good or evil

1895 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Thomas Hobbes vs John Locke comparison

The argument as to whether humans are born good or evil is one that been philosophized for hundreds of years by many of the world’s greatest minds. Are humans born with a particular set of qualities that define their character and how they are perceived in society? Are they born with the power to choose between good and evil? The idea of human nature relies on the theory that there is an engrained set of features which are shared by all humans—components that determine the way people reason and behave. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two opposing philosophers who have devoted many years to studying this subject. For Locke, the state of nature— the original condition of all humanity before civilization and order were established —is one where man is born free, equal and have rights that others should respect, such as the right to live and the right to liberty. These rights were essentially derived from natural law— an unwritten law in which every man must judge his/her own actions against. For Hobbes, however, the state of nature is one of constant war; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short ; it is, in Hobbes’ mind, civilization that separates humans from their primitive state. Hobbes believed that an individual’s only drive in life is to serve themselves above all else. In order to obtain this goal, humans must use conflict as a means of self-gain to take what they desire for their self-serving nature. Although Hobbes’ theory on human nature is…..…John Locke provides one of the best in depth accounts of true human nature, as he suggests that man is not born with any pre-conceived ideals, apart from being born free. Locke theorised that man was born with a clean slate, thus, they have the ability to make decisions that are e...

... middle of paper ...

...ociety is formed, whereas Hobbes believes that the only way man can function in a society is with the help of a higher power (government) to watch over man.

When looking at the bigger picture, it is evident that it is John Locke who has the better understanding of the topic, his outlook on man includes the same principles that we are taught since birth today; that we are all equal, that no man is greater than another, and we all have natural rights. Unlike Hobbes, Locke did not view man as being born with a set agenda that is self-serving and evil, one only has to look at the good that there is in the world today to realise that we are not born with this pre-conceived notion. Instead, Locke saw the potential in the human species, a potential that had gone unseen by Hobbes as he did not view man as being born with a clean slate with no emotions engrained.

Show More
Related

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    Even though they both believed that men naturally have to some extent equality and freedom, what makes their concepts differ is the presence or absence of the natural law. In Hobbes' theory, men at their natural state are at constant war, the war of all against all. Another Hobbes' belief is that most people are selfish and tend to do everything for their own reason. To Hobbes humans are driven to maximize personal gains so in a world where there are no rules humans are in constant fear of each other as they each try to get as much as they can, enough is never enough. Men act in basically the same ways to get what we desire and if two men desire the same things then they inevitably become enemies, no...

    Read More

  • Hobbes And John Locke Comparison Essay

    890 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke grew up around the same time, so naturally they must have many similarities, but the environment they grew up in resulted in many differences as well. Hobbes grew up during the English Civil War, which shaped his ideas while Locke lived through the Revolution of 1688 which was when a king was overthrown for being unjust and that helped form his ideas. Hobbes and Locke both said that the state of nature is bad and some order is always needed. The difference between their beliefs is the type of government that should be in place to maintain order that is needed to manage stable lives.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Hobbes And John Locke

    1432 Words  | 3 Pages

    Comparing the statement of Hobbes with Locke is the following, “It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people," (Locke, 70). Both theories on the sovereign power relate to the human nature. For example, Hobbes’s believes that humans need a strong authority to protect citizens from each other and outside forces, which is why the sovereign has absolute power. Critiquing Locke's perspective , he mentions that the people in state of nature live in peace and tranquility amongst each other, setting moral limits without having a sovereign (central authority).

    Read More

  • Human Nature as Viewed by Thomas Hobbes and David Hume

    1952 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.”

    Read More

  • Equality: Comparing Hobbes and Locke

    2000 Words  | 4 Pages

    Hobbes and Locke’s each have different ideologies of man’s state of nature that develops their ideal form of government. They do however have similar ideas, such as how man is born with a perfect state of equality that is before any form of government and social contract. Scarcity of goods ultimately leads to Hobbes and Locke’s different states of nature that shapes their two different ideal governments because Hobbes believes that scarcity of goods will bring about a constant state of war, competition, and greed of man that cannot be controlled without a absolute sovereign as government while Locke believes that with reasoning and a unified government, man will succeed in self preservation of himself and others.

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and inalienable equality in the state of nature.... ... middle of paper ... ... 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.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    670 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's Varying Presentations of the Social Contract Theory

    1505 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...peace. The primary differences in the social contracts of both Hobbes and Locke, therefore, stem directly from their radically opposed viewpoints on mankind’s State of Nature.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Hobbes View Of Human Nature

    1495 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to him, “the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest” (Hobbes, 1991: 87). In other words, Hobbes introduces the concept of natural equality, which entails that each man is a mortal threat to others because one is strong enough to kill another. Moreover, he also believes that people are naturally free because they have a right to do anything, since in the state of nature there are no laws to constrain humankind. Additionally, this links with Hobbes’ assumption of “equality of hope in the attaining of our ends” (Hobbes, 1991: 87) and with the three key interests that people share in the state of nature, namely, the desire for self-preservation, for acquiring means of commodious life, and for improving one’s own position in life through industry. To explain, since humans are naturally free and equal, they tend to equally hope to fulfil these same crucial

    Read More

  • John Locke: Are Humans Born Good Or Evil?

    522 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    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

  • Thrasymachus Vs Hobbes

    678 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hobbes, on the other hand argues that justice is needed for people to live together in civil society. He outlines this idea down to human beings in the

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1044 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

    3013 Words  | 7 Pages

    The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists’ discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke’s description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation”. Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which “teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions,” are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke’s Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful.

    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

More about good or evil

Open Document