John Hobbes ' View Of Action And The Will As An Examination Of Human Psychology

Born during a period of medieval philosophy, Thomas Hobbes developed a new way of thinking. He perfected his moral and political theories in his controversial book Leviathan, written in 1651. In his introduction, Hobbes describes the state of nature as an organism analogous to a large person (p.42). He advises that people should look into themselves to see the nature of humanity. In his quote, “ The passions that incline men to peace, are fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them,” Hobbes view of the motivations for moral behavior becomes valid because of his use of examples to support his theories, which in turn, apply to Pojman’s five purposes for morality.

Thomas Hobbes opens with the idea that all animals live within two sets of perpetual motion. The first being the inborn nature of animals to breath, the pulse and course of blood, the acquiring of nutrition and the exertion that follows, his vital motions. The second animal motions are voluntary, to speak, move and go. These voluntary motions are fueled by ones thought and imagination and are not always apparent to us. Essentially, Hobbes is saying that our thoughts propel us into motion or “endeavor.” When endeavor draws us toward something it is the cause of “appetite” or “desire”, what it is pushing us from something it is “aversion.” Appetites and aversions are both inborn and learned, but are

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

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).

According to Hobbes the principal purpose of mans’ actions is self-preservation and the premise of all actions is based on that

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

To begin, Hobbes uses his most recognized work called the Leviathan to discuss several issues relating from the natural state of humans to more complex arguments about the equality of human beings. When observing Hobbes it best to start by examining his definition of appetites and aversions. For Hobbes appetites and aversions are outlined to be, “This endeavor, when it is

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.

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

One of the main concepts in both Plato's Republic and Hobbes' Leviathan is justice. For Plato, the goal of his Republic is to discover what justice is and to demonstrate that it is better than injustice. Plato does this by explaining justice in two different ways: through a city or polis and through an individual human beings soul. He uses justice in a city to reveal justice in an individual. For Hobbes, the term justice is used to explain the relationship between morality and self-interest. Hobbes explains justice in relation to obligations and self-preservation. This essay will analyze justice specifically in relation to the statement ? The fool hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as justice? Looking at Hobbes? reply

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.

When describing words that he considers “Absurd” in Ch.5, Hobbes includes the ideas of “a free-Subject; a free-Will; or any Free” (Hobbes, Leviathan, I.v., 113). However, if human beings lack free will, how can punishment be explained as a deterrent force? Simon Kow, one of the few scholars to treat this ostensible paradox, attempts to rectify Hobbes’s denial of human free will with the chief function of deterrence: directing men’s wills. In an effort to reclaim deterrence as a viable end of punishment, Kow returns to Hobbes’s natural philosophy, and his discussion of human agency in particular. Essentially, the author demonstrates that all actions, including crimes, are the direct result of an aggregate of causes operating on the individual. Thus, the threat of punishment acts as an additional cause with the potential to “counteract” the sway of unlawful passions” (Kow 2005, 698). Although the individual receiving the threat has no control over the threat’s effectiveness, Kow (2005, 699) ultimately concludes that, “all considerations of free-will are irrelevant to justifying punishment.” Thus, any punishment that deters future crime and promotes stability should be deemed just regardless of whether the criminal action was or was not necessitated (Kow 2005,

Hobbes views on the dilemma may have yet been different in contrast to Hume’s. Hobbes believes that individuals are free to use their mental and physical capacities to do what is essential to conserve their lives in the state of nature (Cambridge, 2007). This right deems to permit individuals to even take the lives of others if such action is necessary to preserve their own lives. Hobbes philosophy on the state of human nature when faced with competition, desire for position and power is that it leads to situations of severe conflict and irrational decisions. Thus, Hobbes may have decided to hire Mr. Craft with the notion of not faulting him for acting the way human nature was designed.

In Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan, Hobbes argues that humans are inherently and exclusively self-interested (6). Before they formed society, humans lived in the state of nature--a brutal place governed by no laws, contracts, or power to restrict human nature. People were free to kill each other without facing repercussions, forcing everyone to fend for themselves and live in fear of death. Hobbes describes this anarchy as the worst way to live life, one that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (12). However, his argument is weak in that it relies on the questionable premises that humans are exclusively self-interested and that self-interest harms others in the state of nature. Even if we accept that humans are only self-interested, self-interest does not always harm others; in fact, it can do the opposite. But in reality, Hobbes’s view is too pessimistic, nothing more than an ideology that can be endlessly supported by manipulating evidence to fit his claim. In failing to recognize the abilities of emotions, familial duty, and other inherent sociological and psychological factors to complexify human obligation and desire, Hobbes paints an unfairly pessimistic and unrealistic view of human interests.