Who's take on the state of nature do you agree with more? Hobbes' claim that because men are essentially evil, they will eventually enter the state of war or Locke's claim that because men are essentially good, they understood the need for national cooperation?
I think that both of them are right. They may have concluded these statements because of what they see. If Hobbes claimed that because men are essentially evil, then they will eventually enter the state of war then he may be exposed to citizens who are not in a peaceful state. On the other hand, since Locke claimed that men are essentially good, this may mean that he sees the positive side of things. He sees that men are rational and are good, that they are able to live in cooperation and harmony with one another.
ReplyDeleteIn our state today, I think that both these statements are applicable. We have the capacity to work together as a harmonious community but sometimes, when things get out of hand chaos may occur.
ReplyDeleteThe key is to balance things so that hopefully, Hobbes' claim would not prove true.
We should all be optimistic and live like Locke thinking that everyone in the world is good and will cooperate with everyone! :D
ReplyDeleteOn a more serious note, I would have to say that life is more like Hobbes. Seriously, if the world was more like Locke, why would everyone be wishing for "World Peace" and what not. I'm not saying the world is completely evil, but I don't think the world is as good as Locke makes it sound where everyone cooperates. If the world right now were to be put into a state of nature, everyone would be chaotic doing what they have to do to get by.
Perhaps, it is similar to how Machiavelli used one form of government to hopefully get to another. Perhaps, if the world were put into a state of nature then people would first go into Hobbes worlds, where people are essentially evil. Then eventually, when they realize that nothing is getting done and the world is just getting worse with each passing minute, they may slide into how Locke viewed the world and then go into a social contract and become a society with government.
Then again I could be completely wrong and I just think in ideals where the world is perfect. Woo.
I'd like to make myself believe that men are essentially good as what Locke claims but with the world I've grown up, it is hard to do so.
ReplyDeleteI've come to a realization that man is by nature evil because of his pursuit of self interest. Well this may not be a very bad thing but how he does this is what's wrong. As Adam Smith stated in The Wealth of Nations, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." And this can even be considered good because if everyone pursues his self interest that can be equated to communal development. But the problem with this idea is it can only be possible if everyone has fair chances to enrich themselves, and at present, we clearly don't. There is a large gap between the rich and the poor, and this just continues to widen. Thus because of the unfair situation and the desire for advancement, man does every possible way to pursue his self interest even if this means having to harm his fellows. And even if man attains his initial goals, he doesn't stop at that, he continues aspiring for more and the cycle goes on. Men don't really get contented with what they have.
I think the characterization of the state of nature generally depends upon the nature of man.
ReplyDeleteLocke said that, while not everyone was perfectly good or perfectly cooperative, people still had an innate moral compass that told them the difference between what was right and what was wrong. Thus, in Locke’s state of nature, people knew what was good but sometimes didn’t practice it. So it was generally orderly. On the other hand, Hobbes said that people did not know what was right or wrong, what was theirs or what was someone else’s and that people were self-interested and greedy. Thus, Hobbe’s state of nature was a state of war or chaos where people fought for resources.
On this, I would have to side more with Locke. I think that people did know what was right and wrong. It is reasonable to say that primitive societies without a government still operated on socially-accepted rules based on ethics. The laws created by the government, which Hobbes said would put an end to the state of war, are also based upon people’s own perception about what is right and wrong. So I think the state of nature wasn’t totally chaotic; but I agree that some conflicts still arose from the fact that people were not totally good.
HOBBES WOULD AGREE THAT GOING TO WAR IS ON THE RULER'S PERCEPTION OF RIGHT AND WRONG. BUT FOR HIM IT IS BETTER TO HAVE ONE MAN (THE RULER) MAKING DECISIONS ON RIGHT AND WRONG AND IMPOSING THEM ON EVERYONE, THAN FOR EVERYONE TO MAKE SUCH DECISIONS == TIYAK NA MAGKAGULO KUNG LAHAT GUSTONG SILA ANG MASUSUNOD.
ReplyDeleteFN