Preview

Hobbes vs Hume

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
999 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Hobbes vs Hume
Prathyusha Guduru

In the history of philosophy, two of the most prominent philosophers were Hobbes and Hume. Both made important contributions to the world of ethics. One of the main important things they differed on is reason. Hobbs felt that reason is way to seek peace but Hume felt the reason is only a slave to passions. In the following paragraphs, you will see how Hobbes and Hume explain their different views on reason the theories of the two philosophers are analyzed in depth, so that we can have a comprehensive understanding.

Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher published his masterwork, the Leviathan, in 1651. This book influenced western philosophy with its view on the Social Contract theory. A social contract theory is an act by which individuals agree to establish a government by the people who unite to achieve some goal. This contract importantly binds people into a community that exists for mutual protection and preservation. In this condition everyone is involved in making the contract together to gives up their rights. People who agree to the contract retain only those rights over others that they are content for everyone else to retain over them. In his moral psychology, one of the important areas discussed was the innate selfishness of humans. The theory of psychological egoism in which our actions are selfishly motivated held that some of our actions are caused by selfish desires even if an action seems selfless. If, for example, if somebody is volunteering at a local hospital or donating to charity it may have an underling selfish motive like to get references to get into med-school or to get rid of guilt respectively. Likewise, according to Hobbes “the true doctrine of the Laws of Nature is the true Moral philosophy” (pg 66). He says in his laws of nature that human beings live in a miserable state of nature and where everyone is at war with one another. When everybody is fighting, basic needs are not met. So we all should

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • 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

    Hobbes, on the contrary, believes that we have a very selfish nature and often do what is in our best interest, regardless of what we are told is right. Their philosophies can help to explain the novel by revealing the reasoning for some of the behaviors that the boys reveal and the actions that they demonstrate.…

    • 584 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Locke Vs Hobbes

    • 184 Words
    • 1 Page

    Throughout history, people have debated about what government is, and what is the purpose of it. Should the government dictate people's lives and tell them what to do? Should the government be permissive and just allow the people take care of themselves and not step in? Should there be an in between? Two very influential philosophers from the 17th century Enlightenment, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, are preeminent influences on how people see what a government is and what role it should take. They both were renowned influences in many governments, even to this day. Locke took the side that people are naturally good, and that they should rule themselves. While on the other hand, Hobbes said that humans are naturally brutish and evil,…

    • 184 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Hobbes vs Locke

    • 1466 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Both Hobbes and Locke shared similarities within their political theories; however their theories also had some major differences. Both men were responding to the crisis of the 17th century and they were highly influenced by the scientific revolution. Hobbes and Locke rejected all previous theories regarding human nature. They used the same methodology, and the men accepted an atomistic view of society. They believed that individuals were rational and were motivated by self-interest. Hobbes and Locke traced their theories from a state of nature to the social contract. They agreed that the legitimacy of the government rested on the consent of the governed. Together, both men rejected legitimate political authorities such as Divine Right of Kings, brute force, historical tradition, and feudal contracts. Both political philosophers offered interesting arguments pertaining to government, human nature, and the state of nature.…

    • 1466 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Locke vs Hobbes

    • 4270 Words
    • 18 Pages

    The concept of human security, which has had a crucial place in human's societal history, has been argued over by many great philosophers throughout mankind’s existence. Two pioneer thinkers of political philosophy, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, theorized state of nature typologies, which are the core of social contract theory, and created a concept of modern security, even in the 17th century. Hobbes created a contract entrusting absolute power to the sovereign, which thrived off of the individual's duty and responsibilities to the government. Contrary to Hobbes, Locke recognized the secure relationship between individuals' rights and liberties and the role of the sovereign. These two philosophers revolutionized liberal thinking in the height of the enlightenment age in which many philosophers questioned and argued over the relationship between the state and the individual. Hobbes and Locke, two brilliant thinkers, are notorious for being the founders of social contract liberalism. Before one can look at each philosopher’s social contract, we must first define what separated their thinking from the standard at that time, and what actually made them liberal thinkers. There had been one way of thinking in governmental rule for thousands of years which had been formed around the tyrannical ideals of hereditary privilege, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. These governmental ideals, which extremely lacked rights for the individual, had been spread all over the world for thousands of years and throughout many empires. What made Locke and Hobbes such liberal thinkers, was their ideas of a mutual relationship between the individual and the state. This was a mutual contract in which both parties had an agreement where they could coincide, benefit, and enforce the liberal ideals of liberty, equality, and justice. Now one must dive into both philosophers proposed social contract, to get a…

    • 4270 Words
    • 18 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Locke vs Hobbes

