A Different View of Human Nature and State of Nature - Essay Example

Hobbes and Rousseaus Depiction of the of nature" and "human nature" Many theories have come up over the centuries in an attempt to explain “state of nature” and “human nature." One such theory is the leviathan theory, by Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. These two philosophers have different views on the state of nature and human nature before and after the government. In this paper, my goal in this paper is to compare and contrasts their respective depictions about human nature and state of nature and see the philosopher with the strongest depiction and also be able to see if what they both said is true. Hobbes In his best work Leviathan says that there is nothing worse than living an insecure life. The state ought to protect the lives of its citizens. The people who elected them into power should not live in fear of their lives. They should enjoy peace and stability. With these, the law of conservation of motion Hobbes tries to tell us that human beings are constantly looking for something in life. “Life itself is but Motion, and can never be without Desire” (129-130). What he is saying is that human beings are never satisfied; they always want more and more each moment ( Rousseau and. Their search for felicity is what causes human beings to be at war with each other. When death becomes a fear, there is creation of the state. Furthermore, Hobbes argues that human beings are equal in respect to the nature. They have equal skills and power. Moreover, according to Hobbes, human beings are by nature made equal, in a sense that the human’s possess are equal in terms of skills and power. “The weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or confederacy with others” (Hobbes and Helena 183). Human beings have three core reasons which they use to attack someone else. To gain, to remain safe and for recognition and power. According to Hobbes theory morality has no room because, in a state of nature there are no unjust acts. He goes ahead to say that human beings rational behavior causes them to attack others and make them obey the law of nature only when surrounded by others and sure that they are obeying the law too. By this he means that human beings are self-centered in nature and fear is what makes them to reason (Hobbes and Helena 5) In Rousseau’s state of nature, human beings are like savages, their dealings are first dogged by instant and basic requirements food, sexual satisfaction, and sleep and fear only hunger and pain. The force of self-preservation and pity drives the savage man. To him human beings are naturally affected by others’ human beings’ sufferance, in other words they have “an innate repugnance a fellow creature suffers” (Hobbes and Helena 73). Therefore, compassion acts as a controlling imply to hold back human beings from harming others. Rousseau sees a savage man as lonely and unable to survive without other human beings around him. Without the help of others, he cannot express his thoughts on things well through speech. He is satisfied as he is and has no room for luxuries except for the basic needs. He is more of a wild animal only that the peculiarity differentiates him from the wild animal (Hobbes and Helena 9). He believes that the so-called civilization and advancement has brought eviler to the state of nature than the goodness it was intended. Morality to him does not exist in the state of nature nor law or right. He means that human beings tend to avoid harming others because we want to avoid pain and suffering. Therefore, men avoid going into war because they do not want to harm their fellow human beings. They will feel guilty for causing them pain and terrible things to them (Hobbes and Helena 67). Man is equal in state of nature. The only thing that can cause inequality among men is the existence of personal belongings other than what is basic to man. It causes dependence and jealousy too. The only way to voice, justice is through robbery, competition among the rich. It then results into conflict as men try to outdo each other and this conflict only ends in bloodshed and therefore bringing up a new state of war. (Hobbes and Helena 97) Is  the  Hobbesian  “state  of  nature”  without   government,  the  same  as  the  “state  of  nature”  before  government  as  Rousseau   describes  it? As seen earlier, Hobbes said that human beings are constantly looking for something to satisfy them. Moreover, the search for felicity causes war between them and therefore causing the need for government that is supposed to provide security to them. Hobbes view that human beings are equal in terms of skills and strength Hobbes thinks that monarchy is the only best form of government that can provide peace and security to the uttermost. He believes when there is an absolute supreme power; peace is not option at all. This is because the citizens will have no other option than to obey the rules and laws bestowed by the state of the day without question. This is the only way to prevent man into getting into civil wars (Hobbes and Helena 56). Rousseau on the other hand views the state of nature without government as a possible situation. Men will form a social contract to be able to govern themselves and rules out the possibility of an absolute monarchy. To him because morality and rules have no room in human nature. Naturally human beings will not against their fellow human beings. Compassion drives them for their fellow human beings (Hobbes and Helena 45).  