Preview

Comparing Dr. Kreider's Lecture On Zombies And Philosophy

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2405 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Comparing Dr. Kreider's Lecture On Zombies And Philosophy
World War Z Compare and Contrast During Dr. Kreider’s lecture on Zombies and Philosophy he asked us an important question; what do we owe our fellow human beings? What this means to those of us living in the moment of right now varies vastly from answers supplied by interviews in the book World War Z. To help find an answer Dr. Kreider provided us with two definitions of the state of nature under social contract theory produced by early philosophical thinkers. I believe that today’s society falls under Locke’s state of nature, unlike in the book World War Z where it tends to vary greatly from country to country but is predominately Hobbesian. Although many countries that opt to use a Hobbesian State of Nature end the war with what could …show more content…
The first being the state of nature as defined by Thomas Hobbes is that of a pre-societal state. In general terms this means there would be no government or any form of laws, leading citizens towards a constant state of war. As a result of this, people would be motivated solely by self interest, and would not have any regards towards others needs. This relates to a lecture on Zombies and Sociology given by Dr. Peters. Dr. Peter’s pointed out the fact that society begins to fail as a whole when its institutions breakdown. Government, the economy, religion, education, media and family are all institutions of society. In a Hobbesian state of nature it is likely that very few of these intuitions would continue to stand, the first to go being government and economy. It is also worth noting that in a Hobbesian state of nature, individuals are motivated to act out of fear, which Professor Gillard mentioned in his lecture. This explains why people act only to meet their personal needs, they are so blinded by fear that they fail to rationalize the needs of others. Locke takes a different approach when it comes to defining the state of nature, which places more emphasis on …show more content…
Alder was a German soldier at the time of the Zombie War and was given the title of commanding officer after a freak accident in which his commanding officer became infected. He was stationed in Hamburg Garrison, which had become heavily infested. He and his troops were involved in an attempt to barricade the city and hold down the fort until further help could arrive. He received an order to retreat, which Alder described as not being unusual and as something that had occurred before. But unlike the previous orders to retreat he was told by his commanding officer not to move the civilians. Alder struggles internally with this and is only prompted to follow through with it after the commanding officer of the entire Northern Front General Lang demands that he comply, threatening that Alder and his men will be prosecuted with “Russian efficiency”(113) if they did not carry out his given instructions. After following through, Alder feels great remorse over completing the orders for what was effectively mass

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    At first sight, Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government, seemed quite similar to Hobbes’s Leviathan. They both believed that a state of nature is a state that exist without government. They believe that men are created equal in this state, however Hobbes argues that because of self-preservation, man possessed the desire to control over other man. Locke, on the other hand, reasons with a more peaceful and pleasant place.…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The argument presented by Thomas Hobbes in chapter 13 of Leviathan, is that the state of nature is a state of war of all against all. Such a view had previously been discussed- earlier versions of the argument appear in other significant works- however it is Hobbes account of a state in “continuall feare of danger and violent death”1 upon which I will focus on and critique in this essay. There are many reasons why many seem to regard Hobbes argument as the most accurate portrayal of a pre-civilised society, many believe it to be so straightforward and seemingly correct that to object it would be to ignore a necessary truth. Secondly, those who accept Hobbes’ view of a human nature that is so egotistical and unforgiving, would seemingly too agree to the assumption of a gloomy, unbearable state of nature. In this essay I shall argue that such opinions are not logically justified as Hobbes’s argument holds its foundations solidly in assumption alone, an assumption that was heavily moulded on his surroundings of a savage Civil War. Hobbes’s argument lies solely on the grounds that human beings are intrinsically wicked and self-centred beings an argument that cannot be completely validated and therefore cannot be a ‘necessary truth’. Yet despite holding such a bleak outlook on the human condition and its simple invalidity the work of Thomas Hobbes still shapes the political word today2 and it continues to impact our understanding of human nature and interactions. In order to justify my critique of Hobbes I will begin by presenting both his original argument and a brief view of some modern interpretations before cross examining their conclusions against that of other social contract theorist such as Locke and Rousseau as well as rational logic to present the argument that the state of nature is most certainly not a state of war of all against all.…

    • 3361 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    After analyzing how Locke and Hobbes understand the state of nature it is evident that they share many ideas but they also show essential differences in their ideas. Hobbes regards the state of nature as a state of war, in which natural law is established only after a process of reasoning. This process leads men to the conclusion that they must somehow find…

    • 397 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Locke’s’ piece, Of the State of Nature Chapter II, he emphasizes the positive views of human nature. Locke supports a no-government form of rule. He believes that man can rise above injustice and keep a fully functioning society without rule or as he puts it they can have “A State of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit…..” (Locke). If you give man the freedom to make his own decisions and choices he will make the correct ones. Freedom of choice is what is needed to keep a society intact and functioning, individuals in a society need to feel as if they are in charge of their own destiny. The natural rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are backed up by the notion of freedom and choice of…

    • 464 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    1ST PARAGRAPH - What did Locke think would happen without government? A State of Nature is a society without government or laws. Locke believed when men became overpopulated enough to the point where land becomes scarce, then men needed law beyond the natural law.…

