Student: Andre Robinson
Grand Canyon University: PHI-305
16 FEB 2014
This paper renders a point of view on the ethical dilemma presented in the case study of the Disappearing Degree from the ethical stand point of view the writer. This paper also weighs in on the philosophical viewpoints of Hobbes, Hume’s and Kent’s theories that are consistent with their views on ethics and human nature. The View of the Writer In this Ethical Dilemma Connie has to take everything into account. First, Connie should look at whether or not the position requires a PH.D, and if it does not have the panel members revote. Second, the committee should consider the type of
…show more content…
Hume’s perspective on Mr. Craft’s actions given his philosophy on human nature and humankind’s motives may have prompted Hume to view Mr. Craft’s omission, and threat of suing as proof that he was acting in self-interest or lying to get ahead. Thus, Hume would have voted no dismissing Mr. Craft from the application process.
Hobbes Response
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.
Kant’s Response
Kant’s perception on the ethical dilemma would have been differed in contrast to Hobbes’s. Kant believes that we should act out of moral duty, and use the principles of rationalization rather than desire. Kent believes that the desire for any expected consequence or emotional feeling may cause us to act out of inclination, and a desire for a
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.
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.
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 every humane individual acts in their own self-interest, which is guided by
According to Hobbes, individuals have the right of nature or in other words the freedom to use one’s own power to doing anything and everything to preserve one self’s life. This is only just and right if one is acting with judgment and reason. [91] In putting the preservation of ones life above all else makes humans inherently selfish.
This leads us to Hobbes’ view on the natural state of humans. He believes that without a common power to govern them, men are in a condition of war. In this state, all men are other men’s enemies. This brings rise to the idea ‘Everyone is governed by his own reason…in preserving his life against
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.
I think it is safe to say just like Charles Darwin, Hobbes is of the opinion that we as humans are just naturally driven by a self-serving component.
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
This perspective is essentially materialist and rather careful interpretation of the human conditions is radical and far-reaching in the history of political though and particularly disagrees with Locke’s. Unlike Locke’s perspective therefore, self-interest is the dominant theme of Hobbes’ perspective of the state of nature (Hobbes, 1994).
Thomas Hobbes is one of the most respected voices in western philosophical thought. His essays on the state of nature have been, and continue to be, hotly debated today. In simplest terms, Hobbes believed that if our world were to be stripped of organized society, humans would revert to animals in our interaction with each other. He sums this up in his often-referenced Latin saying “Homo Homini Lupus.” Many of his greatest contemporaries, like John Locke and Rousseau, have debated or rejected this idea. Enter any university or home for the cultivation of humanitarian thought and the question of nature vs. nurture is still being debated from philosophy classes to psychology classes. Throughout Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, Hobbes’ idea of the state of human nature
According to the view Thomas Hobbes presents within the selected passaged in the Leviathan, we live in a narcissistic society where man’s condition is primarily driven by ego and where the achievement of personal goals is deemed paramount. Within the State of Nature that is, outside of civil society we have a right to all things ‘even to one another’s body’, and there would be no agreed authority to ensure the moral grounds of our decisions. Therefore since there are no restrictions and no shared authority; man is naturally un-guarded and prone to conflict and each individual is deemed a potential threat to our resources.
For Hobbes, there is no worse condition for men than to live in the state of nature, or for him: a constant “state of war” (Hobbes, year: 41 de cive). Hobbes believed that, in the absence of an absolute ruler men would kill each other as there exists a right of all to all. The proposed quote sums up Hobbes’s vision of society without government. However, it is less clear the extent to which his view of humans, in such a state, is accurate or even applicable. This essay will firstly explain Hobbes’s pessimistic view of human nature; the main causes of conflict which lead to the “war of all against all” (Hobbes, year:); and finally, his theory of natural rights and laws in the state of nature. Then it will move on to evaluate the validity of his claim by showing contradictions and problems to his theory and thus alternative views of human nature, and the applicability of his state of nature taking into account his historical context and other societies.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau are in agreement that the idea of the state of nature existed before the inception of the political society. However, their view is very different from the concept of the natural state of man. On one hand, Hobbes believes that humans are cruel, malicious and pathetic such that everyone acts in a way that pleases them regardless of whether they pose a risk to others or not (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012). Hobbes describes men as enemies of each other and that the only thing that pushes them to make peace is the fear of death and necessities that would guarantee them a decent life. It is the passion for self-regard and reputation that necessitates the need to a political institution to govern humans (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012).
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.