A liberal is someone who believes in the primacy of liberty as a sociopolitical value. Liberalism posits freedom a priori and, therefore, in its tradition, the burden of proof rests on those who would limit or restrict individual freedom in some way. Definitions of freedom within the liberal tradition diverge into two main conceptions. Negative liberty posits that individuals are free to the extent that they can pursue distinct ends without being constrained and in the absence of interference or constraints. Those who embrace a positive conception of freedom have a somewhat stronger view of what constitutes freedom. For these liberals, freedom consists of acting according to one's will in such a way as to realize and actualize one's true human purpose. These two conceptions of freedom consider it necessary to justify any restriction on individual freedom. This need for justification appears most immediately in the context of any political system that exercises the power to limit individual freedom of action. Even in the freest and fairest political context, there is a mechanism for maintaining a system of rules that regulate individual behavior. These mechanisms include systems such as consent, coercion or physical force. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayHobbes presents social contract theory as a system of restrictions on freedom that satisfies the moral requirements of a liberal philosophy. Its justification relies on consent as a mechanism that rational people, in the state of nature, can use to choose certain restrictions on freedom. In this article, I will propose an interpretation of Leviathan that places Hobbes clearly within the tradition of liberal philosophy. As a modern political philosopher, Hobbes is not concerned with proposing a theory of how humans should be, but rather a description of what humans should be. how they are. In this way, it departs from ancient schemes such as that of Aristotle, which presents virtue ethics as an account of how we should act. Hobbes argues that morality arises from the appetites and aversions of humanity. “Whatever be the object of any man's appetite or desire; this is what he calls Good: and the object of his hatred and aversion, Evil” (Hobbes, 120). It seems obvious to Hobbes that humans only consider the categories of Good and Evil insofar as they correspond to our individual desires. What we desire, and therefore what we consider Good or Evil, arises not from any consideration of the interests of others or of society as a whole, but from the particular passions that individuals naturally possess. Men alternately appeal to their reason or to habits of action to discern the morality of an action, since they lack an objective standard: “becoming strong and obstinate, they appeal from habit to reason, and from reason to habit, to the extent that it serves their interests. " turn; departing from custom when their interest requires it, and opposing reason as often as reason is against them” (Hobbes, 166). Such a pattern of action Hobbes calls the state of nature. In the circumstances of the state of nature, there is the constant anticipation of conflict. Individual desires and passions are contingent, and the State of Nature lacks an independent arbiter capable of mediating conflicts between individual ends. Lacking security to defend one's life other thanbrute force, man in the state of nature lives in constant fear: all this therefore results from an era of war, where every man is the enemy of every man; the same is true of the time when men live without any other security than that which their own strength and their own invention will provide them (Hobbes, 186). This state of war is what drives Hobbes' famous description of life before government. as “lonely, poor, mean, brutal, and small” (Hobbes, 186). Precariously, men in the state of nature are led by their rationality to adopt the famous social contract, renouncing part of their individual freedom in order to establish peace and order. It is the revolutionary principle that men accept limits to their own freedom both rationally and freely, which places Hobbes very firmly within the realm of liberal philosophy. Men thus rise out of a state of competition where they live in constant fear of losing their lives through the mechanism of consent. The primary objective of a rational man in the state of nature is to seek a kind of peace with other men which will enable him to preserve himself. This leads him to realize that “no man need reserve for himself a right which he is not content to be reserved for all others” (Hobbes, 215). Morality then takes on a superficial character. According to the first law of nature, established in the light of the social contract between men, to be moral means for men "to respect the commitments which they have contracted: without which... we are always in the condition of war" (Hobbes, 201-202). ). Yet men remain intrinsically selfish individuals, preoccupied with pursuing their own ends. It is necessary, according to Hobbes, to establish an independent party, capable of mediating between men with competing objectives, which ensures that they respect the commitments made. At this moment, Leviathan is born. Leviathan is the institution of the social contract which ensures its stability even in the face of the competing and selfish ends of men. As an impartial party to the particular interests of men, he ensures that justice is achieved by honoring the contracts between them, thereby elevating them beyond the state of nature. The Leviathan draws its power from all the individuals who conclude the social contract together and thus stands above each of them by representing the interests of all, and not those of just one. Hobbes describes Leviathan in these terms: And in him consists the essence of common wealth; who (to define it) is a person of whom a great multitude of acts, by mutual alliances with each other, have each been made the author, in order that he may use the force and means of all, as he will think so. opportune, for their peace and their common defense” (Hobbes, 228). Such a description, of a supreme being who possesses greater power than any individual, but who is nevertheless exempt from the principles of the social contract, may strike the reader. as justifying a kind of totalitarian regime. However, we can rescue Hobbes from this charge by considering both the intellectual context of his ideas and his particular conception of freedom. Hobbes's ideas were revolutionary in their time because they moved away from justifying the role of government as serving its own purpose, whether that purpose was that of God, the Church, or someone else. other. He conceives of government as deriving its authority and purpose from the population. As such, the Leviathan is meant to be an individual who executes the law for the protection and well-being of all individuals, and who follows the standards those individuals have set for themselves. By freedom, Hobbes has in mind a particular conception of freedom as., 1968.