Impact of Hobbes on More Subsequent 17-18 Century Moral Thinkers - Essay Example

Assess the Impact of Hobbes on One or More Subsequent Seventeenth or Eighteenth Century Moral Thinkers Thomas Hobbesis one of the most influential philosophers to have had an influence on western philosophy from the seventeenth century to the present and this was as a result of the political ideas that he developed. He was an early believer in the concept of natural rights and he propagated this by stating that man was born free to choose what to do with his life without any interference from others. Moreover, he was an advocate of ensuring that the natural rights of human beings were protected and that these rights could not be trampled on by any other human being. Through some of his most notable works such as the Leviathan, Hobbes developed a methodology that he used to study the connection between human nature and politics and the manner through which it was possible to create a balance between the two so that chaos in society could be avoided. Hobbes’ philosophy goes beyond politics because it studies the relationship between nature and the concepts of good and bad, coming to the conclusion that the latter are not absolute and they exist according to the dictates of different societies. This paper seeks to assess Hobbes’ philosophy and its impact on some of the later moral thinkers with specific emphasis on John Locke. When The Leviathan is studied, the reader comes to the conclusion that Hobbes, despite his belief in natural rights, is also an advocate of monarchical absolutism.1 The promotion of absolutism, according to Hobbes, is a means through which individuals in society can be prevented to descending to absolute chaos. He states that while human beings may have been born with natural rights which are essentially inviolable, it should be noted that all human beings need some authority to control them to ensure that the society does not fall into chaos.2 Furthermore, it is implied that human beings are highly individualistic creatures who only take actions that are of benefit for themselves. In situations where there is a potential of their interests being violated, human beings are capable of taking actions which are considered evil to prevent such violations. This is a reason why human beings need strong government to make sure that society does not descend into chaos and that there is some form of moderation to their nature so that they do not end up destroying themselves. In this case, Hobbes shows a preference for an absolutist form of government which allows for the stabilisation of society through only one individual exercising absolute power, hence acting as a guiding force. When one considers Hobbes, one comes to the conclusion that it is society which creates boundaries that define good and evil. This is especially the case where societies develop moral values which have to be adhered to and anyone who does not do so ends up receiving some form of punishment. Therefore, while human beings tend to decide what is good or bad according to their own perspectives, these values often differ from one society to another and this creates a situation where these perspectives prove to be false.3 Hobbes is of the belief that individuals tend to make judgement of the actions of others because they believe that the values of good and evil are absolute and this perspective makes them fail to realise that neither of these values are a part of nature and that they are essentially false. In nature, there are no lines between good and evil and individuals will act as they will in order to defend their interests. It is human beings who make the decision about what is right or wrong in nature and this ability to make decisions can be considered to be a part of their natural freedoms. Freedom of choice is an essential part of natural rights because it allows human beings to live as they will in absolute freedom, exercising their own authority over themselves.4 However, such a scenario also brings about problems because instead of there being peace, human nature forces individuals to fight for their own interests and this undermines any form of harmony that might come out of their natural freedoms. Instead, individuals end up living in constant fear that their interests will be violated by others and might take action to defend these interests; creating an environment where there is absolute chaos. Hobbes’ ideas suggest that most of the actions of human beings are guided by their natural rights which allow them to make decisions concerning how to live their lives. This is a situation which ensures their superiority over other creatures in the world because they have the ability to choose; a freedom that other animals do not have. Human beings can therefore interpret their environment as they desire and these interpretations are normally based on their highly competitive nature.5 As a result of their being able to choose, human beings are governed by their desires and these desires can sometimes be so strong that they lead to these individuals’ either causing harm to others or having harm caused to them. Hobbes describes human beings as being individuals who are not only highly competitive, but also unsociable and this to such an extent that in their natural state, they are always in constant war with one another. Their unsociable nature makes it difficult for them to interact genuinely with one another and instead, it leads to a situation where they are not able to think beyond the self. All of their actions are governed by the benefits that they are likely to have; in this way leading to the development of individual perceptions of life independent of that of others. Hobbes also blames the scarcity of resources as among the reasons why human beings are naturally extremely competitive because they often desire to have an advantage over others; a factor that is an in built part of their nature. The natural desires of individuals end up outweighing any feeling of fraternity towards one another and it instead leads to a scenario where all actions are designed to serve self-interest. Hobbes had a profound influence on the