Hobbes has a pessimistic view on life, believing that men live to benefit themselves and simply wish to dominate or destroy others. Locke views men as a a individual governed by reason and logic. He believes that people desire to coexist as they all mutually benefit from it. Although these two men are both contractarians, this view on man has made large differences between their ideals, even though they are originally based off the same ideas. In fact, one could make the argument that they contrast each other in this sense.
Finally, this paper will argue that Machiavelli, unlike the other authors, has a negative understanding of humans as he thinks that man is selfish and that an individual should not be given too much power as they only act upon their own self-interest. Locke’s viewpoint towards human nature is more optimistic and positive as it highlights the individual as he views humans as being rational and with reason. He believes that humans are bound by natural laws that keep each other from harming one another. Thus, no human is better or higher in status than another and are equal thus attaining perfect freedom as all men are created equally. Humans are by nature born free as Locke states that “man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom” and also with “an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man” has the power to preserve his “property, life, liberty and estate” (Locke, Section 87).
Man has no one telling him what to do, there may be laws but they are man made and because they man made no one has true control over man. Existentialism is a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining his or her own development through acts of the will. To Sartre, saying that som... ... middle of paper ... ...vious objections. In this paper argued that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I did this first by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.
In the world today, altruism is associated with the “common good” of man while egotism is associated with evil and non-consideration of the fellow man. In contrast to the world’s view, Ayn Rand provides and proves a new definition for egotism through her book, The Fountainhead. She defines egotism in the context of ethics. She states: “Man-every man-is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” Howard Roark, the protagonist in the book is a selfish and egoistical man whose actions reflect his own conviction. On the other hand is Elsworth M. Toohey, a humanitarian, whose goal is to see others suffer so that in providing help, he might be seen as virtuous (680).
Selfishness is a term fairly notorious for its meaning. A lot of people accept that being selfish is wrong, but no one knows how this came about and why it matters. Who has the right to decide whether someone gets to be selfish or not? In his article “The unselfishness Trap”, Harry Browne says that the best way for people to be happy is when if everyone sacrifices but me. Thomas Nagel, on the other hand, argues in his article “The Objective Basis of Morality” that being concerned about others is more important.
Glaucon’s three examples prefer injustice, and he gives examples of the acceptance of injustice over justice. The only factual foundation that his argument holds, is that sometimes we let our wants and desires muffle our conscience. Sometimes we make bad decisions even though our conscience tells us it’s bad, but we ignore it because we desire our wants. Everyone will have their own views on this, but it really varies upon each person. Someone may be unjust and they can completely agree because they are reaping the benefits from being unjust versus when they were a just person, they just haven’t experienced the consequences of being unjust.
Camus rhetorical question to such absurd arguments “But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads”. People who lack courage to do what makes them happy, such as this author, will always find a philosophy to justify it. The argument is technically valid such that, its premises lead to its conclusion. However, all the premises are built upon false assumptions, which are untrue throughout, as I have shown above, leading one to surmise the argument is unsound.
Simply, moral terms therefore do not describe some objective state of affairs - but are reflections of personal taste and preference. Hence the statement above, which refers to both `doing good' and `doing bad' are not universal imperatives - but reflections of the specific intentions and desires of the contract and the individuals involved. Furthermore this raises the issue, as to whether one can do good or harm anyone who was done so to ... ... middle of paper ... ...ng surprising here: it is tough making it alone and so there are good reasons why humans will do better if they do co-operate with others. But does this prove that co-operation is just another form of selfishness that we care only about our own interests and we co-operate in order to further those interests? In effect an answer to this depends entirely upon the individual; such an ambiguous statement undoubtedly entails a great difference in answers and interpretation.
Hope is the key which will lead to believing selflessly that all will eventually sort itself out for oneself if one focuses primarily upon ensuring his/her neighbor´s wellbeing. Either way, the origin of a man´s decisions and their nature are not to be found through logic—they are a matter of opinion—for optimism and negativity are the true factors which will influence how a man judges another because the world in which mankind was placed is a world made up of opposites, and this is what makes it possible to, in every man, find both a selfish and selfless heart.
They could do this how Gregory explained it, by claiming that a life inside the machine is as valuable as a life outside of it, and that humans are deluded in thinking otherwise because of their moral obligations to other people (p. 119). The issue with this refutation to the objection is that it seems intuitively unconvincing. In spite of that, when the experience machine is compared with Kagan’s businessman (1994, p. 311), this response seems more plausible. Kagan gave the example of a businessman who seemed to have a perfectly enjoyable life but that most of it was fake. The people around him were lying to him about how they felt, making him feel false pleasures.