The term ‘human nature’ cannot be defined easily. With respect to different approaches, such as psychological and biological sciences, religious studies, politics and ethics, the definitions of human nature include complex characteristics such as human perception, reasoning, behavior, ways of feeling, and thinking. However, in addition to those definitions formulated in the course of actions performed by an individual in the context of his/her socio-political surroundings, it is commonly claimed that there is no fixed definition of human nature, because of our different attitudes to the questions regarding what causes those characteristics to take shape within the processes of human thought, in what exact manner the casual factors work, how …show more content…
In this sense, the very abstract nature of the term human nature may make one ask whether the term actually is objective or not. Whether the concept of human nature is objective is articulated from different perspectives by claiming that the term human nature does in fact not describe people who act in daily life since there are complex factors that affect human beings in their social and natural environment. Therefore, we can say that theories of human nature try not to describe the nature of humans but what human beings are and how they should behave. This is because what is considered natural for humans is directly dependent on the perspective and experience of a group of people or even an individual. It would thus be natural for people with divergent socio-political backgrounds to disagree on what characterizes human nature. Therefore, one is forced to ask, what exactly is human nature? Is it virtuous in character, as conceptualized by Aristotle, or is it egoistic, as Hobbes claimed, and how it is related to socio-political order in a …show more content…
For instance, Hobbes painted a very negative picture of human nature, and conceptualized the natural condition (the condition before a commonwealth is established) as “war of every man against every man” in which human lives are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Accordingly, in maintaining order in the state, politics has always raised the question of the proper extent of an authority, and the criteria of human nature and morality. The work of Thomas Hobbes provides deep insight into the connection between human nature, ethics, and politics. Hobbes stated that the state is the result of a pact between free citizens submitting to the existing political order. In Leviathan, he contends that humans are not by nature created for political life, and he likens the state to an artificial creature. He further regards politics as also being artificial and divergent from anything that is natural in form like human nature. The peace that individuals seek within the chaos arises from this very negative viewpoint on human
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. 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.”
In many ways Hobbes and Locke’s conclusions on man and society create a polarizing argument when held in comparison to each other. For instance the two make wildly conflicting assertions concerning mankind’s capacity to foster and achieve organized society. Hobbes asserts humans cannot be trusted to govern themselves lest they fall into war and chaos; Locke, on the other hand concludes almost the exact opposite. Despite the polarity in each man’s train of thought, both philosophies share a common ancestor: a state defined by total equality where no human is superior or holds dominance over another. Although this is the base of both theories, it is the only similarity between the two. This commonality can be illustrated when tracing each argument deductively from their conclusions, the comparison reveals that the heaviest and most base opposition in each mans philosophy is his assertions regarding the nature of human beings.
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.
According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, human beings are bestowed with the blessings of freedom during their individual genesis on this fruitful planet, but this natural freedom is immensely circumscribed as it’s exchanged for the civil liberties of the State. He indicated that the supplanting of natural freedom is necessary for the obtainment of greater power for the greater collective community, but the prospect of obtaining superlative capabilities comes with the price of constraints. Yet this notion of natural freedom conflicts with Thomas Hobbes rendition on the state of nature because he illustrates that nature, interface through savagery. According to Hobbes, mankind has endorsed and embraced natures temperament, because this system of truculency and servility that nature orbits adversely affects the nature of mankind, resulting in mankinds affinity for greed, and brutal ambition. Inspite of their conflicting perspectives on the state of nature, both support and explicate on the idea that the preservation and proliferation of mankind as a whole is best achieved through their belief, and withholding the policies of a social contract. The intention of Leviathan is to create this perfect government, which people eagerly aspires to become apart of, at the behest of individual relinquishing their born rights. This commonwealth, the aggregation of people for the purposes of preventing unrest and war, is predicated upon laws that prohibit injustice through the implementation of punishment. Essentially in the mind of both Rousseau and Hobbes, constraints are necessary for human beings to be truly free under the covenants and contracts applied to the civil state at which mankind interface through.
Theories of human nature, as the term would ever so subtly suggest, are at best only individual assertions of the fundamental and intrinsic compositions of mankind, and should be taken as such. Indeed it can be said that these assertions are both many and widespread, and yet too it can be said that there are a select few assertions of the nature of man that rise above others when measured by historical persistence, renown, and overall applicability. These eclectic discourses on the true nature of man have often figured largely in theories of political science, typically functioning as foundational structures to broader claims and arguments. The diversification of these ideological assertions, then, would explain the existence of varying theories
The understanding of human nature is the concept that there is a set of inherent distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that all humans tend to possess (Winkler, 1996). My basic view of human nature correlates with Charles Darwin’s nature vs. nurture theory. Human nature is influenced by both nature and nurture. Nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world, and nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth. An individual’s morals, values, and beliefs are developed from the nurturing aspect of their life. The environment that an individual is raised in creates their human nature. Then they go through life developing more upon their own morals, values, and beliefs. The nature vs. nurture theory is an every changing concept, and I believe that human nature changes for each individual based on their life experiences.
