Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Locke's beliefs on human nature
Thomas Hobbes for human nature
Thomas Hobbes on human nature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Locke's beliefs on human nature
As the topic of human nature became more significant, there were many debates of what the definition of human nature was. Although it is hard to tell what the correct answer to that is, there were any theories that were brought forward to keep the thought going. Four of the most famous philosophers for their ideas on human nature include: Mencius, Hsün Tzu, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes. Mencius believed that human nature was inherently good. Through his writing, Mencius tends to use metaphors to get his point across, some of which were very hard to understand. One that he uses to explain his theories is, “Human nature is inherently good, just like water flows inherently downhill” (Mencius 79). He makes it seem as if it is obvious that human nature is good by the way he states how water flows downhill. He also states, “You can make them evil, but that says nothing about human nature” (Mencius 79). Even though some points were made effectively, his writing style and overuse of metaphors that no one understands made his argument weak. Overall, Mencius truly believed that the human nature of man was inherently good. Hsün Tzu believed that the human nature of man is evil. At the end of almost every paragraph of Tzu’s essay style writing ends in "It is obvious from this, then, that the nature of man is evil” (Tzu 86). This …show more content…
One of Locke’s largest points is "All ideas come from sensation or reflection” (Locke 101). He thinks that man is completely blank when they are born and that their basic senses are what gives them knowledge. Locke states, “Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper” (Locke 101). Locke is basically saying that human nature is like a blank slate, and how men experience life in their own ways is what makes them good or evil. Overall, Locke believes that any and all knowledge is only gained through life
The foremost difference between Aristotle and Hobbes, and in turn classical and modern political philosophies’, with regard to a good life and happiness is that of normative judgments about the good life. While Hobbes rejects normative judgments about the good life and discusses human actions without attributions of moral quality, Aristotle offers the exact opposite. In Ethics, Aristotle differentiates between good and evil actions along with what the best good, or summum bonum, for all humans while Hobbes approach argues that good and bad varies from one individual to another with good being the object of an individuals appetite or desire, and evil being an object of his hate and aversion. In addition, Aristotle makes it clear that individuals have an ultimate purpose—that of political animals—that they should strive to become through trial and error throughout their life. Hobbes on the other hand rejects the idea of life having an ultimate purpose, “for there is no such finis ultimus (utmost aim) nor summum bonum (greatest good) as is spoken of in the books of the old moral philosophers…Felicity is a continual progress of the desire, from one object to another, the attaining of the former being still but the way to the latter”. Hobbes defines felicity as the satisfaction of one’s passions as stated in Leviathan “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desireth, that is to say, continual prospering, is that men call felicity.
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 nature of humanity is a heavily debated topic. While many believe that humans are by nature evil, many others believe the opposite, which humans are by nature, good. Are people capable to do good deeds for the sake of being good, or are good deeds disguised under selfish motives. Kant stated the only thing that is unconditionally good, or as he termed it a categorical imperative, and the only categorical imperative, is good will. If good will, is unconditionally good, and is the only categorical imperative, then categorical imperatives are nonexistent, because there is no such thing as having a good will. Every action has an underlying reason for it. No action is done simply as a means for itself. No good willed action is done for it’s own sake, for the sake of obligation or for the sake of being good. It is impossible to act without being influenced by external influences.
I believe that man, by nature, is neither good nor evil. When a child comes out of its mother, one cannot tell whether or not that child will be a serial killer or win the Nobel Peace prize. A child’s environment is what forms it to be the adult that it will be one day. I believe that it also what one believes that makes him or her what that person will be one day. Machiavelli believed however that man was naturally an evil being, one that needed control (Prince).
...ut more importantly Mencius' core conception that human nature is also aware of its actions, and considers the well-being of others and that people are morally obligated to do so is also key to attaining our full potential. This conception of human nature and proper order together is what has shaped East Asian political and social thought for centuries. It is credited with creating an East Asia that is economically robust, and socially coherent and once again will be the center of human society in the decades to come. And contrary to popular Western belief, East Asian political thought does appreciate the necessity of the individual in defining society. In fact the only way to attain our human nature is to healthily self-cultivate ourselves morally and materially so we can reach our highest potential and in that way be a valued and contributing member to society.
