A state needs a leader who is based on virtue.

For peace and order to exist in a state, a leader who relies on virtue to govern his followers is required.
According to Hobbes, man's natural state is a constant war of one man against another. He claims that there is a natural way to define the laws and virtues that are required for peace. Such laws can be enacted, however, when power is created and used to enforce the laws. As a result, people should transfer their rights to a single individual who will be above all others and will enforce the laws on their behalf. I agree with Hobbes’ argument because a person lives in consistent fear of violence and death and without security, nothing will take place. People will not be able to do business, farming, manufacture products, perform art or even research on scientific issues (Oakeshott and Gough, 118). According to Hobbes, the life of a man is short and miserable. He uses the condition of nature to demonstrate the need for a political society. Besides, Hobbes shows the necessity of a particular society when he shows that pre-political condition presents a state of endless conflict which is intolerable. The ideal political society is one that is governed by an absolute and undivided sovereign. The worst that can happen to a state is when a civil war breaks and the only solution to such a scenario is a having a sovereign leader with absolute power (Oakeshott and Gough, 120). I do not agree with Hobbes' argument that order and peace are attainable in a state when there is a sovereign leader with absolute power. In the contemporary world, civil war experienced in many countries across the world can be associated with lack of a stable government. Such conflict arises when there are two leaders fighting for power. When one is elected, the opponent refuse to acknowledge defeat and war breaks between the supporters of the two leaders.

Mencius claims that a person who relies on virtue to put humanity into practice rules as a true king. Besides, a person who relies on virtue to make others submissive, they do it wholeheartedly, and they have a sincere submission (Ivanhoe, 154). However, one who uses force rules like a hegemon who requires a large state so that he can stay in power. A hegemon forces people to submit, and their submission is not sincere since they have insufficient strength to stand up against the ruler. Mencius argument is right because peace an order of a state depends on the ruler. A true king is guided by virtue and places credible men kin office, and he honors the worthy. He dies not take too much from his people in terms of taxes something that enables them to do business and improve the economy of the country such that even the neighboring countries want to do business with the country.

A true king gives an opportunity to every person to excel in sectors they are good in. Farmers can work on their farms and increase productivity since they have the support of the government and they do not have to look for a market for their produce because government incentives allow a ready market. People appreciate the ruler and enjoy their human activities since it is rewarding (Ivanhoe, 157). Conflict in a state that stirs peace and order arises when the king is a hegemon and forces people to be submissive to him. They will do so because they do not have an option but when the chance arises in which they can speak their mind, conflict arises. Usually, such an opportunity arises when another person stands up against the ruler with the voice of the majority.

In Plato’s Republic Book IV, Socrates argues that a state should be based on utilitarianism in which no one gains at the expense of another person. He says that the guardians or the rulers have a responsibility to the state and can deliver when they act by virtue (Ferrari, 492). Similarly, Republic Book V explains that a peaceful and orderly state is one that cares about the social needs of its people. Socrates advocates for education for all and recognition of the family as the basic unit of the society that should be upheld first before moving on to the larger community.

Conclusion

The three philosophers; Mencius, Hobbes, and Plato, seek to explain what constitutes a peaceful and orderly state. It all depends on the leaders of the state. Hobbes' argument that a sovereign leader with absolute power is essential for the enforcement of humanity in the society is not sufficient in the sense that, such a ruler may be using force to put the natural laws in place. The people he rules may not be submissive wholeheartedly because they are not strong enough to stand up against such a leader. However, when a person is brave enough to stand up against him, conflict is deemed to arise because he would not be willing to step down from power. As Mencius and Socrates argues, a true king who maintains peace and order in the state relies on virtue to govern his people who in turn will be appreciative and happy to be under his rule. Conclusively, a state requires a leader who relies on virtue to govern his followers for there to be peace and order.



Works Cited

Oakeshott, Michael, and J. W. Gough. "Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil." (1947): 118-120.

Ivanhoe, Philip J. "A Question of Faith: A New Interpretation of Mencius 2B. 13." Early China 13 (1988): 153-165.

Ferrari, Giovanni RF, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Plato's Republic. Cambridge University Press, 2007.