CurioCat

Man is by nature both violent and subservient to his own good- thus Hobbes was accurate in stating so in rhetorical terms.

The state of Nature, that is with no governmental system installed, is going to be conflicted because of this. we naturally are for our own survival and our subsistence, so Hobbes's argument follows as logical from this. Consider teh fact that the closest we ever went to a state of Nature was during the Prehistoric periods; archeological evidence shows us that humans back then perhaps even ate each other, not to mention mauled and decapitated each otehr frequently over possessions, people or domains.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwimr6Wjluf-AhWnSfEDHeGwAPwQFnoECAgQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F08%2F10%2Fscience%2Fcannibalism-bones-goughs-cave-england.html&usg=AOvVaw1M6iwVdsXSOC3TTQXmnTtY

Humans can be seen as naturally good- for they have moral instincts. Choosing a State of War in a State of Nature is overruling this instinct, which is not possible as we all have one. Hobbes comes to the conclusion that we are war-like in a state of nature when we are truly just a blend of aggressive and thoughtful. We of course want to survive, but often hold dear those around us and our items of possession; thus Hobbes is making an invalid generalization here for we are not all cannibalistic or evil or butchers.