work of John Locke who rose to prominence in the eighteenth century. The political theory of Locke was based on the social contract theory of Hobbes and this can be considered to have been a continuation of the latter’s work. However, while it was Hobbes’ belief that human nature was characterised by a form of individualism whose main result was chaos, Locke believed that the main characteristic of human nature was reason and tolerance.6 The latter’s stance is in direct contrast to that of Hobbes but while this may be the case, it is a minor difference when one considers the massive influence that Hobbes had on Locke. Similar to Hobbes, Locke proposed that human nature made them to be selfish; giving the example of the introduction of currency as part of the daily human transactions.7 In the natural state, human beings were all equal because no one had an unfair advantage over the other. However, with the introduction of currency, all of these changed because some individuals in society ended up having an advantage over others; essentially creating a form of dominance over the latter. This assertion can be considered to be a continuation of Hobbes’ idea that human beings are highly competitive by nature and that they take actions out of their selfish interests rather than for the sake of any concern for other human beings. Locke further suggests that in their natural state, human beings have the independence to make their own decisions and have the right to defend themselves and their property; an idea that can be traced back to Hobbes and shows his influence. Hobbes believed that the right of nature was a situation that enabled human beings to act on their own desires without caring for those of others. He speculated that this right also made it possible for human beings to have a taste for using his own power in the preservation of his nature and this in such a way that he uses his best judgment to device the best means of doing so.8 In these conditions, these individuals were under no obligation to care for the welfare of their fellows and it created conditions that were undesirable for a proper functioning society. According to Hobbes, it was the fear of others and the possibility that the latter might inflict a painful death on them in a bid to protect their own interests that increased the instability of human nature. It is as a result of this instability that human beings ended up devising a means through which peace could be maintained through the development of a political society. The political society, which evolves into the state, becomes responsible for the security and stability of the society with human beings becoming involved in this society as a means of preserving their individualistic and selfish nature. This is a theory which heavily influences Locke who, like Hobbes, states that human beings ended up establishing the state as a means of solving conflicts in a civil way. However, despite their agreement that there is a need for a state to maintain order in society, they differ in the manner through which the state can operate. While Hobbes believed in the absolute authority of a monarch which would be useful in ensuring order in society, Locke believed that there was a need for the participation of civil society with government playing a supporting role.9 One would suggest that these individuals were promoting different types of government; one authoritarian and the other democratic. However, despite the differences of opinion concerning the makeup of the state, Hobbes’s influence on Locke is still recognisable and this is especially the case in the discussion of natural rights. The latter agrees with Hobbes that natural rights bring about a situation where human beings are able to use their own abilities to preserve their own lives while at the same time disregarding the welfare of others. It is through this disregard that human nature is revealed where as a result their inability to cater for interests other than their own, there is a potential of the society ending up being chaotic since members of society do not have the ability to moderate themselves. Locke’s ideas show the nature of politics during his time, which has evolved into a participatory one where the power of absolute monarchy has been greatly reduced. In conclusion, the discussion above, through an assessment of Hobbes moral philosophy, has shown its impact on John Locke. In The Leviathan, there is not only the promotion of Hobbes’ belief in natural rights, but also his advocacy for monarchical absolutism. A study of the belief of Hobbes has led to the conclusion that it is society which creates boundaries that define good and evil and not nature which has no such restrictions and instead promotes absolute freedom. Furthermore, Hobbes’ ideas suggest that most of the actions of human beings are guided by their natural rights which allow them to make decisions concerning how to live their lives; essentially creating the impression that freedoms are a basic part of human nature. In addition, the discussion has shown that the political theory of Locke was based on the social contract theory of Hobbes and this can be considered to have been a continuation of the latter’s work. Locke, like Hobbes, believed that the right of nature was a situation that enabled human beings to act on their own desires without caring for those of others. Finally, differences have been seen where while Hobbes believed in the absolute authority of a monarch which would be useful in ensuring order in society, Locke believed that there was a need for the participation of civil society with government playing a supporting role. Bibliography Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996. Hoppit, Julian. A Land of Liberty? England. 1689–1727. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Laslett, Peter. "The English Revolution and Lockes Two Treatises of Government". Cambridge Historical Journal, 12.1 (1956): 40–55. Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government: A Translation into Modern English. Industrial Systems Research, 2009. Schneewind, Jerome. Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Read More