He explains that Mencius is wrong for thinking men are born good. Tzu believes Mencius’ point shows that he does not understand the difference between basic nature and conscious activity. Nature is described as what is given to you by Heaven, and is something you cannot learn. Ritual principles however, are factors you can learn and work on until they are perfected. Those factors you cannot learn are considered nature while those you can learn are conscious activity. An example of this is that men are given the luxury of sight and sound. Clear sight and fine hearing cannot exist without eyes or ears. These are not factors acquired by a man’s studies. This shows that there is a difference between nature and conscious activity. Mencius makes a point that men are good and only become evil when they lose their original nature. Tzu counters this opinion with his own, saying that men move away from simplicity and naïveté the day they are born. This move means that men have lost their original nature. The loss of man’s original nature the day he is born proves that men are naturally
Hsun Tzu, a follower of Confucius, believed that human nature was to be fundamentally evil. Tzu, in “Encouraging Learning, wrote to Confucians questioning why should they be educated and what human nature really was. Since Confucius never stated his thought on human nature, some people suspect that humans needed to be educated not because they were evil, but because it was moral, and that way they could become into the person Confucius taught them to be. Tzu disagrees with this because of his belief, that humans, in fact, were born with wrong ideals. Tzu considers human nature to take its course on people, and that is why some people are inferior to others. But, with proper training and education, Tzu agrees Confucians can become a better person, and not just that they are becoming into the people that they are meant to be. It could be that Tzu wrote this to straighten out the mystery of what human nature was and how to fix humans evil nature.
Confucius, the founding philosopher of Confucianism, never explicitly details what he believes to be the inherent nature of humans. However, through his teachings and writings, his opinion can be understood to be that humans reach good nature, through self-cultivation and self-improvement. He believes that humans are improvable and teachable, but lack virtue. “Confucius
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:
I think human nature is mostly good. Man was made equal in nature. Humans are peaceful. Man is good until power and and materialistic ideals are introduced. Man is intelligent until they no longer think for themselves, and let the state do their thinking for them. According to Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan when two men want the same thing but only one can have it, is when conflict arises and they become enemies. Man becomes corrupt when they gain power and means of acting on the power. In nature man is equal and free. Man can go about his business without depending on anyone or having anyone interfere. John Locke believes humans had the perfect freedom and equality in nature. No man has any more power than any other.
Our mind then processes that perception into an idea. A great example I can give is from my childhood. I was playing outside by my elderly neighbor and she said, “Stop,” and I did, which made her tell me I was very obedient. I didn’t know what that word meant so I looked it up and did not like the definition. Ever since that day I tried to not be obedient unless I wanted to be or absolutely needed to be. I heard something I didn’t know anything about, researched it and reflected on it and decided I didn’t want to be that. My experience makes me agree with Locke because I was able to process what happened to me and decide for
The first philosopher, John Locke, laid the foundations of modern empiricism. Locke is a representational realist who touches reality through feelings. He believes that experience gives us knowledge (ideas) that makes us able to deal with the world external to our minds. His meaning of ideas is "the immediate object of perception, thought, or understanding." Locke's ideas consist of simply ideas which turn into complex ideas. Simple ideas are the thoughts that the mind cannot know an idea that it has not experienced. The two types of simple ideas are; sensation and reflection. Sensation is the idea that we have such qualities as yellow, white, heat, cold, soft, hard, bitter, and sweet. Reflection ideas are gained from our experience of our own mental operations. Complex ideas are combinations of simple ideas that can be handled as joined objects and given their own names. These ideas are manufactured in the human mind by the application of its higher powers. Locke believes in two kinds of qualities that an object must have; primary and secondary. Primary qualities o...
What is human nature for Confucius? What evidence does he give to show that his views about human nature are correct? Confucius is known for stressing that human nature is intrinsically good. He stresses that human beings are born with the ability to differentiate between wrong and right. A person may not be aware from infancy which acts are tolerable and which acts are not, but all offspring feel shame, and once the children learn which deeds are bad or good, they have a normal tendency to consent to the former and criticize the latter (Van and Bryan 27).
John Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding his primary thesis is our ideas come from experience, that the human mind from birth is a blank slate. (Tabula Rasa) Only experience leaves an impression in our brain. “External objects impinge on our senses,” which interpret ate our perceptions of various objects. The senses fill the mind with content. Nothing can exist in the mind that was not first experienced by the senses. Dualism resembles Locke’s theory that your mind cannot perceive something that the senses already have or they come in through the minds reflection on its own operation. Locke classifies ideas as either simple or complex, simple ideas being the building blocks for complex ideas.
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.