"Do good to those who do good to you, and harm to those who harm you."
This essay will be an exploration of the ethical viability of this statement through the evaluation of several ethical ideas and theories. Primarily, the statement suggests a necessity of the two separate points made within it: To do good to those who do good to you, but in doing so you must harm those who harm you. If you decide to act upon one half of this statement, then it seems not only logical but almost necessary and just to act upon the other half. Although momentarily the statements seem reasonable and sensible, in many respects the ambiguity and simplicity of the statement make it inapplicable to such a vast and varied society.
Hobbes' theory of social contract claims that the justification for any form of political obligation is that men are naturally self-interested and therefore always attempting to further their own needs. However, this is not always possible and hence social contracts are formed between individuals and groups to ensure equal benefits for both parties. The statement above could possibly be a reflection of a social contract, as Hobbes' believed that the human use of words such as `love' and `hate' are merely words which we just use to describe that which we are attracted to and repelled by. Simply, moral terms therefore do not describe some objective state of affairs - but are reflections of personal taste and preference. Hence the statement above, which refers to both `doing good' and `doing bad' are not universal imperatives - but reflections of the specific intentions and desires of the contract and the individuals involved. Furthermore this raises the issue, as to whether one can do good or harm anyone who was done so to ...
... middle of paper ...
...ng surprising here: it is tough making it alone and so there are good reasons why humans will do better if they do co-operate with others. But does this prove that co-operation is just another form of selfishness that we care only about our own interests and we co-operate in order to further those interests? In effect an answer to this depends entirely upon the individual; such an ambiguous statement undoubtedly entails a great difference in answers and interpretation. Although such a statement seems accurate both as a principle and an ideal, it lacks justification to compel one to act in such a way and furthermore lacks consideration of subjective opinions and specific situations. In essence, such a minimal statement cannot operate amongst a complexity of human indifferences, ideals, emotions and individualism and hence is intrinsically flawed in its application.
(2)- Marsh, Jason, and Dacher Keltner, Ph.D. "Greater Good." We Are All Bystanders. University of California,
“Do to others as you would have them do to you (Luke 6:31).” And “Live by the sword, die by the sword (Gospel of Matthew 26:52)”
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.
However, their opinions as to what exactly constitutes man’s natural state greatly differ, and may even be described as opposites. Hobbes believed that man is selfish and violent by nature, and therefore only acts kind to others for personal reasons. On the other hand, Rousseau believed that man is naturally good and only seems to act unkind because of the influence of outside influences. These ideas greatly influenced their ideas of the morality of man, and what exactly constitutes right and just
Self-preservation is the most fundamental desire in humans. Without laws or governance no one would be able to tell how or how not to try to stay alive. Hobbes argues that all humans are by nature equal in body and mind; therefore, everyone is naturally willing to fight each other if needed to. Every person has a natural right to do anything that they think is necessary for preserving their own life. For example: If in order for you to stay alive means you must shoot your friends who have become sick by a contagious plague, then that is the means necessary for your own self-preservation. Shooting your friends to protect your own life is not seen an unjust act. According to Hobbes, there is no room for morality because in a state of nature there is no space for the unjust. Everything is somehow justifiable. Hobbes calls this the Natural Right of Liberty. Furthermore, anything can be seen as a necessity in order to preserve one’s life. For example: If one doesn’t eat, then they won’t have enough sustenance which could then lead to death due to starvation. Eating is seen as a necessity needed to take in order to preserve ...
Thomas Hobbes main theory about morality is known as the State of Nature. Hobbes says that right and wrong are based on contracts that we make with each other within in a government. The State of Nature says that all people are born equal, but we do everything in our power to overpower one another. We are less likely to fight each other if we know who is in charge, however, Hobbes says don’t know who is in charge and that is why we fight each other more. Hobbes also talks about the “right of nature”. This basically states that if we as humans, need to hurt someone else in order to better ourselves, then it is okay, not wrong. Anything we need to do to better ourselves, even hurt others is acceptable.
A rear assumption is that the needs and happiness of other people will always effects on our moral ethics. If we accept this assumption, we think that our moral ethics are balancing our self-interest against that of others. It is true, that “What is morally right or wrong depends not only on how it makes us feel, but also how it affects others”.
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.
...t altruism cannot exists and if a reciprocal altruism appears it will later on change into egoism or it will be overtaken by the group’s leader, and his altruism or egoism.
“There is only one way in which one can endure man’s inhumanity to man and that is to try, in one’s own life, to exemplify man’s humanity to man.” by Alan Paton
“I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”
He claims that acts of kindness, charity and benevolence are always actions that the performer believes will result in a beneficial consequence for himself. Hobbes’ basis for this argument lies in the concept of reason. He writes that human beings are logical creatures and unlike other animals, use reason to make all of their decisions (Leviathan 2, 17). A law dictated by reason that will benefit a man is called a law of nature. Hobbes lists three fundamental laws of nature that promote the primary motivation of men, which is self-preservation.
Cooperation or collaboration is the tendency to work together for mutual benefit and is generally contrasted to competition which is working against each other for a larger share of benefits. Cooperation is not always desirable nor is compition always to be deplored. When people are cooperative regardless of how they feel or the other person behaves, they may be exploited and taken advantage of.
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.
In its simplest form, cooperation may involve only two people who work together towards a common goal. Two college students working together to complete a laboratory experiment, or two inter-city youths working together to protect their 'turf' from violation by outsiders are examples. In these cases, solidarity between the members is encouraged and they share together the reward of their cooperation. Social satisfaction is achieved by a group of people working together or doing activities together. Even though cooperation isn’t that practical with our people in our own society it can be found within the youths involved in sports and other recreational activities. Cooperation within students in schools as mentioned as an example, is practiced on a regular basis during group discussions and group presentations. But speaking about cooperation and society together, cooperation is very essential for society to continue grow stronger and a good living residence for