Hobbes’ and Aristotle’s clashing yet analogous suggestions on the individual citizen and the society in which he resides

Social political philosophy addresses pursuits in relation towards the individual’s integration within their community and society. The correlation between a member and the society that he is apart of is crucial to the writing of Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes, although each philosopher approaches the idea of the natural state of the human in varying ways.  

For Aristotle, the collective interest of an entire community holds more power than the interest of an individual, which is like Hobbes’ philosophical offerings, but Aristotle believes that man is social by nature. It is natural for humans to form groups; living and working within a community is only natural and is needed to obtain virtue. This virtue is then used to understand what a just action is and how to take these just actions and apply them to self and the community. The community creates the city by working together by means of communication and just action. The human is naturally supposed to live in a polis (city).

However, not all people are equal, and not all who live in a polis are considered to be a citizen. A citizen is one who participates in reasoning and deliberation of governmental powers. Women, children, and slaves are ruled for their own good rather than only for the good of their ruler. All units working together in this manner progresses the polis by the natural desire of the human to want to work together in a communal aspect.

Hobbes focuses on social contract theory, of which he emphasizes in Leviathan. In sharp contrast to Aristotle, the natural state of the human is to be erratic and to act solely in the interest of the individual rather than being social by nature. Put simply, man’s natural state is one of constant war and conflict because of his individualistic desire. Man acts in regard to his own self-interest. In order to gain a community with cooperative action, a structure must be implemented that promotes the well being of the entire community rather than just the individual. This is desirable because man wants to benefit himself, but this egotistical mindset is difficult when everyone contains this conceited attitude with rage of natural war and conflict. Without structure, everyone would end up killing each other and no progression would be achieved.

A community must be artificially induced (rather than by nature) to prevent further war and bloodshed. By doing this, the individual sacrifices a bit of freedom in order to gain a tranquil society. This society works together as a unit because it realizes that by doing so a better life is achieved for the participating members. The individualistic mindset is detrimental and must be somewhat stifled and replaced with a community mindset so everyone can benefit from societal progression. Working together to achieve good is better than working alone, because working alone pits the members against each other and results in an unaccomplished, broken community that lacks a sense of security. The rebellious man must be tamed for the successful progression of the society in which he lives. Hobbes suggests that by entering this social contract, some freedom is relinquished.

For Hobbes, all men are equal and “every man is an enemy to every man” (Leviathan, Ch. 13). Men will often come together and form a society, but it is not out of interest of the entire society, but rather interest solely in oneself and self-progression. By coming together and forming a society, each member suspects a benefit from the alliance. This act of self interest resulting in a formation of a society is deeply rooted in the desire to progress oneself; it just so happens that by sacrificing a bit of freedom and working together as a unit will benefit the self in a better way than simply working alone. This differs vastly from Aristotle’s suspicion of natural community and sense of the individual, although both philosophers agree that a community is needed for progress to be made.