HobbesView Of Human Nature

Thomas Hobbes was born in 1588 in England. Hobbes survived through the English Revolutionary era, and his perspective of human nature built up negatively. He believed that all men were innately bad and evil. Hobbes stated, “... yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves” (Hobbes 1). This quote shows his thought, that all men are selfish and they always think they are better than anyone. Hobbes believed that humans didn't know how to cooperate because same desire would only cause them to be an enemy. Also, Hobbes said that it was the human who limits the development due to their constant war with each other.

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.

Hobbes views human nature as very mechanistic, requiring that our actions have direct benefit to us. One may argue against Hobbes that he does not provide explanation for why some people in our current society act altruistically. For example, many people have been known to risk life and limb to save another. Hobbes may respond that those people are foolish aberrations from survivalism. One could also respond that altruistic acts do benefit those who do them, either by bettering one’s reputation, or giving one mental satisfaction. This is not adequate enough to explain why one would donate organs upon death, when one’s reputation is no longer of any use to them. Take another example: while driving one sees an unknown stranger standing in the road and swerves out of the way into a tree. Regardless of the outcome, the driver risks her own life in an effort to preserve the life of a stranger. Under the Hobbesian theory, these actions go unexplained.

John Locke had antithetical and optimistic view point on the topic of human race. He believed we were born into this world with a blank mind, and are both reasonable and moral people at heart. Unlike, Hobbes, he had faith in humanity as a whole. People are like a black canvas , you can fill it up the way you decide to live your life , with the experiences and choices that affect our morality. Locke believed that our human nature was both coherent and liberal, and that government should exist only to protect the rights of its citizens.

"Unjust acts are rational only if they increase the likelihood of personal gain.", Hobbes claims that sometimes people get away with injustice but the chances of doing so are unlikely and is therefore irrational. In an ideal world application of this argument seems to hold true the unpredictability and motivation of self interest in individuals is something that must be taken into account. Although Hobbes argument sounds great in theory I think that its kind of disregards the reality of peoples decision making and self interest. Overall the intent of Hobbes' argument is the ideal way for individuals to proceed in making moral decisions but the likelihood of that is unconvincing.

Locke’s have developed different views on human nature. He states, that all the men should have natural right to get private property and protection should a top priority of the government. Locke’s powerful quotes states that the men should have the right to life, liberty and property. He depends on human reason to give citizens their freedom and their right to protect it. This freedom is the foundation of the individual’s way of life and their human rights. A threat to an individual’s freedom can be extended to be a threat to many other aspects of the individual to take away their freedom. One of the Locke’s quote states, “Master and servant are names as old as history, but

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;

Hobbes believed that in nature people had to do whatever was necessary to survive and that even if living together, people were still likely to fight. His view of people was dark and most likely due to the horrors of a series of political schemes and armed conflicts he had seen during the English Civil War. He believed that a contract was necessary. Hobbes felt that people were not capable of living in a democratic society. Instead, a single dominant ruler was needed, and if everyone did their part, then the community would function smoothly. Hobbes’ theory is unlike Locke and Rousseau’s. He believed that once the people gave power to the government, the people gave up the right to that power. It would essentially be the cost of the safety the people were seeking.

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.

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.

Through time people have always wondered what it is that makes us who we are. It has been our human nature that has kept us intrigued with ourselves, and our relationships with others. With this curiosity came various interpretations as to our human nature, each changing the way we see the societal world we live in. With each interpretation came a new understanding of people and the relationship they hold with each other. Human nature has been one of the most studied elements of the world we live in. From our nature came the interest of how we as humans interact with each other, through the development of our nature some have served and others had ruled. Three philosophers that have focused their political ideas around human nature

Hobbes extinguishes the notion of a soul and reduced human beings to machines. He denied spiritual forces, viewing human beings as egoists who always did what they saw to be in their self-interests. Hobbes’ theory of human nature derives from his comprehensive materialist theory of nature, which holds that nature simply consists of bodies in motion. Hobbes was a psychological egoist, who held that it was in our nature to be self-interested and even selfish. Humans are all equal in the sense that each is