    • 395 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Locke believed that, “human behavior came from thought which was learned and subject to the influence of reason and observation.” Locke’s main ideas were positive to the human race. He also states that humans know right from wrong, and they are intelligent enough to solve the problems in front of them and realizing what is lawful and unlawful. Locke believed, “God created man and we were, in effect, God’s property.”…

    • 395 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes contribution was the suggestion that the social order was made by human beings and therefore could be changed by human beings. Hobbes looked on the individual as selfish, concerned with self-preservation, searching for power, and (potentially at least) at war with others. For Hobbes, in the state of nature, there was a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short. Since individuals are rational, they agree to surrender their individual rights to the sovereign in order to create a state whereby they can be protected from other individuals. Locke and Rousseau further developed this idea of a social contract, although in a somewhat different form than Hobbes.…

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes, a British philosopher also known as an egoist due to his belief of what he thought of humans. Hobbes has the belief, "that humans are selfish by nature and only come into some form of civil agreement because we fear what might happen to each other if we were free to indulge our selfish instincts." The meaning behind Hobbes State of Nature is stated, "If you take away that authority, then you take away all incentive to be good". In other words, Hobbes' has the belief that we as people have questionable or to no responsibility and selflessness about our own selves to conduct peace or civility without authority. As to what Hobbes stated about selfishness I do agree, because in today's society and well before our day and age which I am sure it still existed, that…

    • 645 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hobbes VS Locke

    • 273 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Lastly, I believe that the stance and role of government was the biggest difference in the philosophies of Hobbes and Locke. While Locke believed that the government’s job should be to protect the rights of the people and could be overthrown, Hobbes’ view was the complete opposite that government should never give up power, and was only there to protect peace and security, not the rights of the people.…

    • 273 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Locke Vs Hobbes

    • 508 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two of the greatest political and philosophical thinkers of their time and ours. Ideas like these have shaped governments throughout history and still hold true today. They had extremely different views on government, but the bases of their arguments were similar. They used reason to justify their ideas, rather than divine right. Although both men acknowledged that there was a God, He played a very small part in their ideologies. The philosophers each had an impact on the world. John Locke’s ideas influenced the United States Declaration of Independence, Federalist papers, and the Constitution. Thomas Hobbes’s ideas refuted England’s parliament. Hobbes and Locke agreed that some type of ruler would be necessary,…

    • 508 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    hobbes and kant

    • 1500 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Hobbes was a different kind of philosopher that had a very pessimistic view on humanity. In Hobbes’ book the Leviathan, he believed that humans were naturally nasty creatures and needed to be regulated in a society. For Hobbes one thing he also believed in was Utilitarianism, which is the desire for pleasure that drives our actions, basically, the most useful choice for your benefit. Hobbes had a theory that was called “the state of nature”, which in the eyes of Hobbes was life for humans before any kind of laws or governments. He says that the state of nature is a violent place with no lows. In the state of nature there is no business, no account of time, buildings, and there is always danger around the corner. For Hobbes the “state of nature” was a savage place that could only be fixed by laws, there is only peace when there is no war and no war is a place with laws. Hobbes came to the conclusion that humans cant live in groups without law. Hobbes was…

    • 1500 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    From this becomes the laws of nature which by Hobbes’ definition are, “found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do…” (Leviathan, Ch. XIV). The first natural law states that we must seek peace and try to follow it and the second natural law states that “That a man be willing, when others are so too, as far-forth, as for Peace, and defense of himself, he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself.” (Leviathan, Ch. XIV). In the second law of nature a social contract is created, so that individuals can escape a state of natural war. In other words, a social contract is constructed when individuals agree to give up their personal rights in exchange for a sense of security and is the basis of the notion of moral obligation.…

    • 732 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    this means that knowing and doing everything and only that which defends and promotes the own well-being, such as satisfaction, best interest, happiness, the greatest good, a good of indifference to others or when faced with this and worry more for the sake of himself rather than for the sake of others. Following the theory of Hobbes, it may be impossible to resolve conflicts of interest. An ethical theory is asked to provide guidance to live, which includes living with other people, and therefore solving interpersonal conflicts. If each agent does what it most benefits him, then when a conflict approaches and each defends his interests, the agents will do the right thing for their own benefit, but the conflict will not be resolved. Selfishness, rather than solving, will seem to despite its appeal to rationality and self-interest, will end up…

    • 937 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    social contract theory

    • 3565 Words
    • 15 Pages

    He was born into a time of violence when the civil war broke out in England between the royalists, who supported the king and the Protestants, who supported the parliament. Hobbes was a robust supporter of monarchy and in my opinion the fear of death was the centralized assumption behind all his theories. But in order to gain a clearer understanding of Hobbes’s theory it is essential to turn to another revolution- the scientific revolution. It emphasized on the extraction of knowledge from observation and experimentation by understanding the world from an empirical point of view.…

    • 3565 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Good Essays