A liberal is someone who believes in the primacy of freedom as a socio-political value. Liberalism presupposes a priori freedom, and therefore within its tradition the burden of proof lies with those who would limit or in some way restrict individual freedom. Definitions of freedom within the liberal tradition diverge in two main conceptions. Negative freedom presupposes that individuals are free to the extent that they can pursue separate ends without being coerced and in the absence of interference or constraints. Those who espouse a positive conception of freedom have a somewhat stronger view of what constitutes freedom. For these liberals, freedom consists in acting according to one's will in such a way as to realize and actualize one's true human purpose. Both of these conceptions of freedom deem it necessary to justify any restrictions on individual freedom. This need for justification emerges most immediately in the context of any political system that exercises the authority to limit individual freedom of action. Even in the freest and most equal political context there is a mechanism for maintaining a system of rules that govern individual behavior. Such mechanisms include systems such as consent, coercion or physical force. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay. Hobbes proposes the social contract theory as a system of restrictions on freedom that satisfies the moral requirements of a liberal philosophy. Its justification is based on consensus as a mechanism that rational people, in the state of nature, can use to choose certain restrictions on freedom. In this article I will present an interpretation of Leviathan that places Hobbes squarely within the tradition of liberal philosophy. As a modern political philosopher, Hobbes is not concerned with proposing a theory of what human beings should be like, but rather a description of what human beings should be like. how they are. In this way it differs from ancient schemes such as that of Aristotle, who proposes virtue ethics as an explanation of how we should act. Hobbes argues that morality arises from the appetites and aversions of humanity. “Whatever is the object of any man's Appetite or Desire; this is what he, for his part, calls Good: and the object of his Hatred and Dislike, Evil” (Hobbes, 120). It seems clear to Hobbes that human beings consider the categories of Good and Evil only insofar as they correspond to our individual desires. What we desire, and therefore what we consider Good or Evil, does not arise from any consideration of the interests of others or of society in general, but from the particular passions that individuals possess by nature. Men appeal alternatively to reason or to the customs of action in discerning the morality of an action, since they lack an objective criterion: «having become strong and obstinate, they appeal from custom to reason, and from reason to custom, according to what they need." tour; to depart from custom when their interest requires it, and to oppose reason whenever reason is against them” (Hobbes, 166). Such a scheme of action Hobbes defines as 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 goals. Without security to defend his life other than brute force, man in the state of nature lives in constant fear: All this therefore is consequent toa time of War, where every man is every man's Enemy; the same is consequent to the time in which men live without any other security than that which their own strength and invention can provide them (Hobbes, 186). This state of war is what leads to Hobbes' famous description of life before the government as “solitary, poor, bad, brutish, and low” (Hobbes, 186). Insecure, men in the State of Nature are led by their rationality to accept the famous Social Contract, giving up part of their individual freedom for the sake of establishing peace and order. It is the revolutionary principle that men accept limitations on their freedom both rationally and freely, which places Hobbes most securely in the realm of liberal philosophy. In this way men emerge from a state of competition in which they live in constant fear of losing their lives through the consensus mechanism. The primary goal of a rational man in the State of Nature is to seek some kind of peace with other men that allows him to self-preserve. This leads him to understand that “no man requires to reserve for himself any right, which he is not satisfied should be reserved for all others” (Hobbes, 215). Morality, therefore, takes on a superficial character. According to the first Law of Nature, established in light of the social contract between men, being moral means that men "fulfill the covenants made: without which... we are still in the condition of war" (Hobbes, 201-2). ). However, men remain intrinsically selfish individuals, concerned with the pursuit of their own ends. It is necessary, according to Hobbes, to establish an independent party capable of mediating between men with competing goals, which guarantees compliance with the stipulated agreements. At this moment Leviathan is born. Leviathan is the institution of the social contract which guarantees its stability also in light of the competitive and selfish aims of men. An impartial party to any particular interest of men, he ensures that Justice is achieved by honoring the contracts between them, thus elevating them beyond the State of Nature. The Leviathan draws its power from the sum total of individuals who stipulate the social contract together, and therefore places itself above each of them, representing the interests of everyone and no one. Hobbes describes Leviathan by saying: And in him consists the essence of the State; who (to define it) is One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutual Alliances among themselves, have made themselves the Author, that he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defense ", (Hobbes, 228). Such a description, of a supreme being who possesses power greater than any individual, but who is nevertheless exempt from the principles of the social contract, may strike the reader as justifying some sort of totalitarian government. However , we can save Hobbes from this charge by considering both the intellectual context of his ideas and his particular conception of freedom whether God, the church, or someone else derives its authority by the populace. As such, the Leviathan is meant to be an individual who executes the law for the protection and betterment of all individuals and follows the standards those individuals set for themselves. By freedom, Hobbes has in mind a particular conception of freedom as the absence of obstacles to the “preservation of one's nature”. Freedom is not the ability to pursue whatever particular ends an individual may desire, since his fundamental right of nature is only to protect his own life (Hobbes, 189). The ability to pursue particular passions, regardless of their consequences for others,., 1968.