    • 865 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Locke believes that before we form civil society by consenting to establish government, we live in a State of Nature. He describes this pre-political state as,...a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man. (Locke, 1980, p.81)The State of Nature is ruled essentially by human nature. Liberty, equality, self preservation, reason, and property are the most prominent principles that Locke feels are innate to humans. Locke explains how nature intended for all men to be equal,...creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same facilities should be equal amongst another... (Locke, 1980, p.8)Locke comes to the conclusion that humans are self preserving in the State of…

    • 4014 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    When it comes to State of Nature, Locke writes in his Two Treatises of Government,“...a state of perfect freedom of acting and disposing of their own possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature...The natural state is also one of equality in which all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal...” (Lonang Institute; State of Nature §4). Men are freely allowed to do whatever is necessary as long as there are justifications for their actions and to see that everyone around them is just as equal as themselves. Along with his State of Nature is Locke’s belief of Social Contact: “individuals in a state of nature would be bound morally, by the Law of Nature, not to harm each other in their lives or possession… individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a "neutral judge"...an impartial, objective agent of that self-defense, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner...”(Social Contract-Wikipedia). In other terms, man must form a government that they entrust their lives with by giving them support and power, and in return, the government must protect the people from hurting one another by being the objective factor in the justice system. Finally, in the State of Man, Locke claims that “at birth, the mind was a blank slate or “tabula rasa”... born without innate ideas, and that…

    • 1757 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Phil 103 Final

    • 1037 Words
    • 3 Pages

    1D. The state of nature is Hobbes’ description of what human beings lived like prior to the existence of a state or civilized society. In this existence, all humans were equal in that they all wanted to achieve their ultimate end and they all had the right to do what they thought necessary for survival…

    • 1037 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    It is a brutish and violent nature. In the absence of culture, arts, science, reading or writing, humans, possibly, are more related to animals, since animals also live in the state of nature, and who always fight for domination. This rather negative view is Hobbe’s main reason why there should be a government. There should be an authority to establish peace. In peace, numerous achievements can be obtained. In peace does humanity progress. It might be argued that Hobbes demands a despot, an autocracy. Still, is not that better than the state of nature? There might be many opposing arguments especially that of the anarchists, yet Hobbe’s examples might not be conquered because they are succinct and feasible. They are plausibly impregnable because they are factual, not idealist. Leviathan does convincingly argue, and this monster in the state of nature does devour…

    • 1395 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes' and Locke's writings center on the definition of the "state of nature" and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and "the state of nature", a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes' Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler's powers. The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists' discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke's description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of "peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation". Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which "teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions," are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke's Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful. At an undetermined point in the history of man, a people, while still in the state of nature, allowed one person to become their leader and judge over controversies. This was first the patriarch of a…

    • 3013 Words
    • 87 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Locke Vs Hobbes

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two of the great political theorists of their time. Both created great philosophical texts that help to describe the role of government in man’s life, as well as their views of man’s state of nature. Even though both men do have opposite views on many of their political arguments, the fact that they are able to structure their separate ideologies on the state of man in nature is the bond that connects them. Both men look toward the creation of civil order in order to protect not only the security of the individual, but also the security of the state.…

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes Vs Locke

    • 655 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Two of the most influential political philosopher and social contract theorists of all time, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both used ‘The State of Nature’ as a medium in order to understand the basic human nature and natural human rights in their writings. Both, then used their own understanding of the human nature in order to determine and justify the ideal form of government, its role and its powers. However, Locke and Hobbes reach markedly different conclusions. Hobbes argues that every man should concede all of his natural rights to the government and allow it to assume absolute power, while Locke argues that man is entitled to keep his natural rights and a government body is required only in order to protect those certain natural rights.…

    • 655 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The state of nature means to have no government and we have the rights to life, liberty, and property, which were given to everyone by God. There are three parts that make up the state of nature, which include the law of nature, state of equality, and state of liberty. John Locke first describes the state that every person was in. He says that we are all individuals, who are able to act and give away our belongings or ourselves without having to be under…

    • 1447 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The state of nature as one would say is a concept in social contract theories to represent the supposed condition in which the live of man may have possibly been like before the existence of societies. Two 17th century political philosopher, which have both given their views and ideas of what a state of nature is and what comes about after this occurrence, are Thomas Hobbes I and John Locke I. Both philosophers’ writings have been of a great influence to those in the following centuries in modern political thought. Hobbes…

    • 1160 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Human Nature

    • 1818 Words
    • 8 Pages

    In Thomas Hobbes state of nature all men are equal and are able to act freely for there is no formal government in place to curb human actions. However, with no government or superior power in place, there are no consequences for any actions that people perform. Hobbes believes that because man is naturally bad, when in his natural state he will act greedily and selfish. People will do as they please to satisfy their own needs and desires; including stealing from, or killing others. Hobbes classifies man’s natural state as being in a state of war; one in which men are all trying to kill one another for their own personal gains and survival. In this climate of chaos there are no structured goals, but what drives everyone is fear. The fear of not being able to eat will drive man to fight with one another for their food and nourishment. Then the fear of being attacked by someone and possibly killed will drive man to protect themselves by fighting people first. They will also fight others to set an example and hopefully scare off future potential threats. As a result of…

    • 1818 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays