The Beliefs Of Thomas HobbesView Of Human Nature

Hobbes and Locke both abandoned the thought of the divine right of monarchy. Both did not agree with the fact that the ruler or assembly would have all power over its citizens. So basically they were against Absolutism and their views were that of rebels in their time period. Theses two philosophers both held similar ideas but also have conflicting ideas pertaining to the citizens "social contract" with their rulers, "Natural Condition of Mankind," and sovereignty.

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 views human nature as very mechanistic, requiring that our actions have direct benefit to us. One may argue against Hobbes that he does not provide explanation for why some people in our current society act altruistically. For example, many people have been known to risk life and limb to save another. Hobbes may respond that those people are foolish aberrations from survivalism. One could also respond that altruistic acts do benefit those who do them, either by bettering one’s reputation, or giving one mental satisfaction. This is not adequate enough to explain why one would donate organs upon death, when one’s reputation is no longer of any use to them. Take another example: while driving one sees an unknown stranger standing in the road and swerves out of the way into a tree. Regardless of the outcome, the driver risks her own life in an effort to preserve the life of a stranger. Under the Hobbesian theory, these actions go unexplained.

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.

     He claims that acts of kindness, charity and benevolence are always actions that the performer believes will result in a beneficial consequence for himself. Hobbes’ basis for this argument lies in the concept of

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;

According to Hobbes, men are greatly influenced by external forces which are constantly pressing upon them which create wants and needs, which Hobbes defines as “appetites and aversions.” (Hobbes 393). These desires and dislikes create what Hobbes deems, “the Passions”, which contribute to the overall choices men make in their daily lives, thus creating the basis of human nature. The prominent downfall of mankind is the desire for ultimate power that supersedes the power of anybody else. This craving for power is precisely why Hobbes has such a desolate view on human nature. “For such is the nature of men, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves.” (Hobbes 402). This selfish component of mankind creates the clash of power so prominent in Hobbes’ illustration of the state of nature.

Locke’s have developed different views on human nature. He states, that all the men should have natural right to get private property and protection should a top priority of the government. Locke’s powerful quotes states that the men should have the right to life, liberty and property. He depends on human reason to give citizens their freedom and their right to protect it. This freedom is the foundation of the individual’s way of life and their human rights. A threat to an individual’s freedom can be extended to be a threat to many other aspects of the individual to take away their freedom. One of the Locke’s quote states, “Master and servant are names as old as history, but

However, he also portrays this setting as a war against all humanity, in which man is intended to fight. The setting lacks laws or authority, which leads to its inadequate protection, further emphasizing Hobbes’s idea of total independence. Anything goes in a society with no moral normalcies, because there is no standard of justice, good, or evil, yet Hobbes still makes mention of man feeling shame by nature. Without morals, Hobbes views the natural man as corrupt, “so that in nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (Hobbes 1615:5). The natural man according to Hobbes is insecure, instable, and lacks progress. These assumptions of man lead Hobbes to believe that humanity is in danger of extinction without rules or structure.

In both theories of human nature by Karl Marx and Thomas Hobbes respectfully, each provide their own perspective on the fundamental point of human nature. Marx makes the argument that that humans are inherently cooperative and the capitalist system creates a state of nature where humans are competitive. In opposition to Marx’ argument, Hobbes may say that humans are inherently competitive and the social contract is what makes humans cooperate within the capitalist system. In response, Marx might say that the social contract is redundant because the social contract has no effect on the competition that resembles the state of nature within the capitalist system.

as a notion of time. For as long as the mentality or war and violence

"Unjust acts are rational only if they increase the likelihood of personal gain.", Hobbes claims that sometimes people get away with injustice but the chances of doing so are unlikely and is therefore irrational. In an ideal world application of this argument seems to hold true the unpredictability and motivation of self interest in individuals is something that must be taken into account. Although Hobbes argument sounds great in theory I think that its kind of disregards the reality of peoples decision making and self interest. Overall the intent of Hobbes' argument is the ideal way for individuals to proceed in making moral decisions but the likelihood of that is unconvincing.

In part one, Of Man, in Leviathan, Hobbes discusses the nature of man. Hobbes explains that by nature all men are equal in both body and mind, however one man sometimes will be stronger in body and have a quicker mind than another. Hobbes goes on to point out the fact that the weakest can take down the strongest, either by secretly having a better mind or with the help of people in the same danger as one’s self. From this nature of equality comes the desires to obtain the same things and the same equality, however both cannot enjoy this pleasure, and therefore they become enemies, this therefore will get in the way of their goals. Now both men become fixated on destroying one another, and this creates war.

have to be ruled by a higher power. Locke seems to understand what people are really

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).