A Hobbesian and Heroic Unreflective Citizenship
In Meno, Plato asks “what virtue itself is” (Plato 60). This dialogue on virtue between Socrates and Meno ably frames a wider dialogue on ethics between Thomas Hobbes, the Greek heroic tradition, and the sophists of 5th century Athens. Hobbes’ Leviathan and Aristophanes’ The Clouds introduce three classes of ethical actors to respond to Plato’s inquiry: Hobbes’ ethical lemmings, the heroic ethical traditionalists, and the sophist ethical opportunists. The Meno also helps capture the essence of contemporary discussion of the morality of desire and emotivism, as articulated by Roberto Mangabeira Unger in Knowledge and Politics and Alasdair MacIntyre in After Virtue. Finally, I will
…show more content…
MENO: …if you want the virtue of a man, it is easy to say that a man’s virtue consists of being able to…benefit his friends and harm his enemies and to be careful that no harm comes to himself. (60)
To the extent that the morality of desire and emotivism hold true, objectivism finds no traction in ethics. These doctrines preclude the exclusion of the self in evaluation of questions of morality and ethics. Meno’s crude and self-interested model of virtue complements Unger and MacIntyre’s discussion of subjectivity.
Subjectivism forms a cornerstone of Thomas Hobbes’ understanding of human nature. Hobbes describes reason as the “scout” (Hobbes 68) of the passions. In other words, reason is unable to control or transcend human passions, but serves only to carry out the ends selected by these passions. In the context of ethics, Hobbes believes that the influence of the passions renders useless the use of mathematical and authoritative “right reason” (46) in subjective matters of right and wrong, justice and injustice:
…different constitutions of body and prejudices of opinion, gives everything a tincture of our different passions… a man must take heed of words which… have a signification also of the nature, disposition, and interest of the speaker: such are the names of virtues and vices…And therefore such names can never be true grounds of any ratiocination.
Plato reveals the views of Socrates on the query of whether virtue is knowledge and whether virtue may be taught in a number of dialogues, mainly in Meno. In the dialogue, Socrates creates several differing arguments on virtue, which include the definition of virtue and questions on whether persons can attain it. In addition, Plato demonstrates the means by which virtue can be obtained, as well as ponders on whether persons are born virtuous, whether virtue may be taught or it is an added factor for righteous individuals (Novelguide.com n.pag.). The paper will focus on Socrates' query of whether virtue is knowledge as well as highlight whether virtue may be taught.
Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to connect the philosophical commitments to politics. He offers a distinctive definition to what man needs in life which is a successful means to a conclusion. He eloquently defines the social contract of man after defining the intentions of man. This paper will account for why Hobbes felt that man was inherently empowered to preserve life through all means necessary, and how he creates an authorization for an absolute sovereign authority to help keep peace and preserve life. Hobbes first defines the nature of man. Inherently man is evil. He will do whatever is morally permissible to self preservation. This definition helps us understand the argument of why Hobbes was pessimistic of man, and
Both Hobbes and Locke base their stance that all human beings are equal from their own unique concepts on the state of nature; these concepts result in contrasting theories on what the true source of equality is in human beings. While Hobbes believes that human beings are equal because all people are equally capable of satisfying their desires, Locke believes that people are equal because everyone has reason, thereby giving all human beings access to natural law. The crucial assertion that influences the distinction in Hobbes’s and Locke’s views on the purpose of government lies within the deciding whether
Aristotle and Hobbes present two fundamentally distinct doctrines about the conception of politics, human affairs, and the nature of man. Specifically, both philosophers express vying interpretations of human nature. Even though Aristotle and Hobbes similarly use their understanding of human nature to conceptualize their politics, they both express differing views about the aims for which they believe human beings act and exist. In a rather preliminary interpretation of their views, it can be said that, for Aristotle, man is inherently social, and thereby is naturally inclined towards the community. Whereas, for Hobbes, man is innately individualistic, and is naturally inclined towards self-interest. The distinction between the Aristotelian and the Hobbesian philosophies about human nature rests in their respective explanations of what means and ends drive human action and existence. In the first half of this paper, I will discuss the ways in which Aristotle’s and Hobbes’ conception of human nature differ from one another. In a discussion of equality, I will compare Aristotle’s view of the flexibility of man’s nature, to Hobbes’ view of the intransigence of man in the state of nature, while also comparing Aristotle’s view of collectivity, to Hobbes’ view of individualism. The second half of my paper will argue that Aristotle’s teleological view of human nature presents a more superior and accurate account of human
In order to analyze Hobbes’s work of moral and political philosophy, one must first understand his view of human nature. Hobbes’s was greatly influenced by the scientific revolution of the early 17th century, and by the civil unrest and civil war in England while he wrote. Hobbes views the nature of man as being governed by the same laws of nature described by Galileo and refined by Newton .He writes in Leviathan “And as we see in the water, though the wind cease, the waves give not over rowling (rolling) for a long time after; so also it happeneth in that mation, which is made in the internall parts of a man” . From this, he concludes that man is in a constant state of motion. Being at rest is not the natural state of man, but rather a rarity.
