Similarities Between Thomas More And Martin Luther

In the early 16th century, many authors began to reestablish fundamental ideas such as religion, law, and human nature. Books and articles were written in order to discuss these ideas and educate the public on the ideas that developed into The Reformation. The two authors mentioned above, Thomas More and Martin Luther, wrote several works in particular that focus on human nature. Determining the definition of human nature is important to discovering how ancient literature views it. More and Luther define two values and mindsets of human nature. The definitions compare and contrast in many ways. Each author, More and Luther, identifies concepts of law, freedom, and and the greater good within their own text.

Written in 1516, More unfolds

a distinct and new “ideal” society, termed Utopia. This work outlines the importance of universal government law, equality, and acceptance.

While ideally seeming like a positive and working society, Utopia has its flaws. In particular, Utopia struggles with the concepts of freedom, greed, and depravity. These issues are subsets of human nature and humanism. Throughout Utopia, More touches on humanism by providing examples of thievery and greed. Acting as himself in order to communicate the ideas of Utopia, More talks about a chain reaction linking soldiers to thievery, claiming they are not responsible, due to not knowing how to associate back into society. More also discusses the initial good in individuals, providing proof that More supports the concept of ultimately “good” human beings. An example of this opinion is found in Book 2, when stated “No living creature is naturally greedy, except from fear of want – or in the case of human beings, form vanity, the

notion that you’re better than people if you can display more superfluous property then they can. But there’s no scope for that sort of thing in Utopia” (More, 61). This quote touches on the topics of greed and pride within human beings, but it overrides these flaws by stating that humans are innately good. More poses the question, asking if these are qualities that need to change? Is changing innate qualities of a human possible? More makes an effort to create a fictional Utopia, while connecting the issues to current events within the Reformation. Ultimately, human nature is defined by a human’s innately “good” qualities that benefit society as a whole, regardless of sinful actions such as thievery or greed.
Taking a look at Luther’s works of the 16th century, his discussion on human nature differs greatly from More’s Utopia. Speaking and leading much of The Reformation, Luther believed that humans were completely corrupted by sin. Due to God’s absolute and almighty power, humans are incapable of being “good”. In Luther’s On Bondage of the Will he states, “That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will” (Luther, On Bondage of Will, 40). This statement provides an example of Luther’s belief that humans are under the control of God. While God remains in control, Luther believes that humans are completely corrupted by sin, setting his view on human nature very low. Not only are humans in general corrupted, but their entire being, including senses and reason. According to Luther, humans have no ability to judge what is right and wrong, instead we have to leave it entirely up to God, relying on faith not on works. Instead of perceiving what to do, humans need to glorify God and live in His presence always. However, Luther also discusses the importance of intent. One must not only rely on God, but one must rely on God for the right reasons. Luther states in Freedom of a Christian “In doing these works, however, we must not think that a person is justified before God by them, for faith, which alone is righteousness before God, cannot endure that erroneous opinion… Hence a person cannot be idle, for the need of his body drives him and he is compelled to do many good works to reduce it to subjection.” These ideas that Luther consistently preached about human nature helped develop the Reformation.
Both More and Luther had very opinionated views on human nature.

Each chose to discuss this topic in different ways; More with a fictional example and Luther applying it to everyday life. While very different, a similarity between these two can be found in the concept of freedom. More approaches the concept of human nature, saying each individual does good to contribute to the community or greater good. More discusses the the good within individuals, yet admits that he doesn’t foresee this happening. He states, “Unless kings became philosophers themselves they would never accept the counsels of philosophers, seeing that they are warped and corrupted by false values from childhood” (More, Utopia, 43) Where does freedom fall into this equation? Luther struggles with a similar issue. To Luther, we are free to God, but enslaved in “neighbor love.” Both authors struggle with concept of individual freedom. Do individuals have a say so within government? Where does divine appointment come into play? More and Luther similarly struggle with the idea of freedom and how freedom contributes to human

nature.
More and Luther’s works contributed greatly to the Reformation. Without these two author’s insights and examples, society’s thought process would not have been so progressive. More and Luther take a different approach to the definition of human nature, however; both of these authors recognize the importance of discussing it during this time. Human Nature and humanism was a concept that effected all people. Emphasizing the good within human beings contributed to religious and political agendas, while raising the importance of human nature across society.