More handpicked essays just for you.
Conclusion comparing Hobbes and Rousseau's views on human nature
Jean jaques rousseau versus thomas hobbes
Morality and human nature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Are Humans Inherently Good or Evil?
Based on my knowledge and research, humans are inherently good rather than bad. People have argued whether humans are naturally moral or immoral for several millennia. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a Francophone Genevan philosopher, writer, and composer from the 1700s, proposed that humans were inherently just. He believed that humans were born good, but civilization turned them corrupt. Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, argued that humans were naturally savage and barbaric. Hobbes, on the contrary, believed that humans were innately savage, but civilization made them beneficial.
To support my claim that humans are inherently decent, I have read some articles about human nature. From the Article “Is Man Inherently Good or Evil?” by Will Cain, I read about the Boston Marathon
…show more content…
Cain writes how these sorts of events tend to make us think of Hobbes’s idea of how humans are born evil. However, Cain then says that “Events such as this, or rather men responsible for events such as this, do not define us” (Cain). Cain is saying that horrific events or people who cause them do not define who we are on the inside and that humans are naturally virtuous, but influenced by things that make them good or villainous. All humans are born exemplary and respectable, but in the end, it is people’s experiences that make them who they are. Another article, “Are Humans Good or Bad?” By Richard Beck, explains the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A quote from Rousseau tells us that “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau). This quote shows how people
Throughout the past centuries, the concept of instinctive morality has been debated back and forth. One philosophy with a strong viewpoint on this subject is Puritanism, because they believe that since the beginning of the world, people have been born sinners. Puritans felt that Adam and Eve’s temptation by Satan had cursed all of humanity to be born evil. A few decades later, Deists shifted their ideas away from religion and believed that every person could choose whether they were good or bad. Then, Transcendental ideas began the thought that humans were born innately good, and that God and Satan had nothing to do with people’s morality. Throughout the major literary philosophies in the United States, one can see how the innate character of a human progresses from being evil to being innately good.
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
The question “What makes us who we are?” has perplexed many scholars, scientists, and theorists over the years. This is a question that we still may have not found an answer to. There are theories that people are born “good”, “evil”, and as “blank slates”, but it is hard to prove any of these theories consistently. There have been countless cases of people who have grown up in “good” homes with loving parents, yet their destiny was to inflict destruction on others. On the other hand, there have been just as many cases of people who grew up on the streets without the guidance of a parental figure, but they chose to make a bad situation into a good one by growing up to do something worthwhile for mankind. For this reason, it is nearly impossible to determine what makes a human being choose the way he/she behaves. Mary Shelley (1797-1851) published a novel in 1818 to voice her opinions about determining personality and the consequences and repercussions of alienation. Shelley uses the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau to make her point. Rousseau proposed the idea that man is essentially "good" in the beginning of life, but civilization and education can corrupt and warp a human mind and soul. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (hereafter referred to as Frankenstein), Victor Frankenstein’s creature with human characteristics shows us that people are born with loving, caring, and moral feelings, but the creature demonstrates how the influence of society can change one’s outlook of others and life itself by his reactions to adversity at “birth”, and his actions after being alienated and rejected by humans several times.
Thomas Hobbes in Chapter 13 of Leviathan, and David Hume in Section 3 of An Enquiry Concerning the Princples of Morals, give views of human nature. Hobbes’ view captures survivalism as significant in our nature but cannot account for altruism. We cover Hobbes’ theory with a theory of Varied Levels of Survivalism, explaining a larger body of behavior with the foundation Hobbes gives. Hume gives a scenario which does not directly prove fruitful, but he does capture selfless behavior.
Henry Miller, a famous American writer, once said “Man has demonstrated that he is a master of everything except his own nature.” The discourse on human nature dates back to ancient times, and this conversation is as complex as it was since the beginning. Considering that this is an abstract topic and a major theme in Western philosophy, there is no unanimous understanding of human nature. For example, Hobbes describes the original state as a constant state of war filled with misery, greed and evil. Rousseau describes natural man to be peaceful, timid and innocent. People like Rousseau would argue that civilization is miserable, and that human nature is a perfect place to escape from civilization because man is free and more equal in the
Sadly, I think Hobbes is correct, though clearly he was writing in the abstract. While all people do have within them elements of both good and bad, as The Osmond Brothers said so succinctly in the 1970’s, “one bad apple can spoil the whole darn bunch.” Even if 99.99% of the population was good, pure, philanthropic, and just, it only takes one “evil” individual to upset everything. As Hobbes pointed out – everyone must make a singular commitment to have freedom from the natural condition.
