More handpicked essays just for you.
Summary of Thomas Hobbes theory of human nature
Hobbes theory human nature
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Summary of Thomas Hobbes theory of human nature
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau had very clear opinions on the production, the purpose, and the purview of a sovereign. Hobbes’ sovereign was singular, like a monarch, Rousseau’s was collective, like a direct democracy. Both considered significant the concepts of human nature and natural rights as applied to a sovereign. I will first explore how these thinkers’ sovereigns emerged from their States of Nature, following a procedural argument as to why there was a need for a sovereign, and what that sovereign was therefore meant to do. It is critical to comprehend from where these sovereigns came in order to fully understand the implications of their creation. Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s conclusions on the sovereign may at first seem grossly …show more content…
Each individual had both the freedom to do what was needed in order to survive, and affliction of the ever-present “fear and danger of violent death.” His theory of human nature, stemming from theories born of the Scientific Revolution, was that humans react, in accordance with the universal laws of human nature, to their surroundings and to the stimulants that they encounter. “Good” and “bad” were meaningless except in the effort to relate “appetites” and “aversions.” Hobbes said humans had no sense of morality, only individual inclinations. He extrapolated that human nature inclined them to be slaves to their passions, solely self-interested, and concerned primarily with self-preservation. His universal claim was that humans naturally pulled towards pleasure and fled from fear. That being said, however, Hobbes also argued that humans were able to be reasonable and rational, utilized as a tool when it suited them. This led to why he claimed there was a need for a sovereign, because humans, logical yet self-serving, wanted to live in a civil society as it was instrumental to satisfy their need to not live in perpetual peril. Due to this desire they yielded their autonomy to a sovereign
It was instructed to compare and contrast two of the authors from BF190 discussed throughout this course to a media object provided by the professor. The authors I chose to focus on are Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau. From the readings “Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes (CITE) and “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” by Jean Jacques Rousseau (CITE), both authors have similar but yet very different viewpoints on ideas they have made. The ideas I will be comparing and contrasting between these two philosophers are their different beliefs and understandings on the State of nature and the Social contract. The media objective I have chosen to focus the ideas on is Outsourcing a Refugee Crisis: U.S. Paid Mexico Millions to Target Central Americans Fleeing Violence. Throughout this essay, I will Exhibit my
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
Hobbes views human nature as the war of each man against each man. For Hobbes, the essence of human nature can be found when we consider how man acts apart from any government or order. Hobbes describes the world as “a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...
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.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself.
John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, following their predecessor Thomas Hobbes, both attempt to explain the development and dissolution of society and government. They begin, as Hobbes did, by defining the “state of nature”—a time before man found rational thought. In the Second Treatise[1] and the Discourse on Inequality[2], Locke and Rousseau, respectively, put forward very interesting and different accounts of the state of nature and the evolution of man, but the most astonishing difference between the two is their conceptions of property. Both correctly recognize the origin of property to be grounded in man’s natural desire to improve his life, but they differ in their description of the result of such a desire. Locke sees the need and purpose of society to protect property as something sacred to mankind, while Rousseau sees property as the cause of the corruption and eventual downfall of society. Although Rousseau raises interesting and applicable observations, Locke’s argument triumphs because he successfully shows the positive and essential effect of property on man.
Minority right was not well discussed in the early liberalism works. However, it becomes more important when more states had a mix of people of different identities. This paper will first investigate how Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau’s goal to unify people harms the minority. Then, it will compare Burke’s conservatism with their liberalism, and show how Burke’s theory, by embracing the traditions, leaves room for the minority rights. Finally, this paper will discuss how Marx transforms the minority question into the political emancipation of minority, and extends it to the ultimate human emancipation. It will also evaluate the practicability of such ultimate goal.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
Hobbes’ theory on the condition of the state of nature, and government are not only more applicable today but his reasoning is far sounder than that of Rousseau. These concepts were significantly conditionally reliant. What Hobbes imagined was not a pre-societal period, rather he ...
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
During the sixteen hundreds, the French philosopher René Descartes laid the foundations for the beginnings of Cartesian Dualism. In contrast, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued against dualism in favor of materialism. Recently, Cartesian Dualism, and dualism in general has fallen out of favor as materialism arose as a more plausible and explanatory theory regarding the interrelationships between body and mind. The translation Descartes’ writing in the Meditations is far more cryptic than Hobbes’ writing in the Leviathan. Making it far easier to see Hobbes’ claims. Hobbes provides a reasonable explanation against dualism in his objections to Descartes, and in his Leviathan, provides background upon his reasoning in those objections. Dualism may be less popular than materialism in current philosophy, but it may simply be because dualism has more or less reached some sort of block in regards to its further development, and not anything to do with the writings of Descartes or Hobbes. Descartes and Hobbes may have influenced many of the earlier bickering between philosophers of mind upon the subject of mind-body interaction, as Hobbes was likely the first objector to Descartes’ dualism.
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 was a strong believer in the thought that human nature was evil. He believed that “only the unlimited power of a sovereign could contain human passions that disrupt the social order and threatened civilized life.” Hobbes believed that human nature was a force that would lead to a constant state of war if it was not controlled. In his work the Leviathan, he laid out a secular political statement in which he stated the significance of absolutism.
Hobbes believed that human beings naturally desire the power to live well and that they will never be satisfied with the power they have without acquiring more power. After this, he believes, there usually succeeds a new desire such as fame and glory, ease and sensual pleasure or admiration from others. He also believed that all people are created equally. That everyone is equally capable of killing each other because although one man may be stronger than another, the weaker may be compensated for by his intellect or some other individual aspect. Hobbes believed that the nature of humanity leads people to seek power. He said that when two or more people want the same thing, they become enemies and attempt to destroy each other. He called this time when men oppose each other war. He said that there were three basic causes for war, competition, distrust and glory. In each of these cases, men use violence to invade their enemies territory either for their personal gain, their safety or for glory. He said that without a common power to unite the people, they would be in a war of every man against every man as long as the will to fight is known. He believed that this state of war was the natural state of human beings and that harmony among human beings is artificial because it is based on an agreement. If a group of people had something in common such as a common interest or a common goal, they would not be at war and united they would be more powerful against those who would seek to destroy them. One thing he noted that was consistent in all men was their interest in self-preservation.