How does Pojman relate Golding’s novel to Hobbes’s account of Morality?
Pojman associates Golding’s novel to Hobbes’s description of morality from a philosophical concept. Hobbes represents the few philosophers that relate religion and politics to philosophical dispositions. However, Pojman views such a viewpoint as one that inconsistently promotes the ideals and principles that the author would want to identify. The world presents instances which do not significantly differentiate between morality and otherwise actions of man. For example, what other people consider moral gets disapproved by other viewpoints. It is in this framework that this paper discusses how Pojman relates Golding’s novel to Hobbes’s account of morality.
Morality is an aspect of philosophy and Pojman would want to learn as to whether Hobbes has captured such a concept in his account. For instance, Pojman looks at the concrete and abstract ideas associated with philosophical views. In his work, Pojman presents Hobbes as a philosopher that critically and wittingly influences the discourse from his perspective. He explores the beliefs of ethics and morality to incorporate fundamental issues like metaphysics. Some philosophers construe morality from a more abstract form as opposed to concrete issues. It is this viewpoint that Pojman would want to establish in the
…show more content…
Whereas Hobbes would want to advance a proposition of relativity between politics and religion, his argument on morality violates the fundamental tenets of ethics and duty based virtues. For instance, the moral maxim adopted by other philosophers champions a universal viewpoint that dissociates morality from acts of untruthfulness. However, Hobbes’s beliefs regarding the close association of religion and politics do not satisfy the principal requirement of morality as an aspect of relativism (Pojman and Vaughn
The foremost aspects to consider from the Leviathan are Hobbes’s views on human nature, what the state of nature consists of, and what role morality plays. Hobbes assumes, taking the position of a scientist, that humans are “bodies in motion.” In other words, simple mechanical existences motivated solely to gain sati...
To highlight such differences between Aristotle and Hobbes we must first discuss the definition of virtue laid out by each. According to Aristotle virtue is a “mean between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency”. From what we already know about Aristotle’s ...
Morality derives from the Latin moralitas meaning, “manner, character, or proper behavior.” In light of this translation, the definition invites the question of what composes “proper behavior” and who defines morality through these behaviors, whether that be God, humanity, or an amalgamation of both. Socrates confronted the moral dilemma in his discourses millennia ago, Plato refined his concepts in his Republic, and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi would commit their life work to defining and applying the term to political reform. Finally, after so many years, Martin Luther King’s “A Letter from Birmingham Jail” reaches a consensus on the definition of morality, one that weighs the concepts of justice and injustice to describe morality as the
Approximately three hundred years separate the earliest of these works, The Prince, from the most recent, Utilitarianism, and a progression is discernible in the concept of morality over this span. Machiavelli does not mention the word "morality," but his description of the trends and ideals of human political interaction allow for a reasonable deduction of the concept. Locke, too, does not use the word, but he does write of "the standard of right and wrong." In contrast, Mill writes explicitly and extensively of morality in its forms, sources, and obligations. A logical starting point in this examination is a look at their relative views of human nature.
From top to bottom, John Stuart Mill put forth an incredible essay depicting the various unknown complexities of morality. He has a remarkable understanding and appreciation of utilitarianism and throughout the essay the audience can grasp a clearer understanding of morality. Morality, itself, may never be totally defined, but despite the struggle and lack of definition it still has meaning. Moral instinct comes differently to everyone making it incredibly difficult to discover a basis of morality. Society may never effectively establish the basis, but Mill’s essay provides people with a good idea.
His first assumption is that people are physically and mentally similar to one another, and this similarity means that “no individual has the capacity to overpower or influence another” (Hobbes). A flaw, however, that I realize in this assertion is that there do exist in society persons of deficient physical and mental ability. For example, people with severe physical or mental handicaps would not fare well in Hobbes’ state of nature because they would be easily dominated. Hobbes’ second assumption is that people generally want to protect their own lives, “shun[ning] death” (Hobbes). This proclivity for self-preservation does not translate to an innate malevolent nature of humans; however, it does imply that humans tend to be more indifferent towards each other than benevolent. I tend to agree with this second assumption because in my experience, individuals think of themselves in an elevated manner, and if someone does not agree with this view, the individual becomes offended. Individuals tend to judge others based on swift observations, dismissing others if they do not align with one’s personal preferences. The final assumption Hobbes asserts is that individuals have a penchant for religion. This penchant stems from the curious and anxious nature of individuals. Hobbes thinks that these aspects of human nature cause individuals to “seek out religious beliefs” (Hobbes) in order to quell the curiosity and anxiety that dominates their lives. In addition to these various normative assumptions regarding the state of nature, Hobbes outlines the right of nature, which is “a liberty right to preserve the individual in the state of nature” (Hobbes). In essence, this
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 account for acts of altruism.
Self-preservation is an important factor in shaping the ideologies of Hobbes and Locke as it ties in to scarcity of resources and how each of them view man’s sate of nature. Hobbes and Locke both believe in self-preservation but how each of them get there is very different. Hobbes believes that man’s state of nature is a constant state of war because of his need to self-preserve. He believes that because of scarcity of goods, man will be forced into competition, and eventually will take what is others because of competition, greed, and his belief of scarce goods. Hobbes also states that glory attributes to man’s state of nature being a constant state of war because that drives man to go after another human or his property, on the one reason of obtaining glory even if they have enough to self preserve. Equality ties in with Hobbes view of man being driven by competition and glory because he believes that because man is equal in terms of physical and mental strength, this give them an equal cha...
Hobbes on the hand tried to rationalize philosophy using dualism. He proposed that in order to understand societies one needed to understand wh...
Our first individual, Thomas Hobbes, wrote many books about history, geometry, the physics, theology, ethics, and philosophy; however, the one that made him known as the father of political science and one of the great philosophers of all time is the book Leviathan. In it Hobbes sets out his doctrine of the foundation of a legitimate government that would basically fit human sin by creating an objective view of morality.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
The main critics of Thomas Hobbes’ work are most often those with a more optimistic view of human nature. However, if one is to really look at a man’s actions in depth, a self-serving motivation can always be found. The main problem with Hobbes’ claims is that he does not account for the more Darwinian perspective that helping one’s own species survive is at the same time a selfish and unwar-like act. Thus his conclusion that without a governing body, we are essentially at war with one another is not completely true as years of evolution can help disprove.
Hobbes, on the other hand argues that justice is needed for people to live together in civil society. He outlines this idea down to human beings in the
Thomas Hobbes was a political theorist and English philosopher during the 1600’s. His work, among many others, of his time played an important role in the shaping of society today. Hobbes is a man of many ideas and thoughts. His focus was political philosophy, which is the questioning of things such as politics, government, and justice in society. This questioning led to the idea of his greatest work The Leviathan. Hobbes explains his thoughts and understanding of the way society works, and how he believes it should work. His inspiration behind this was the chaos that coincided with England being at civil war.
Harman, G. (2000). Is there a single true morality?. Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 77-99). Oxford: Clarendon Press ;.