The Human Being Is A Self Seeker Of Preservation And Pleasure

With these natural causes of quarrel, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear (p.45). He believes that humans have three motivations for ending this state of war: the fear of death, the desire to have an adequate living and the hope to attain this through one’s labor (p.47). These beliefs become valid because of the use of his examples. One example suggests that people are barbaric to each other. With the absence of international law, strong countries prey on the weakness of weak countries. I believe that his views of moral behavior are very true. Like Hobbes said, people are out for their well-being. If I were to do a favor for someone, I may think I am helping someone out, which I am, but I am probably doing the favor because it is going to make me feel better. It is going to benefit my well being. Hobbes is a famous philosopher whose views were very controversial. But the fact that he lived in a time when the monarchy was the “divine right of kings” (p.42), makes his views valid today. With a different government and new laws, his views appear to be true.

Hobbes chose to examine the political society and broke it down to its basic parts of individual men. He understood the nature of man and thus was able to further examine the forces that drive humanity and came to understand the real role of politics in our lives rather than the role predetermined by the elite, who dictate what is good for man. Hobbes sought to answer an overall question what can be said about the overall nature of man?

Both Plato and Augustine offer unusual conceptions of what one must acquire to live a truly happy life. While the conventional view of happiness normally pertains to wealth, financial stability, and material possessions, Plato and Augustine suggest that true happiness is rooted in something independent of objects or people. Though dissimilar in their notions of that actual root, each respective philosophy views the attaining of that happiness as a path, a direction. Plato’s philosophy revolves around the attainment of eternal knowledge and achieving a metaphysical balance. Augustine also emphasizes one’s knowing the eternal, though his focus is upon living in humility before God. Both assert that human beings possess a natural desire

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

Kant and Hobbes have completely different interpretations of morality. The vast differences between them is due to their opposing schools of thought. Kant’s view on morality is very analytical and strict. Whereas, Hobbes’ view is both provisional and tentative, depending on the outcomes. Although these differences between their philosophies were present, they both took a subjective stance in their reasoning meaning, they believed moral philosophy should be centered on the person. This essay will compare Kant and Hobbes while dissecting their contrasting schools of thought, Deontology and Consquentialism. While examining these philosophers their opposing ideas of reason, human nature, and morality will be highlighted. Also, while showing the degree of divergence between Kant and Hobbes, their ideas will be correlated to see which is most applicable to the normal lives of common people.

In this essay, I will compare the contrasting views between Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau based on the state of nature and civilization. Rousseau was seen as an optimist who viewed human nature as good (“Noble Savage”) and believed that civilization corrupted us; While, Hobbes thought the complete opposite believing that humans in their natural state were selfish creatures purely interested in themselves and that government is imperative in keeping us in check. Throughout this essay, I will further explain their differing ideas and I will show how I view and interpret them as well.

Hobbes vs. Locke: Exploring the Contrasting Assertions on Human Nature and the Purpose of Government for Preserving Human Equality

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).

Thomas Hobbes had a very interesting outlook on life, something that was so prevalent for centuries, a monarchy. He believed that the ideal world should fall under a monarch, an idea that is outdated in almost every nation across the globe. He was so strong on these ideas, because he believed all humans at their core are selfish creatures. Another thought that he had was that the state should have total control and order over the people, to maintain peace and to destroy the selfishness that exists in

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

Hobbes after seeing the abundance of fighting and violence the occurred in the late 16th and early 17th century, he decided that the source of all the problems in the world come from the Church and State (King). Therefore, he concluded that government must only exist to serve its most basic purposes. According to Hobbes, those purposes were to provide safety and happiness. Hobbes’ political theory has three key concepts to it. The first is without any sort of society or government the state of nature is war, where everyone is against everyone. Meaning that without rules or standards to live by people will always be conquering each other no matter how many people group together. The second key concept for Hobbes is that since the above is true then in order for people to achieve their ultimate goal of natural rights (safety and happiness) there must be a government. In addition, it is the government’s main goal to provide its people with a safe place to live where the citizens can pursuit happiness. Hobbes final key concept is that it is in the best interest of everyone to agree to contractually surrender certain rights in order to maintain the society’s (country’s) natural rights and liberties. In line with all of his three key concepts Hobbes believes that people should have the

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.

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

Both Plato and Augustine offer unusual conceptions of what one must acquire to live a truly happy life. While the conventional view of happiness normally pertains to wealth, financial stability, and material possessions, Plato and Augustine suggest that true happiness is rooted in something independent of objects or people. Though dissimilar in their notions of that actual root, each respective philosophy views the attaining of

In contrast to Hobbes’ pessimistic outlook, Locke places trust in the goodness of human nature. “This equality of men by nature . . . [obligates] mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another . . . the great maxims of justice and charity” (Locke 8). While Hobbesian equality turns men against each another in the pursuit of similar desires, Locke’s state of equality encourages charity. Locke believes human nature freely shares itself with others: “Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself . . . ought he, to preserve the rest of mankind” (Locke 8). As much as one wishes to fulfill his own needs, he also