The Meaning Of Human Nature

As I was pointing out in the intro I will be starting off with Hobbes perspective of social contract. Hobbes believes in a “civil society” which is humanity’s natural state that is ran by fear and ever-present insecurity. There is always a solution to every problem with this problem the solution is to go to war then see the fear of the society and their insecurities of that war, then the government using their reason to discover ways out of the conflict thus ending the war. Hobbes pretty much sums this up by saying “agreeing to end the war”. He says that “They come to see the fear and insecurity of their persons and possessions in the state of nature as undesirable, and peace and order as desirable.” Which means that they reject

In Genesis the word of God leads humanity in the direction of self preservation, urging them to procreate, to ”Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 9:1), and to minimize hostility and violence among people. As Freud asserted, “Besides the instinct to preserve living substance and join it into ever larger units, there must exist another, contrary instinct seeking to dissolve those units and bring them back to their primeval, inorganic state” (Freud 77). Genesis exemplifies the struggle between the two opposing human instincts, with God acting as a moderator between them. Forms of justice are put into place in an attempt to control these drives, one example being the proclamation that “Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). The ethics and laws that develop throughout Genesis seek to “prevent the crudest excesses of brutal violence” but are unable to control “the more cautious and refined manifestations of human aggressiveness” (Freud 70). Since they cannot be completely eradicated, the scriptures instead play into the more negative aspects of human nature, especially narcissism, and manipulate them into a force for conservation rather than annihilation.

Human beings are part of the animal kingdom, and therefore part of nature. If that is true, then everything they create or destroy is by default "natural". I agree with the statement.

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.

However Thomas Hobbes saw humans as naturally selfish and quick to fight. He believed people lived in a state of nature which meant everyone had a right to everything. Hobbes was more concerned with protection and order than rights. The social contract was an agreement in which both sides agreed to something in order to reach a shared goal. He believed that once the people agreed to hand over power in exchange for protection, they lost the right to overthrow, replace, or even question the government.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both share the common vision of the role of a social contract to maintain order in a state. However, their philosophies were cognizant of a sharp contrasting concept of human nature. This essay aims to compare and contrast the social contracts of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in respect to their definition of natural law. This essay will first analyze the pessimistic Hobbesian approach to the state of nature, the inherit optimistic approach of Locke, and then observe how their definitions directly affect their social contract.

Hobbes claims that man has desires for order and security inborn. In order to prevent poverty and suffering, people took a part in a contract. In other words, it is an agreement among people through which ordered society maintained. They willingly leave all their rights and independence to the authority because of the social contract which states obedience. In Leviathan, Hobbes states that “The mutual transferring of right is that which men call contract” (93). On the other hand, for Rousseau, after people began to live together, property is invented and the invention of property means that humanity fall from grace out of the state of nature and people surrendered their freedoms and rights to the society as a whole that Rousseau termed as general will. However, this problem is solved by the social contract. According to The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right, he endeavours to mention that “Find a form of association that will bring the whole common force to bear on defending and protecting each associate’s person and goods, doing this in such a way that each of them, while uniting himself with all, still obeys only himself and remains as free as before”(11). Consequently, Hobbes’ social contract depends on the submission, on the other hand Rousseau’s social contract based on the

The intent of this paper is to look more closely at what Hobbes and Locke wrote concerning the pre-political or pre-social state called the State of Nature; and the transition from the State of Nature to society, referred to as the social contract.

In Leviathan chapter 12, Hobbes describes society and the state of nature as such; "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." People are encouraged to act freely, but with precautions as they may pose a threat to others’ survival. As stated above, humankind is constantly threatened since we naturally have a built in defensive mechanism. He says, “…the passions that incline men to peace are: fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both natural law theorists and social contracts theorists. While most natural law theorists have predominantly been of the opinion that humans are social animals by nature, Locke and Hobbes had a different perspective. Their points of view were remarkably different from those perpetuated by other natural law theorists. On the other hand, Locke’s perspective of human nature wasn’t quite as fine as Hobbe’s, although it was much simpler to understand based on its logical foundation. This essay compares and contrast

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

While it may be true that, Jean-Jacques Rousseau central idea in The Social Contract needs little explanation considering how it has been well-expounded upon by many scholars over the past 200 years. Nonetheless, this paper will begin with discussing Rousseau’s key concepts, leading to Constants criticisms, to put into clearer comparison in relation to Rousseau.

This essay is aimed at discussing how human nature in Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau impact the way that the role and function of the state is viewed. Human Nature is referred to as the essential and immutable character of all human beings. Others may refer to it as the biological or genetic factor suggesting that there is an established and unchanging human core. It highlights what is innate and natural about human life, as opposed to what human beings have gained from education or through social experience. A social contract is an agreements made either among citizens or between citizens which gives rise to the State. When the social contract involves the mutual agreement between individuals in order to gain something from the State, citizens accept the authority of the state in return for benefits which only the state, as a sovereign power, can provide. Social Relations can be defined as the relationship between two or more individuals. There are three philosophers with different views on human nature, the philosophers are Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all have different views on human nature which impact on the conception of the roles and functions of the state. This essay will now discuss the views on human nature, social relations and the social contract according to each philosopher.

The development of the selected passage into discussion about the need for a ‘social contract’ expresses how ultimately Hobbes saw society as being the only solution to the state of nature. This is in direct contrast to Rousseau who in claiming that ‘Hobbes was taking socialized persons and simply imagining them living outside of the society in which they were raised’ saw society as the problem and being in a state of nature as the solution. Rousseau however didn’t completely disagree with Hobbe’s concept of man as described in this passage as being selfish and egotistical, rather he illustrates his image through the argument that society is the driving force transforming the ‘natural man’ into Hobbe’s materialist interpretation. Contrasting Rousseau’s more positive stance to Hobbe’s somewhat pessimistic state of nature “brings into focus the goodness of peace” (James Madison), which further compliments the location of the passage and the central features of the desirability of peace that proceed it.

On the formation of the Social Contract Theory has a long history, many people have formed Social Contract Theory has made a great contribution. Thomas Hobbes as one of the representatives of Modern Social Contract Theory, his departure from the theory of human nature, to a fictional state of nature as a starting point, put forward the basic principles of natural law, natural rights, and then through the Social Contract Theory, the establishment of his country theory. Thomas Hobbes certain extent, played a significant role, for people to bring enlightenment. But his theory does not apply in all cases; we need to analyze different aspects of different problems. In this essay, I will describe the Social Contract Theory, and explain the problem of how do we get out of the State of Nature raised by Hobbes Game. I explain the idea of cooperation that Thomas Hobbes can give to this problem, and then argue that this is not a satisfactory response to the problem for three reasons.