Thomas Hobbes, the philosopher was in the opinion that everyone is born evil and so we need strict laws for the protection of human rights. we agree and disagree to Thomas Hobbes to certain extent, we do not believe that everyone in the world was born evil. But rather, we believe that everyone is selfish and greedy and even those who are born innocent and kind, they too turn out to be selfish and greedy as they grow as the society and reality shaped them into one.
Nowadays we live in a violent age where moral standards, which was once held sacred, are abandoned and are no longer there. We now live in the age of violence, rape, murder, sex abuse and drug abuse. We hear cases like that every other week. So in this sort of era, we need man made law more than ever. The reason why we need
…show more content…
For instance, illegal parking. Does divine law prohibit illegal parking? It does, in some way, where it can be seen in its effect. As double parking will obstruct other drivers or other cars and indirectly being inconsiderate and being selfish by disregarding the interest of others. And this is forbid by God. But human tend to come up with all sort of excuses in order to avoid obeying the divine law. He might know that it is morally wrong to do, that it is selfish to do so. But he will come up with excuses to justify his action, like he is in a rush and he is very desperate. And without man made law, without traffic law, do you think he will proceed to double park? Yes, he will. Because of the justifications he had made up in his head. But, when the thought of getting fine of RM300 come across his mind, do you think he will he still park there? The question is, which comes to his mind first? Is it the divine law that it is morally wrong to do so? Or is it the man-made law that he will get fined if he proceeds to park there? In my opinion, it is definitely the latter, therefore it supports my argument that divine law is
It was from an early age that he began studying with his uncle at local schools. In 1603, Hobbes went on to attend Magdalen Hall in Oxford until 1608. Once Hobbes left Oxford he began to tutor a pupil within a prominent English family that through this family, he began to create a name for himself in several scholarly fields. He wrote a treatise that would later become a leading article on political philosophies, and he began to show interest in the mathematical and science fields eventually, becoming a pioneer in optics. He also became a leading interpreter of the laws during the Enlightenment period. Hobbes influence within the Enlightenment would make him a prominent influence of the era. Hobbes belief that all men were created evil, although, he thought that people should have one ruler that had all the power. Hobbes prefered a monarchy because he thought that it was the best form of government and was the only government that could guarantee peace. Hobbes believed that all men were born evil and lived in anarchy. He thought if you put men in a state of nature, without a government, that humans would be in a state of constant warfare with one another. Hobbes wrote a book about his thoughts on the structure of society and legitimate government. His book was regarded as one of the earliest and most influential examples of social contract theory. Overall, the belief that all men were born evil was a belief that Hobbes lived
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
... prominent in Europe during this period. Hobbes felt that this was the only type of government that would that would assure peace. One authority or power would set the laws and everyone in turn would follow them.
Laws are structured and implemented to benefit the masses. Unfortunately this objective is not always achieved. The constitution of the states is considered the best work of law yet it is unable to save the life of a child. Clearly the problem of violence is turning more into a socio-cultural and psychological problem than a legal one. However laws still need to be implemented justly in order to preserve the freedom and rights of me...
He started out on with philosophy of political science while on his trips and visits to other countries outside of England to listen to other scientists and learn different forms of government. While studying, Thomas Hobbes wondered about why people were allowing themselves to be ruled and what would a great form of government for England. He reasoned that people were naturally wicked and shouldn’t be trusted to govern themselves because they were selfish creatures and would do anything to better their position and social status. These people, when left alone will go back to their evil impulses to get a better advantage over others. So Thomas Hobbes concluded that the best form of government would an absolute monarchy, which is a government
Sadly, I think Hobbes is correct, though clearly he was writing in the abstract. While all people do have within them elements of both good and bad, as The Osmond Brothers said so succinctly in the 1970’s, “one bad apple can spoil the whole darn bunch.” Even if 99.99% of the population was good, pure, philanthropic, and just, it only takes one “evil” individual to upset everything. As Hobbes pointed out – everyone must make a singular commitment to have freedom from the natural condition.
Are humans naturally good or evil? This age-old question dates back to as early as the Chinese Dynasty and is still being argued to this day. Thomas Hobbes believed that all humans were born cruel, that they began cheating others to benefit themselves. Whereas, John Locke believes that humans are born good and pure, but become evil based on experiences and obstacles in life. In my opinion, all humans are born good and become cruel based on their experiences. I feel this way because when you look at a new born baby, they are seeing the world for the first time, and although they are screaming and crying, they are pure. They do not want to do anyone any harm, and you do not wish to cause them any harm. The same goes for young, growing children
Thomas Hobbes was considered a rebel of his time. He rose in opposition of tradition and authority. This made him one of the most hated men because his ideas were considered too modern and extremely dangerous. According to Hobbes, he had three opinions on human nature. The first is that we are all self-interested, driven by power, greed, and vainglory. The second is that we are all capable of using reason. The last point he made is that we are all more or less equal; in terms of physical needs and we are vulnerable to those needs. He had a rather pessimistic view of humans and how we act in order to survive. Thomas Hobbes view of the state of nature was that self interest
There have been many theories and interpretations on how one should view “natural law.” Thomas Hobbes interpretation of natural law is not only radically different, but also inconsistent with the traditional view of natural law, such as the view of Thomas Aquinas. (Finnis 15). This can be seen through the similarities and differences found when comparing Thomas Hobbes theory, and Thomas Aquinas in regards to their interpretation of three main topics; their view of man’s ultimate goal, their definition of natural law in regards to its relationship with human rationality, and how they view the meaning and relationship of divine providence and religion in natural law. The following pages will define natural law, and will then analyze all three issues listed above through comparing and contrasting the theories of Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Aquinas. However, in order to properly analyze this concept, one must first understand how to define natural law.
August Wilson's The Piano Lesson is governed by solid male characters who see ladies in a negative light. They are viewed as articles to be vanquished or as scheming and misleading. The ladies of the Charles family repudiate this by being solid and free, giving the play a women's activist undercurrent basically through Berniece. Boy Willie: "All you want to talk about is women.
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.
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.
Selbourne, David The Principle of Duty, An Essay on the Foundations of the Civic Order London 1994
There are two types of laws. There are conventional laws and natural laws. Conventional laws are those laws arrived at through consensus between those governed and the government. Natural laws are those laws that are universal and are derived from the natural order of the world. In my opinion, natural law cannot work in our society, as they are not suitable for our environment and how we live together as a society. Natural laws can’t work without causing trouble and chaos between everyone, so why should we place them in our society? On the other hand, conventional laws are governed and are made to be just for the society. That is why we need conventional laws in our society, not natural laws. Also, since conventional laws are governed, they are made sure to be enforced, and breaking them will only ruin that one person for what they have done, not the society as a whole.
Thomas Hobbes creates a clear idea of the social contract theory in which the social contract is a collective agreement where everyone in the state of nature comes together and sacrifices all their liberty in return to security. “In return, the State promises to exercise its absolute power to maintain a state of peace (by punishing deviants, etc.)” So are the power and the ability of the state making people obey to the laws or is there a wider context to this? I am going to look at the different factors to this argument including a wide range of critiques about Hobbes’ theory to see whether or not his theory is convincing reason for constantly obeying the law.