What is potentially significant about this difference? In Hobbesian, theory humans are equal in both skills and power. The only cause of wars can be the constant motion of life, whereby human beings want to get more and more. Again, according to Hobbes, there are no unjust acts and human beings will attack if they are persuaded by the hunger for power, recognition and gain. In this example, if there has to be a government then it should be an absolute monarchy. It will guarantee peace among people and cause no alarm. Let us not forget that whatever the government decides whether it against peoples will or no is not a big deal in Hobbes theory. Rousseau, on the other hand, pictures the state of nature without a state as full of unjust acts, conflicts and, therefore, leading to civil war among the people. This is because what makes men unequal is the ownership of private property. It leads to jealousness’s which causes theft among the poor, conflicts and eventual war. He goes ahead to say absolute monarchy is not the answer to this state of nature. The governments work to enforce rules, respect people’s opinions, and in no way try to dictate the people (Hobbes and Helena 39). What,  if  anything,   do  each  of  their  respective  conceptions  of  the  “state  of  nature”  reveal  about  human   nature? Rousseau conception of the state of nature shows that human nature is compassion and naturally, human beings are not equal. Therefore, in the human nature morality, law does not only exist. Human being, driven by compassion for others naturally prevents them from causing suffering to their fellow human beings. His conception of human beings as savages reveals to us that, as human beings, we need each other for self-development. On his part, human beings are entitled to their own opinions, and the government should follow the will of the people as they enact the rules (Hobbes and Helena 76). Hobbes conceptions show human nature to be like those of machines, no feelings and compassion for the rest of the human beings at all. He says that the fear is the main reason human beings do not attack their fellow humans not that they are naturally compassionate as presented by Rousseau. His argument further shows that human beings are self-centered and are constantly searching for more power and that human beings have nothing like morals and things just happen because they are supposed to happen. His conception of absolute monarchy for peace reveals that the human beings need strict rules and rulers for them to be peaceful. It shows that we cannot control ourselves we entitled to our own opinions, but to follow what has been decided on our behalf (Hobbes and Helena 35). Whose position is stronger? I believe that the depiction that Rousseau has drawn of the state of nature peopled by “good savages” additional alike to the natural world with the intention of enlightened human beings perhaps a credible vision. However, I do not automatically have the same opinion with his shadowy review of a person development. Rousseau’s viewpoint that growth and advancement led to a situation of conflict, bringing wickedness, as well as hardship into a "purified humanity, ” which was still sanctified by lack of knowledge, is surely rational with his case. However, I find it more challenging trying to imagine how the state of nature would be if populated by developed and civilized human beings as in Hobbes’ views (Hobbes and Helena 53). I am hesitant to agree with Hobbes negative position of analysis. I cannot rule out the fact that human beings at times are self-centered; though, this does not eliminate the truth that also the converse is likely. Furthermore, his wrapping up to facilitate that each person is empowered is, to me, more likely to lead to the Hobbes’ state of war (Hobbes and Helena 45).  Therefore, Rousseau argument is much stronger than Thomas Hobbes argument. His argument presents the true nature of human beings. Human beings are not selfish and driven by self-motives. Human beings are not machines to be controlled as Hobbes put it (Hobbes and Helena 25). Do  you  think  that  we  are,  at  least  to  some   minor  extent,  naturally  compassionate  or  do  you  believe  that  we  are  purely  self-­‐ interested  creatures? Yes, I believe that human beings at least to some extent are naturally compassionate. The fact that they seek peace most of the times shows that they care. They do not want to see their fellow human beings are harmed by their activities. I mean human beings are not machines that do not have feelings as presented by Hobbes argument (Hobbes and Helena 31). If I were to say that we are purely self-centered then than will mean that there are no good things we do as human beings. We do not care about others and even though there are such traits in human beings they are driven by lack of compassion (Hobbes and Helena 43). This however does not rule out that some of us are purely self-interested creatures. That is why they would attack their fellow human beings for recognition and glory in the name of fighting for peace (Hobbes and Helena 32) Is  the  kind  of  self-­‐interest  (egotism)  that  we  find  in  society,  at   least  in  part,  socially  constructed,  or  is  it  the  manifestation  of  purely  natural  impulse. Yes, the kind of self-interest that we find in the society today, at least, in part, socially constructed. Ass Rousseau would have put it; the enlightenment of the man was not something purely good. It brought about individualism as men are acquiring more private property; the more people become poor, the rich unparsed the rich, robbery increases and this what makes conflict and wars (Hobbes and Helena 21). Conclusion. As I conclude this paper, the two philosophers Hobbes and Rousseau have a different view of human nature and state of nature. In my own opinion, the state of nature and human nature have advanced from time to time in regards to the present conditions. The more civilized we become, the more selfish and ambitious we become. Human beings are not machines and, therefore, we cannot be said to be in motion. Reference Rousseau, Jean Jacques and Helena Rosenblatt. Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men. Cambridge: Bedford/St. Martins. 2010. Print. Read More