In the history of philosophy, two of the most prominent philosophers were Hobbes and Hume. Both made important contributions to the world of ethics. One of the main important things they differed on is reason. Hobbs felt that reason is way to seek peace but Hume felt the reason is only a slave to passions. In the following paragraphs, you will see how Hobbes and Hume explain their different views on reason the theories of the two philosophers are analyzed in depth, so that we can have a comprehensive understanding.
In Plato’s Meno, the character Meno proposes several definitions of virtue, all of which Socrates refutes. When Socrates invites Meno to examine and seek what virtue is together, Meno questions, “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is? How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing that you did not know?” (Meno, 80d).
We will give Hobbes’ view of human nature as he describes it in Chapter 13 of Leviathan. We will then give an argument for placing a clarifying layer above the Hobbesian view in order to
Socrates, arguably one of the godfathers of western philosophy, is always an interesting character to investigate, debate and criticize. Even with his, major or minor flaws he presents what must be said to be the foundation of philosophical thought in the western world. The ancient Greeks, and the their society, presents a terribly interesting mirror to the modern western civilization and society of today, mainly embedded within their esthetically and (partly) democratic thoughts. The life contained in these two societies is what this essay is inspired by. This essay is by no means a trial in finding a conclusive endpoint in the search for ethical and existential meaning, it might not even be a starting point. Arguably philosophy is all about
In defining political legitimacy, many theorists put forth a distinct set of values that frame their view on the authorities’ right to rule and citizen’s obligation to follow. Theorists such as Hobbes and Locke, both of their account on political legitimacy might look quite similar at first glance, because each theorized about the nature of mankind and the right political systems that would meet the needs of individuals. However, in Hobbes’ perspective, political authority does not pre-exist in individual’s state of nature, rather, it is created by the social contract and serves to ensure self-preservation which is threatened in a state of nature. In contrast, Locke thought that the social contract does not create authority, but that political authority is embodied in individuals and pre-exists in the state of nature, all individuals thus have the moral obligation to respect those rights made by authorities. In my point of view, Locke’s idea sounds more compelling than that of Hobbes’, because it allows individuals to have their own liberties free from an oppressive sovereign and prevents danger posed by absolute freedom.
Although Plato’s and Aristotle’s moral theories in many ways are quite similar, I will be analyzing their key differences in correlation to the Form of the Good. I will be looking at the two stories that are well recognized by these two men in order to look closer at what they thought would lead to our happiness, joy, beauty, and true knowledge in this life. To understand this, we need to first have some understanding of Plato’s doctrine of the forms. The Allegory of The Cave is a concept put forward by Plato regarding human perception.
Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;
“Everyone is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies (Hobbes, 120).” Thomas Hobbes, who is a considered a rational egoist, makes this point in his book Leviathan. Hobbes believes that the means of person’s actions can only be amounted to how it ultimately affects that person. Our moral duties that we perform in the end, all stem from self-interest, rather than being justified as morally right or wrong. Hobbes states that our desires pit us against one another, and the only way to protect our self-interests is to create a common power that protects the people who consent to it.
This perspective is essentially materialist and rather careful interpretation of the human conditions is radical and far-reaching in the history of political though and particularly disagrees with Locke’s. Unlike Locke’s perspective therefore, self-interest is the dominant theme of Hobbes’ perspective of the state of nature (Hobbes, 1994).
Human nature and its relevance in determining behaviors, predictions, and conclusions has caused dispute among philosophers throughout the ages. Political philosophy with its emphasis on government legitimacy, justice, laws, and rights guided the works of the 17th and 18th century philosophical writings of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Through Thomas Hobbes world-renowned publication Leviathan and Rousseau’s discourses on basic political principals and concepts, each man validated their thoughts on human nature and what is required for a successful society within their respective government confines. The distinct differences between Hobbes and Rousseau’s opinions on the natural state of man frame the argument of the different