“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).
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.