A Comparative Analysis of Natural Inclinations - Essay Example

A Comparative Analysis of Natural Inclinations The nature or the essence of the human being is an age-old question. This is a fundamental inquiry andthere are many points of view. Some philosophers, such as Mill, believe that human beings are born without natural inclinations. How we function and behave depends on what and how we are taught. A philosopher like Hobbes would disagree. He would argue that our natural inclinations are competitive, and that we are naturally destined for destruction. In between these two extremes is the notion of rationality. Kant, for instance, argues that we can overcome our natural inclinations, whatever they may be, by using reason. This question is significant because the answer has important implications. How we choose to govern ourselves depends, in large part, on how we answer the question of natural inclinations. How constitutions and legislation treat notions of liberty and freedom of expression, for example, depend on the extant to which the drafters perceive human beings to be capable of moderating their behavior. In short, how we choose to form laws to govern ourselves is dependent on our assumptions regarding our natural inclinations. These are a few of the questions posed and addressed in the works of John Stuart Mill, Thomas Hobbes, and Immanuel Kant. This essay will identify each thinker's analysis of the human being's natural inclinations, the implications of each thinker's analysis, and then offer a brief comparative analysis. Mill: Maximizing Happiness As an initial matter, John Stuart Mill, in Utilitarianism, argues that natural inclinations are not innate. Human beings are not born with a natural predisposition to compete (Mill, 1863). Satisfaction of our basest needs, such as food, shelter, or a mate, does not compel us to satisfy our needs at all costs. We do not begin hunting for food until we are taught how to hunt. We do not steal the food of others until we are aware of the possibility of stealing. Nor do we believe in monogamy or polygamy at birth. These are not natural drives. They are not genetic predispositions. Who we are is the product of our environment. Our inclinations, as they develop throughout our lives, are taught and learned. In Mill's view, therefore, an innate compulsion or natural inclination is absent in the very beginning. On this basis, he reasons that the formation of laws should be used to condition people. More specifically, he believes that the creation of a fair and just society will create fair and just citizens. We should discourage authoritarian forms of government, for instance, because they are unnecessary and because they will teach us destructive habits. To this end, he advocates personal liberties and freedom of expression. The government does not need to dominate its people because its people are conditioned by these broader concepts of justice, moderation, and restraint. They will follow the examples set forth in just and reasonable laws. More specifically, he advocates the formation of laws which emphasize the satisfaction of the people rather than the domination of the people. Mill states that, "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (Mill, 1863). His notion of happiness is twofold. First, happiness is physical pleasure. Laws should encourage and allow people to pursue interests of importance to the individual. Second, happiness is mental pleasure. Freedom of expression and diversity of opinion are to be valued rather than prohibited. Proper laws can, in the final analysis, teach us how to be happy and thereafter operate to sustain our happiness. The significant point is that human beings are not naturally inclined to commit bad or destructive acts; on the contrary, we are capable of forming laws and principles which can result in moderate political and social structures. Mill employs a balancing test. The goal is to promote maximum happiness while minimizing unhappiness. This tends toward subjectivity. Good and bad are not objective absolutes. Good and bad are simply the sum results of the happiness in the community involved. In sum, the concept of absolute truth is abandoned in Mill's analysis. An example would be the death penalty debate in America. The absolute principle is that killing is bad; nonetheless, a utilitarian would defer to the maximization of happiness as manifest through voting in a democratic society. In America, people vote for the death penalty candidates. Happiness is maximized, at least in Mill's sense, but absolute truth is moot. Hobbes: Born to Compete In sharp contrast to Mill are the theories set forth by Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan serves as a forceful argument against the possession of free will among human beings. In this respect, Hobbes functions quite nicely as the antithesis of Mill; in particular, he argues quite confidently that human beings are born with innate characteristics and drives (Vaughan). We are driven to seek food. We are driven to seek shelter. We are driven to seek mates. In short, because of our animal instincts, we are driven to compete vigorously and mercilessly with other human beings. These drives are a part of us at birth. That human beings will kill or steal to satisfy basic needs is acceptable to Hobbes. This is because these are not learned conditions, but natural instinctive and drives. It is our nature, in Hobbes' view, to compete to satisfy our base needs. In his view, there are no exceptions. Nature is wild, and so are human beings. Again, the assumptions regarding