubles more by yourself. For example, after a long exhausting day of working, a student can come back home and realize all most everything in their apartment is gone because of forgetting to lock the door.This is horrible thought but this could have been prevented more if the student stayed home. This is less likely to happen for students living with their family because the students’ parents are actually going to be there to remember the student to lock the door or lock the door for them. Living at home with parents, the rule the student lives by is â€Å"As long as you live under my roof, you follow my rules†, so is the advantage of security but disadvantages of less freedom and more rules. When it comes to living at home the student might not get to put their own design style in every room.For instance, over the years, one or more of the parents have probably picked out furniture, carpet an d other decor to suit their tastes. Although the student might have gotten a chance to offer input when it came to choosing a new living room or bedroom suite, their parents likely had the final say. Apartment living allows the student to decorate their living space with furniture that appeals to them. Some apartments also let renters paint so living in their own apartment gives the student the chance to get creative and express themselves in their home.Having their own apartment, the rule the student lives by is â€Å"You pay the cost to be the boss†, so the student can come and go as they please because they make the rules of the house. There is generally no one to tell the student what time to go to bed, get up in the morning or when to clean your home. Their friends can stay over late and the students can choose the forms of entertainment they engage in. For example, they can go out overnight and enjoy pleasant time with companions when they stay alone and that seems to b e tough when living with family.If they were living at home, they would have to ask their parents if friends can come over and stay late. Depending on the parents, the student also might have to arrive home at a certain time of the evening. . Even though living at home with parents mitigates the benefits, such as more independence and responsibilities that students receive when staying alone, it is more beneficial because it helps them transition from high school to college more easy. It is easier for the student to concentrate on our lessons if they are at home because their parents motivate them more.Imagine how the student is disturbed by a group of friends while trying focusing on studies at their own department. It would take a lot more time to have a talk with these friends then the student has to spend hours on concentrating again. The consequence of learning will descend gradually if the student is distracted. In conclusion, besides similarities such as being a stable place to stay, there are thousands of considerable discrepancies between the boundaries of living alone and living with family.I have distinguished which one satisfies the student most in certain periods of time. The choice the student picks will affect every detail of their life, right down to the way you talk, the foods you eat, and how much money you can spend. It will also determine how often the students’ friends visit and how much freedom the student will have. For example, while living under the rule of the parents, the student will have to leave the house in order to socialize and the communication will be short periods of time. Living alone, however, yields much more room for fun because of freedom.

The main aim is not to be afraid of yourself

Several months ago I participated at training â€Å"Effective communication†. Actually, I didn’t think it will be useful for me, because I wasn’t a shy person, who doesn’t know what he wants from life.I didn’t have some special problems in personal relationships and in communications with my friends/teachers/family/etc. Still, my friend invited me to visit this training and I agreed. Let it be, – I thought, – maybe I’ll find something interesting there, – who knows. To tell the truth, it was very useful for me and I’ve learned a lot of interesting things about myself which helped me to communicate with other people more effective.After that training I understood that if I remain myself (if I’m not changing myself) I’ll be happy and I’ll always be able to find way out from any difficult situation.The main aim is not to be afraid of yourself, to love and to accept yourself as you are. Unexpectedl y for me I found out that I always was unsure in my actions, I was self-confident but only to some extent and very often after I took some decision; I tried to think over, what could happen if I acted in another way.I mean that I learned to look at my problems in simpler way, and then after I realized that actually I don’t have any problems. I understood that when the person is â€Å"opened†, people like him and they strive after him. You don’t need to be afraid and to hide your feelings, and then people start to understand you. Some of my fears from childhood disappeared; now in many cases I can control my aggression towards the other people.I was able to determine aim in my life, my internal state of mind changed into more vivid and confident. Communication with other people became more opened; I started to control my feelings. I learned that everything in my life depends on me, not on somebody else. That there are a lot of great possibilities, I only have to open my eyes and to reach them. Before I was loosing confidence in stress situations, and now I’m able to control my feelings.We made different kinds of tests and I understood that I like to clash with my friends and that I don’t show to people, who are close to me, feelings expressing my good attitude to them. I received practical knowledge in the field of understanding of human emotions and problems; I learned a lot of facts about myself with help of self-analysis and from opinions of other people. It was the unique experience for me and it helped me greatly in my life.   

The Use and Abuse of Power by the Female Protagonists in...

Miss Julie by Strindberg and Medea by Euripides explore the theme of power struggle. Julie, the Count’s daughter, was raised by a mother who hated men; Strindberg hence presents a confused character who struggles with her sexual desire for men juxtaposing with her need to dominate them. She feels compelled to use her social status when dealing with Jean. Medea, on the other hand, is presented as a brave, unpredictable, almost barbaric woman of extremes; she has committed several crimes on her husband’s behalf. Medea is constantly associated with images of extreme passion be it love, hatred or rage, and it is through the expression of these extremes that the audience becomes familiar with her persona. When she learns of her husband s†¦show more content†¦This fluctuation of her need for and rejection of Jean may be indicative of insecurity and loss resulting from her traumatic upbringing and again, having been rejected by one of her social class; this could acco unt for her need to regain power. Medea’s irrational behaviour is also due to her loss of power and control caused by her husband, Jason, who abandoned her and married Glauce, princess of Corinth. The Nurse explains this in her opening speech; â€Å"Medea rages at her loss of honour†[6]. Medea declares that Jason’s betrayal comes at the expense of her social status, home, dignity, and security; she claims to be â€Å"alone†¦stateless, dishonored by (my) husband† [7]Medea s fury knows no limit as evidenced when she mentions, â€Å"Cursed boys, I wish you dead, your father too†3 in line 103; she is determined to seek revenge whatever the cost, and revenge is the murder her and Jason’s sons. Because they are precious to Jason, she will deprive him of them and resultantly destroy and triumph over him. She has all the means to carry out her hideous crime â€Å"with such deadly poisons†[8]. Medea despises Jason’s ingratitude that seems to have forgotten that she murdered her brother and was involved in the murder of Pelias for Jason s benefit.