What Does It Mean To Be Human

Hobbes and Kant both give a different account of the foundations of morality. Drawing from Hobbes’ Leviathan and Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I will compare their understanding of the foundations of morality. I will discuss the conflicting accounts of the role played by reason versus the role played by desire and inclination in the determination of what is good, evil, right or wrong. Hobbes claims that ordinary experiences establish human beings as self-interested and are driven by desire or aversion and that is why morality is grounded by subjective self-interests. On the other hand, Kant provides a purely rational principle for ordinary views about unconditional moral value, morality has a universal law that applies to all rational beings at all times. The following paper will identify and explain the key points and sources of difference between Hobbes and Kant. First, I will explain both understandings of morality. Second, I will describe how the account of the foundations of morality differs in human nature, rationality and conceptions of morality. I will, in conclusion, argue that Hobbes’ account of morality best works with our ordinary experiences and moral convictions.

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.

At some point in time we have all wondered what it means to human, and what we are supposed to do with our lives. Throughout the centuries, there have been gradual changes in what it means to be human. Through Pico della Mirandola we will how man became the measure and took the place of God, through Charles Darwin we will see how nature and science began to take the place of man, and through the art of Friedrich we can visually see all of these changes.

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?

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.

Both Hobbes and Locke base their stance that all human beings are equal from their own unique concepts on the state of nature; these concepts result in contrasting theories on what the true source of equality is in human beings. While Hobbes believes that human beings are equal because all people are equally capable of satisfying their desires, Locke believes that people are equal because everyone has reason, thereby giving all human beings access to natural law. The crucial assertion that influences the distinction in Hobbes’s and Locke’s views on the purpose of government lies within the deciding whether

Another topic that Kant contributed to is morality. According to Kant, moral laws cannot be derived from human nature. To put it in other terms, it is not human nature that should be used as a model to how we should behave morally. Kant believed that humans do not always make the right moral decisions because human nature can be flawed at times, often times choosing an animalistic desire over doing something that is morally permissible. In addition, Kant believed that the outcome of human nature is not the central issue when it comes to knowing what is right or what is wrong. Instead, Kant believes that it each of the individual actions that should be analyzed to see if it is morally wrong or if it is morally right. Kant’s point of view about morality is different from previous philosophers, because most of them looked to human nature in order to find the morally right things to do.

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

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

“What makes us human?”, is an unanswered question asked by many. Is it because of our ability to have empathy for others? Or is it because of our cognitive ability which allows us to look into the future? One of the main arguments made that separates humans from animals is our communication style; our language. Is language inherently unique to human? To answer such a question, we first operationally define language as; “a system of communication based upon words and the combination of words into sentences” (University of Oslo). The purpose of language is for us to be able to convey an infinite amount of ideas to one another. Sign language in general also falls under this definition as it has a complex system of rules and syntax that allow the signed figures to function as words. Animal communication on the other hand, is operationally defined as, “the transmission of a signal from one animal to another such that the sender benefits, on average, from the response of the recipient” (Pearce 1987). With this in mind, current research has shown that the answer is that language is inherently unique to humans.

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.

In the history of philosophy, two of the most prominent philosophers were Hobbes and Hume. Both made important contributions to the world of ethics. One of the main important things they differed on is reason. Hobbs felt that reason is way to seek peace but Hume felt the reason is only a slave to passions. In the following paragraphs, you will see how Hobbes and Hume explain their different views on reason the theories of the two philosophers are analyzed in depth, so that we can have a comprehensive understanding.

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 Hume and Hobbes have opposing views regarding whether or not humans are naturally moral. Hume believes that humans are naturally moral. According to Hume, humans derive their morality through sentiments or feelings that help shape behavior and action. Hobbes, however, believes that humans are selfish individuals and in turn do not have moral values. This is described as the state of nature. He further believes that humans do not have a unified moral code or system and must thus find a higher power that would help shape their behavior. Such a power, Hobbes argues, should be the government as it develops laws that all humans must abide by. Hobbes describes this as common wealth.