Thomas Hobbes Views on Hate Crimes - Research Paper Example

Thomas Hobbes Views on Hate Crimes Thomas Hobbes views that hate as a crime is based on a number of aspects that can be related to one another, as they revolve a paradox of the presence and absence of the aspects. With this in mind, Hobbes is of the view that the presence of one thing also marks the absence of the other I relation to hating or loving the thing in question, in which case love and hate are locked in a vicious circle of contrast, comparison and direct dependence on one another. This is the same way that love and hate are perceived to be as a contributing aspect of the state of hate crimes, where people hate what they have an aversion, the same way they love the things they desire. This then translates to the intricate balance of the presence and absence of the two aspects of affiliation to an object or opinion. In relation to this, aversion refers to the state of being repelled by the object that one hate and this refers to the presence of the object, which in turn leads to the hate for the object (Herbert 98). The above is a strong view on hate crimes in that it is based on this that he is able to place a distinct definition to depict the difference between love and hate, and how the two relate to one another. This is by definition of the presence and absence of all the aspects of an object or the object in its entirety to e hated or loved. As such, hatred is the presence of that which one would like to avert from, as well as the presence of aspects that are of negative appeal to the person in question. Hobbes view goes as far as stating that without the presence of order in an indefinite manner is likely to cause the perpetration of conduct and actions that people please to do. With this in mind, the crimes of hate are brought out in terms of the presence of order, in which case order is meant to restrict the general overview of hate in relation to aversion and the presence of undesirable elements in an aspect of an object or the object as a whole. As a result, Hobbes is of the view that laws or orders are the determinant of the perpetration of hate crimes, in which case they are used and are meant to act as restrictions towards people’s behaviors by constraining their desires (Vaughan 61). This is in relation to what they find pleasant or unpleasant, in which case order is the ultimate determinant of human behavior, where it dictates that which can be liked and to what extent. In addition, it determines what can be done and that, which cannot be done in relation to the hatred of the events that culminate in the hatred and what relates to the hatred occurring towards an object. As a result, Hobbes is of the view it is order that blocks unfavorable human conduct in relation to hate crimes making order the one way that hate crimes are avoided, and even eliminated altogether. In addition, the crimes of hate, according to Hobbes, morality is the main aspect that determines the application of love and hate, in which case, the two are based on being fit. As such, the fittest means to conduct life is termed to be the promotion of personal wellbeing, where this is the consequent of the derivation of morality from prudence (Replogle 571). This is to mean that Hobbes view on crimes of hatred is the presence of logic and morality to direct the behavior of a person as it is through logic, or rather reason that a person can direct him or herself in a responsible manner. Responsibility, according to Hobbes, is conduct that appealing to the logic of the social environment, in which case it is the social environment that determines the correctness and wrongness of one’s conduct (Michaelis 105). In addition, it is according to reason that crimes of hatred can be corrected as man can be shaped or influenced by the same environment to conform to its moral standards, or even come up with his or her own moral codes that are based on prudence, reason and logic. As such, he brings up his view on the role of the society on influencing hate crimes, as a gauge for right and wrong, as well the extent of how far one can or cannot go in reference to execution of one’s conduct. The above view yields into Hobbes’ other view that reason is part of the direction offering part in relation to hatred crimes. In light of this, desire and aversion come together and act as agents of one’s conduct, where he believes that one’s conduct is the result of his or her desires or aversions, in which case good and bad are told apart. In relation to this, crimes of hatred are coupled with two important aspects of life are intertwined intricately to yield to the concept of the greater good, over individual benefit or individual desire. To Hobbes, reason and logic in hate crimes are reflective of how society and laws are followed and enforced, as well as the moral position of the person in question. With this in mind, should a person perceive that his personal gain is greater than the greater good, where the greater refers to how others who are not him or her stand to gain, then he is entitled to do that which he or she desires. In addition, this is the basis of disregard for the law and social order in executing personal desires, where morals, logic and reasoning do not kick in to direct the behavior of the person. This is in relation to arbitral disregard for the law based on personal preference and desires, where the law becomes the item to be averted and the personal gain is the object of desire that the individual in question is motivated towards. Hobbes’ view on hate crimes also relates to the issue of the laws of nature, where ethics are concerned based on principles of logic and reason, where the relationship between hate and reason is in question. In reference to this, Hobbes is of the opinion that logic and reason drive the ethics of person, as they are what drive the whole concept of ethics in a person, as well as his or her choice n aversion (Deigh 35). The desires of a person are therefore based on how he or she behaves. Apparently, he is of the opinion that egoism is a chief contributor of hate crimes as personal desires get in the way of reason and social convention that he refers to as the laws of nature. Egoism, brings out his view on the selfish nature of man to cause hate crimes in pursuit of one’s desires over the needs of the rest, where knowledge and reason have no influence whatsoever, thus justice in relation to crimes of hate is overlooked. Self-interest therefore becomes the precedent over moral virtue making personal desires the driving force and ethics as not part of the individual’s life. The other aspect of Hobbes’ view on hate is that in the things that an individual hates, he or she faces a continued state of molestation, where patience or lack of it thereof is the determinant of his or her desire (Martiniche and Hobbes 256). With this in mind, he takes it to be difficult to eliminate the power that puts him or her through torment, which brings back the concept of hate, where the item to be averted is hated, and an action must be taken to eliminate the item causing discomfort. As a result, the elimination of the factor of aversion cannot be done in the presence of the law, but only logic and reason can assist in the elimination as without them, then the individual’s morality is in question. As such, reason and the law are in conflict in terms of hate crimes and morality as the law does not always stand for that which logical and reasonable, but could be the outcome of another person’s egotistical ways or desires. It is for this, that he believes there is a conflict of sorts as one party fulfills its covetous and ambitious passions at the expense of the other party. As a result, hate crimes are perpetuated as impunity by the sufferer, and not the imposer, which brings reason and logic to ruin in the creation of laws and norms. This implies that he believes the role of reason and laws on hate crimes are arbitral and not fixed making it difficult to rule on the appropriate conduct of a person (Brenner 127). In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes’ views on hate crime reflect on the principles of logic reason, and the rule of law, where they all come together to be tested by desire and the concept of the greater good. As a result, there is not a clear way to discern the unique role of each, but they are all intertwined in an arbitral sense of the laws of nature demarcating the boundary of which, and each acting in its own way to influence human behavior in relation to hate crimes. Works Cited Deigh, John. "Reason and Ethics in Hobbes's Leviathan." Journal of the History of Philosophy 34.1 (1996): 33-. Michaelis, Loralea. "Hobbes's Modern Prometheus: A Political Philosophy for an Uncertain Future." Canadian Journal of Political Science 40.1 (2007): 101-27. Vaughan, Geoffrey. Behemoth Teaches Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on Political Education, California, Lexington, 2007. Print. Replogle, Ron 1987. Personality & Society in Hobbes's "Leviathan", Ron Replogle Polity Vol. 19, No. 4 (1987), pp. 570-594. Brenner, Paul. If Life Is a Game, How Come I'm Not Having Fun?: A Guide to Life's Challenges. New York, SUNY Press, 2001. Print. Martinich, A.P. and Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, Parts I and II, Alberta. Broadview Press: Calgary, 2010. Print. Herbert, Gary. Thomas Hobbes: The Unity of Scientific and Moral Wisdom, Columbia: Vancouver, UBC Press, 2011. Print. Read More