Human Nature In Thomas Hobbes: The State Of Nature

1464 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Thomas hobbes belief on human nature

Are human beings naturally good, or are they simply animals driven by needs and desires. If so, then what are these desires? Are they satiable, so that when man has what he desires he is content, or does man have unquenchable thirst for more? In the state of nature do humans actually desire cooperation and community, or are they naturally solitary, based on indifference, or fear of others? Thomas Hobbes believed that man’s desires can never be truly sated and that he has a “restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.” (Hobbes, p. 1) Jean-Jacques Rousseau would have claimed that in the state of nature man is naturally solitary and lived an almost animalistic life where, “His desires do not go beyond his physical needs.” He compares the state of nature to a state of constant war, long term community was impossible. (Hobbes p. 3) In this state men would fight each other because of competition over resources, fear and self-preservation, as well as for personal glory. (Hobbes, p. 3) According to Hobbes, even though man desires things like praise, in the state of nature “men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all.” (Hobbes. P 3) Without some greater power to enforce order, there can could be no trust in the state of nature, and therefore no community; man would live in a state of isolation. Hobbes wouldn’t say that all men couldn’t be trusted. He simply believed that there were different types of man. Some men desire knowledge, ease or, sensual delight and are more disposed to peace, but there are other men who desire competition and glory which can lead to conflict, “because the way of one competitor to the attaining of his desire is to kill, subdue, supplant, or repel the other.” (Hobbes, p.1) Due to this, man in Hobbes’s state of nature lives in constant fear. He does not know whether other men wish him harm, and therefore long-term community is nonexistent; man lives in fearful isolation while in this

Show More
Related

  • Human Nature as Viewed by Thomas Hobbes and David Hume

    1952 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Hobbes' View of the Natural Condition of Mankind

    567 Words  | 2 Pages

    that the man or men who use their array of powers to the best of their

    Read More

  • Nature Vs. Nurture: Thomas Hobbes And John Locke

    812 Words  | 2 Pages

    Why are we the way we are? Is it because we want to be that way or because we were made that way? The debate regarding the nature of humans is one that will never end because there is so much support for each side. It is an issue that humans have spent generations pondering. Two of those people are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both have made compelling arguments regarding nature versus nurture.

    Read More

  • The Nature of the Brute

    697 Words  | 2 Pages

    “"During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man.” In other words, Hobbes theorized that men are naturally evil, and that without a strong force to keep them in check, men would live by “the laws of nature…partiality, pride, revenge and the like.” (Thomas Hobbes.com)

    Read More

  • State Of Nature Essay

    1915 Words  | 4 Pages

    Human beings are naturally societal and relational. Even before the Neolithic revolution, humans roved around in groups, hence hunters and gatherers societies, not hunter or gatherer (singular). People stayed tougher not only for collective security, prosperity and necessity, but mainly for the benefit of the self. Whether for protection, emotional need or monetary gain, individuals, as a result, banded together in order to satisfy those needs first. If humans were always societal, in one form or the other (by societal, I mean always in conjunction with other humans: families, tribes, kingdoms, etc.), then the idea of a pure state of nature does not exist. A state of nature implies a time when people did not have societies but if humans always had societies, then what the history of man is simply a history of the ranging developments of different forms of societies over time. What political philosophers identified as “state of nature” are simply, observations or conjectures of human rationality, characteristics and the human condition. A “state of nature” has to exist only in order to justify the institutional arrangements of a group of people, whether it is real or not.

    Read More

  • Hobbes's Theory Of Political Nature And The Theories Of Human Nature

    1286 Words  | 3 Pages

    In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern

    Read More

  • The State of Nature: Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury

    1681 Words  | 4 Pages

    Hobbes explanation of the state and the sovereign arises from what he calls “the State of Nature”. The State of Nature is the absence of political authority. There is no ruler, no laws and Hobbes believes that this is the natural condition of humanity (Hobbes 1839-45, 72). In the State of Nature there is equality. By this, Hobbes means, that there is a rough equality of power. This is because anyone has the power to kill anyone (Hobbes 1839-45, 71). Hobbes argues that the State of Nature is a violent, continuous war between every person. He claims that the State of nature is a state of w...

    Read More

  • Civil War In Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

    1805 Words  | 4 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2134 Words  | 5 Pages

    Each political theorist agrees that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature. The state of nature is the condition men were in before political government came into existence, and what society would be if there was no government. In relation to this the two theorists raised as much praise as criticism for their famous masterpieces.

    Read More

  • Individual Liberty: Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls

    2100 Words  | 5 Pages

    ����������� Thomas Hobbes is an important political and social philosopher. He shares his political philosophy in his work Leviathan. Hobbes begins by describing the state of nature, which is how humans coped with one another prior to the existence of government. He explains that without government, �the weakest has the strength to kill the strongest� (Hobbes 507). People will do whatever it takes to further their own interests and protect their selves; thus, creating a constant war of �every man against every man� (Hobbes 508). His three reasons for people fighting amongst each other prior to government include �competition,� �diffidence,� and �glory� (Hobbes 508). He explains how men fight to take power over other people�s property, to protect them selves, and to achieve fame. He describes life in the state of nature as being �solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short� (Hobbes 508). Hobbes goes on to say that if men can go on to do as they please, there will always be war. To get out of this state of nature, individuals created contracts with each other and began to form a government.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1044 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hobbes believes that all men are equal insofar as that the weakest man has the power to kill the strongest man. Thus given that every man is vulnerable to any other man, all men have a very strong desire to escape the state where killing each other is acceptable, escape the state of nature. This can be done, simply put by endeavoring peace which coupled with not making war except to defend oneself, is the first law of nature (Leviathan 1, 14).

    Read More

  • Hobbes' View of Human Nature and his Vision of Government

    446 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and the Realist School

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Philosophy: Are Humans Born to be Good or Evil?

    1679 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli

    2258 Words  | 5 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes? idea of a perfect government was one of small proportions. All of the citizens of a country had a ?covenant?, or promise with the ruler. This covenant with the ruler stated that the citizen would give up the right to govern his or herself, and give that right to the ruler. Hobbes? idea of society arises from an innate competition between every man. Everyone seeks their advantage, and is always at war with everyone else for that advantage. These factions negotiate, according to Hobbes, complying with whatever principles will ensure survival for its members. So according to Hobbes, war is the natural state of man. Peace is only had by our natural tendencies to compromise, and survive.

    Read More

More about Human Nature In Thomas Hobbes: The State Of Nature

Open Document