I believe that humans are generally good. I believe inheritance and the environment play a role in the “bad” decisions one chooses to make. I think humans are flawed but if they accept God as their creator and worship him,
Human nature is the most debated topic to date. Many people think that mankind is programmed to be evil; on the other hand people argue that it is naturally good. Nathaniel Hawthorne gave his argument with the novel, The Scarlet Letter. The Scarlet Letter showed that mankind is innately good by Chillingworth’s measures, Hester’s capitulates and Dimmesdale’s noble qualities.
There are many different points of view about human behaviors. Through specific characters mentioned in Fahrenheit 451, “A Very Old Man Enormous Wings”, and “The Lottery”, individual attitudes are exaggerated to the point that their evil motivations behind their behaviors are obvious. Everyday humans attempt to attach the connotation of good to humanity, but it’s just because humans want to look past the fact that we are realistically not good. It is very difficult for us to reflect on our own behaviors. Even though people try to avoid admitting it, we always try to be the best in whatever we do. We naturally make our own survivals the best we can make it. Harming others knowingly and enjoying it is a hallmark of being evil. Good is not only
Through the progression of William Golding's Lord of the Flies and the article, “Are Humans Good or Evil” by Clancy Martin and Alan Strudler, a multitude of undeniable evidence is provided to prove that humans are in fact inherently wicked. In Lord of the Flies, a human being’s savage nature and primal instincts are effectively portrayed through the development of Jack, the lead hunter in a group that gets meat for the boys. Little Jack Merridew, who seems to be nothing but a naive and obnoxious chorister, becomes one of the most malicious and violent boys on the island. Jack's wilder side shows itself the most when he goes hunting. Making one his first kills brought such exhilaration, satisfaction, and pure bloodlust, that it drove him to insane limits,
The lines that define good and evil are not written in black and white; these lines tend to blur into many shades of grey allowing good and evil to intermingle with each another in a single human being. Man is not inherently good or evil but they are born innocent without any values or sense of morality until people impart their philosophies of life to them. In the words of John Locke:
How exactly does the human brain work? Are humans evil by nature or are they good samaritans most, if not all, the time? As studies throughout history have shown, this is not the case. Humans are inherently evil because they are always seeking as much power as they can, revert to challenging authority and selfishness in times of peril, and become intimidated easily by “authority” figures egging them on, which is reflected in The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, as well as The Zimbardo Experiment conducted by Psychologist Phillip Zimbardo.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau presents the fascinating notion that human beings are born into the world with an inherently good nature. Nonetheless, this morality turns cold and dark within the steel bars of society. The heavy rules of civilization produce the long, iron chains that corrupt the goodness inside the souls and bodies of mankind. According to SparkNotes, “Rousseau believed modern man’s enslavement to his own needs was responsible for all sorts of societal ills, from exploitation and domination of others to poor self-esteem and depression” (“The Necessity of Freedom”). The philosopher’s intuitive thoughts can be summarized in his quote, “Civilization is a hopeless race to discover remedies for the evils it produces” (“Jean-Jacques Rousseau Quotes.”)
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.
Are human beings born to be good? Or are we naturally born to be evil? A person’s nature or essence is a trait that is inherent and lasting in an individual. To be a good person is someone who thinks of others before themselves, shows kindness to one another, and makes good choices in life that can lead to a path of becoming a good moral person. To be a bad person rebels against something or someone thinking only of them and not caring about the consequences of their actions. Rousseau assumed, “that man is good by nature (as it is bequeathed to him), but good in a negative way: that is, he is not evil of his own accord and on purpose, but only in danger of being contaminated and corrupted by evil or inept guides and examples (Immanuel Kant 123).” In other words, the human is exposed to the depraved society by incompetent guardians or influences that is not of one’s free will in the view of the fact that it is passed on. My position is humans are not by nature evil. Instead, they are good but influenced by the environment and societies to act in evil ways to either harm others or themself.