����������� 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.
In his famous book, Leviathan, English scholar Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) describes to readers the “state of nature”, a depiction where mankind exists in an uncivilized, lawless society where fear of eminent death reign. In his words the state of nature represents a “war of all against all, in which the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Shafer-Landau 197). In order to escape such a life man must band together into a commonwealth where they trade unlimited freedom for the prospect of cooperation and increased quality of life. This trade-off is based off the complexities of the situation known as the prisoner’s dilemma, which weighs the value of self-interest versus cooperation. In general,
In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that an ideal state is one in which the government possess all the power in order to protect the people and provide security is the best. Thomas Hobbes believed that people were inherently evil. He claimed that people will do whatever they want to get whatever they want. He labels this as the state of nature. He claims that the natural state is the place we are in before we are actually influenced by society. He says that this place is total chaos because people only do what benefits them. He describes the natural state of man as one that is wild and chaotic without government. He asserts the idea that man needs and naturally wants order but not being able to do it on our own way is best. He goes on to point out that the world would only be chaotic if there aren’t absolute monarchs. Hobbes believes man must establish the Leviathan by making a social contract and only then will the world run ideally. He considers the state of nature like the human body; the government being the head and the citizens being the body. The head is in absolute control but the body can still create harm on itself and the head but only if the head allows it. The people (the body) must give consent to the government to have absolute rule. I believe that Thomas Hobbes’ view on how society should be run is far too ambitious and paves way for tyranny and overwhelms the individual. The idea that the citizens are the body and the government is the head is not unrealistic, in fact the portal or body politics is brilliant but he fails to account for the individual. I believe that there is no way man can exist without government. I believe that even in our natural state we assert some type of government. I do see that man may...
In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.
Some of the greatest minds have put together their personal theories about human nature and how they came to their ultimate decision. Human nature is comprised of how people feel, think, and act, and how they naturally come to value those assets. Culture and religion often are what feed a person ’s innermost thought processes, and nature vs nurture is an argument that many theorists have studied and formulated an opinion on. The questions of whether humans are born sinful or innately good have been disputed for and against, and the theories of why we are the way that we are rages on.
Human nature is not simply a measure of our human tendencies. It is both individual and collective. It does not explain why events happen. Instead, it explains the subconscious of each individual in the instant that events happen. The social order that best fits human nature is one where the informed opinions of everyone creates decisions and causes action. Madison’s argument for and against factions, Aristotle’s idea of ultimate happiness, and Locke’s concept of popular government and human rights all offer a significant component to the larger concept that is human nature. While some may argue that we will only fully understand human nature when we are met with death, still we can begin to capture a slight understanding to what governs human nature and the political order that helps it grow.
In today’s society, one is constantly surrounded by individuals with different behaviors. Some will sacrifice his or her life for a complete stranger. However, there is some individuals who would take advantage of the weak and poor for his or her own personal gain. Now the question arises, what makes human beings behave the way they do? Being the topic of conflict of psychology for years, one usually turns to the nature verses nurture theory for the answer to that question. Some believes that a person is born with a certain personality, others believe it is an individual’s atmosphere that determines his or her attitude, and some even trusts the idea that it is a combination of genes and environment that dictates the conduct of an individual.
The roots of human nature are sunk deep into our history and experiences. When in our own lives we are to find the basis of our human nature, we must look to our early years, the formative years. Now take for example if we placed a newborn in the wild or in a high-class, well-mannered, wealthy family. The human nature of the newborn in the wild will be exactly that, wild and chaotic. While on the other hand the newborn in the well-mannered society will be well mannered and moralistic. Human nature is defined by the values that are taught and the values that society defines, if there are no societal values, human nature is doomed and lessened to that of wolves. Society defines the values and morals for its people to live by, common values. These values affect human nature and affect the way an even slightly self-conscious person behaves. An example of one of these societal values is table manners. Society has defined over hundreds of years of history to eat accompanied by utensils. Society also has set the value and that eating with your bare hands is “un-civilized.” Another example of a moralistic standard is not to steal. This value is taught by our parents and members of the society, the human society. So human nature has a conscience because of social morals and values. The formation and situation of human nature is dependent on these “guidelines.” Some people’s human nature may be to steal, maybe to survive but most humans have this as a wrong...
The concept of human nature is used to describe what life may have been like before societies were formed. Human nature has been described as a state of “perfect freedom” and “equality” by John Locke or in a state of “war” as described by Thomas Hobbes. For Hobbes, human nature arises from the equality of body and mind and other causes in human nature where “every man is [an] enemy to every man” and the life of man is “nasty brutish and short.” Humans may be fixed at a certain point but there is an ability for malleability. Human nature is flexible, and is constantly changing to adapt to its surroundings and experiences. Additionally, human nature changes because as socialization shifts the circumstances of the environment also cause human nature to change by learning how to adapt to changing circumstances and surroundings.