Hobbes Human Nature

Since the beginning of time there has been confusion about every aspect of life and with confusion comes a number of questions we cannot completely answer or forget. How did we transform from one creature to another? Why are people so violent? Are we inherently good or evil? These are questions that have been asked for centuries, and have taken ever longer to possibly answer. It might be numerous decades from now before they finally answer these questions but, nevertheless many people are trying by using evidence, theories, faith, and science to answer these questions as accurately as possible. Mainly the question about whether we are innately innocent or not. Most people, say humans are inherently evil, that there is evil in all of us. That could be the reason why kids enjoy watching ants succumb when they burn them with reflected rays of sunlight. However, many believe that we are born good with a clean slate and that it is society of whom changes that. I believe that we are born sinful/evil and that society influence us to be good. The facts have proven humans to be innately evil through genetics, control, and mistreatment.

I believe that human beings are basically good. When they are first born and grow up as babies and toddlers, humans are innocent. However, with the effects of outside experiences and social expectations, human beings can be prone to evil. Humans want to be recognized within society and this can be seen in the movie, “The Talented Mr. Ripley”. Due to the social environment that Tom Ripley lives in, he feels the need to fit in and be wealthy like the people around him. This causes him to seek for ways, whether the action is moral or immoral, to attain a higher social status.

It is a very arguable subject on whether or not people are born with good intentions, and therefore taught by others the ‘evil’ side of their personality. Whether it is the absence of ethical conduct in human nature, or just the way one perceives a situation, evil seems to be prominent in our everyday lives. Humans seem to have a moral code that follows them with every decision they make, yet despite the laws of morality and society, people of this world still seem to behave inhumanely because of the act of self-preservation, human interest, and who exactly the authority figure is at the time.

First, Hobbes says that nature is chaos. There are no rules, and the only means of protection are the strengths of each individual. There is no trust among anyone, and each individual only cares about his or herself. Hobbes develops the right of nature, or self-preservation, out of these circumstances. Each individual has a right to think of self-preservation in a world where no one can be trusted. One might think that this wouldn’t fix the problem of the natural chaos. However, Hobbes explains that the focus on self-preservation will be so powerful that individuals will make covenants that will be adhered to because they preserve everyone and hence oneself. This is in accordance with Hobbes’ concept of the laws of nature. He explains the laws of nature to be: seek peace, forfeit rights, and keep covenants. Humans pursuing self-preservation would realize that by seeking peace and forfeiting rights such as taking what one wanted from others as one saw fit self-preservation is easier and more achievable. This also requires the formation of governments to enforce the covenants made. Otherwise, there would be no way to know for certain that the covenants would be respected and upheld. With the formation of government come concepts such as justice. Hobbes bases his definition of justice on the very thing that created the government: covenants, and the keeping of those valid or

Thomas Hobbes describes his views on human nature and his ideal government in Leviathan. He believes human nature is antagonistic, and condemns man to a life of violence and misery without strong government. In contrast to animals, who are able to live together in a society without a coercive power, Hobbes believes that men are unable to coexist peacefully without a greater authority because they are confrontational by nature. “In the nature of man”, Hobbes says “there are three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory” and then he goes on to list man’s primary aims for each being gain, safety and reputation (Hobbes, Leviathan, 13, 6).

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

According to Hobbes the state of nature leads to a war of all against all. What Hobbes refers to when he discusses the state of nature is a state in which there are no civil powers. To reach his conclusion about how the world would be in the state of nature, Hobbes first explains what human nature is and then explains the relationship between man and civil government.

Thomas Hobbes was a divisive figure in his day and remains so up to today. Hobbes’s masterpiece, Leviathan, offended his contemporary thinkers with the implications of his view of human nature and his theology. From this pessimistic view of the natural state of man, Hobbes derives a social contract in order to avoid civil war and violence among men. Hobbes views his work as laying out the moral framework for a stable state. In reality, Hobbes was misconstruing a social contract that greatly benefited the state based on a misunderstanding of civil society and the nature and morality of man.

Thomas Hobbes in Chapter 13 of Leviathan, and David Hume in Section 3 of An Enquiry Concerning the Princples of Morals, give views of human nature. Hobbes’ view captures survivalism as significant in our nature but cannot account for altruism. We cover Hobbes’ theory with a theory of Varied Levels of Survivalism, explaining a larger body of behavior with the foundation Hobbes gives. Hume gives a scenario which does not directly prove fruitful, but he does capture selfless behavior.

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;

Whether human beings are instinctually good or evil in an elementary natural state is a question that has been boggling the minds of even the greatest philosophers. There is a spectrum of theories that support both good and evil within the human race, each with valid points that explains the range of our interests, being either for ourselves or for others. However, my personal stance is the sensible theory of Altruism. Past experiences and observations allow me to take the stance, and support the argument that humans are caring and genuinely good individuals and have the will and desire to help those around them.

In both theories of human nature by Karl Marx and Thomas Hobbes respectfully, each provide their own perspective on the fundamental point of human nature. Marx makes the argument that that humans are inherently cooperative and the capitalist system creates a state of nature where humans are competitive. In opposition to Marx’ argument, Hobbes may say that humans are inherently competitive and the social contract is what makes humans cooperate within the capitalist system. In response, Marx might say that the social contract is redundant because the social contract has no effect on the competition that resembles the state of nature within the capitalist system.

It's 50/50 for me. We are also caring and evil. Evil is taught, it is learned. You are born free from all biases. You are not born with the ability to hate. It is a huge root in yourself and society does play a huge role in it. Also, we are caring to, we care about people who love us and treat us right but when we are given power over anyone who is weaker than us, we as humans will do anything when given the power to control one's life. It also depends on person to person how they treat the situation or what choices they make. We are all born, to a greater or lesser degree, hardwired to be kind to other but at the same time evil. How we brought up in this world the things we are taught we start to learn the reality about everything and deep

With these three authors, they all have the same opinion on the social contract. Thomas Hobbes, James Madison, and Plato all believed that having an absolute sovereign is what will make a society the most successful. This paper seeks to point out the distinct visons of absolute sovereignty that Hobbes, Madison, and Plato articulated by unpacking the central premises of each argument, pitting them against each other through comparing and contrasting.

If mankind is so self centered it would be hard to create a stable society. Hobbes says, “So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (293). Through this one can see that people do actually act according to their own benefit. If each person seeks things for their benefit, it wouldn’t be long before fights would break out. These fights would soon become mini wars and maybe worse than that. If there is no control mechanism for this kind of society there would be no trust amongst the people and war would be never ending. Hobbes looked further into the issue and came to the conclusion that mankind was being selfish not merely for that reason but for the sake of survival. He believed that man was inherently prone to fight to survive but without a structure to that mindset survival would transform to what I have mentioned before selfishness. Hobbes goes on to speak about mankind’s “natural right,” he says, “as long as this natural right of every man to every things endureth, there can be no security to any man” (295). The only way to balance this fact of human nature is to establish an absolute power that can put some control amongst the people. Hobbes proposed something that would meet the requirements to control a society that is naturally looking for their own survival. He goes on to say, “a common power, to keep them in awe, and to direct their actions to