natural inclinations have important consequences. Hobbes, in contrast to Mill, is unable to conceptualize a successful society or a successful legislative framework which seeks to maximize happiness. For him, to maximize happiness would be to maximize the basest instincts of the human animal. We would be maximizing the instinct to kill. We would be maximizing the instincts to cheat and to steal. It would be an unmitigated disaster. Hobbes therefore advocates a different approach than does Mill. Hobbes advocates a strong central government. He even supports the concept of a strong central monarchy. The formation of laws must not proceed without ensuring that all laws take into account our natural propensities for destruction. Laws must be designed to restrain people. Human beings need to be controlled. Privacy must defer to social control, and freedom of expression must be muffled to preclude inevitable disagreements and conflicts. A government that recognizes these tendencies, and which is strong enough to punish destructive acts, is his ideal. This contrasts rather sharply with Mill. Kant: Rational Morality Immanuel Kant's arguments do not fit within the philosophies of Mill or Hobbes. Instead, he changes the focus of the inquiry. He believes that reason is an undervalued aspect of our natural inclinations. That is, we have certain base instincts and drives as well as the ability to use reason to both satisfy and moderate these drives. In this way, Kant seeks to propose a sort of objective reality that transcends our natural instincts (Johnson). He thus serves as a bridge between Mill and Hobbes. Where Mill seeks the maximization of happiness, Kant seeks the objective reasonableness of happiness. Kant would not seek the formation of laws simply to maximize happiness. Instead, he would seek the formation of laws which are based on careful reasoning and logical consistency. Likewise, where Hobbes seeks the root of man's destructiveness, Kant seeks a reasonable intellectual method to moderate and judge destructiveness. He proposes laws which appeal to reason and assumes that laws have far more legitimacy if they are based on reason rather than on brute suppression. In short, with Kant, reason is used to combat the notions of raw emotion and innate competitiveness. It must be noted, however, that Kant's approach to reason is rather extreme. Indeed, he does propose something very near to objective truth. He proposes the existence of moral imperatives and universal absolutes. Kant would disagree, for example, with Mill on the death penalty. He would find a universal moral law prohibiting the killing of another human being to be persuasive and binding. He would disagree that Mill's maximization of happiness in any way negates the sanctity of the underlying principle. Happiness would be irrelevant. Reasonable laws would promote a sense of social harmony, and each individual would be capable of understanding the rationale of all the laws thereby formulated. To this end, he believes that each person is capable of such rationale self-reflection. In this way our reason can make us physically and mentally happy without behaving immorally. Laws need not promote freedom of expression to the extant that it endangers people. Yelling fire in a theater is one example. Hate speech is another example. Reason, in this way, supplants the maximization of a vague happiness as the driving force behind the formation of laws. In addition, such reason can even overcome Hobbes' natural state of competitiveness. The drive to kill the neighbor who slept with the daughter is overcome by the realization that killing has negative consequences. The killer goes to jail, the daughter is left without a father, and the neighbor's family is also left to fend for themselves. Reason accounts for consequences. The killing, for Kant, is hardly inevitable. In this way, we are able to become enlightened and we are able to transcend both Mill and Hobbes. In sum, the formation of laws would be founded on reason. Objective truth is possible. The death penalty is right or it is wrong. Abortion is right or it is wrong. There would be no need for balancing. Reason would be the legitimizing rationale for the formation of such laws. Comparison: My Preference In the final analysis, I find Hobbes and Kant to be the most similar. This may seem an odd conclusion, but I have reached it because both of them deal with absolutes. Hobbes believes that we are endowed with competitiveness at birth. Kant believes that objective truth is possible. Both advocate a sort of absolutism; Mill, on the other hand, seeks a more moderated position. He doesn't say that we are destroyers. He doesn't tell us that we are categorically right or wrong. His is the least dangerous approach. Therefore, I would have to find Mill the most persuasive in terms of drafting laws to govern human behavior. This is because he takes the broadest view and because he attempts to balance conflicting opinions. Most importantly, I find the notion of absolute truth, of the sorts advocated by both Hobbes and Kant, to be dangerous. Works Cited Johnson, Robert. Kant's Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved July 25, 2006 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. The University of Adelaide Library Electronics Texts Collection. Retrieved July 25, 2006, http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/m645u/m645u.zip Vaughan, Barry F. Egoism and the Social Contract (T. Hobbes). Retrieved July 25, 2006, http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/bfvaughan/ic/101/unit2.html Read More