Morality : The Basis Of Morality

Hobbes’ theory on the state of nature is based on the concept of individualism: that the individuals who comprise society are the only factors to be considered when analyzing it. Consequently, Hobbes claimed that men are all selfish and simply concerned with themselves, regardless of the damage that their actions cause to others. This behavior would result in divergence, and ultimately lead to a ‘State of War’ between men.

Major aspects to Hobbes’s image of human nature firstly entails what is motivating human beings to act and secondly is the human powers of judgment and reasoning. Hobbes believes that human judgment is unreliable as it tends to be differentiated by self-interest, as well as through the pleasure and pains of the scenario (Hobbes). Hobbes believed that men are greatly concerned with what others portray about them, or they are inflamed by religious doctrine or carried away by others’ inflammatory words. He claims that we are supposed to tackle what it pertains in our interest to do, as

Hobbes believes that in the state of nature, man has no power to control others, and because of this, everyone is aggressive towards one another, as no one can trust another. Because of this, social order is necessary to give man incentive towards cooperation and trust, by selling your individual rights to freedom in order to gain social rights of security and safety. The role of the social order is to combat man’s aggressiveness, man’s power to hurt one another and direct this towards positive social ends instead of destructive.

Thomas Hobbes then begins to explain that what any one man has another may take at will. Some men take pleasure in the conquest of what belongs to another and will take more than they need, while others are content with the bare essentials. Hobbes states that, because it is in man's nature to increase his own power it should be “allowed.” Hobbes states that there are three causes for quarrels between men, the first being competition and the want for man to gain from another through violence. The second is diffidence, or a lack of confidence in one’s own ability of worth which in turn causes men to fight for safety, perhaps to distract another from his insecurities. The third is for the sake of glory, or to secure his reputation. Thomas Hobbes says that, because all men have a natural animalistic inclination to fight for what we want and believe we deserve, a “common power”, a government or hierarchy of some sort, is vital to maintaining a semblance of peace. Hobbes muses that, without security outside of us there will be no industry or commodities, no modern comforts, no society. Without someone to lord over us in some way our future will be one of “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short…” (pg. 48). And, while we enjoy the

Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to connect the philosophical commitments to politics. He offers a distinctive definition to what man needs in life which is a successful means to a conclusion. He eloquently defines the social contract of man after defining the intentions of man. This paper will account for why Hobbes felt that man was inherently empowered to preserve life through all means necessary, and how he creates an authorization for an absolute sovereign authority to help keep peace and preserve life. Hobbes first defines the nature of man. Inherently man is evil. He will do whatever is morally permissible to self preservation. This definition helps us understand the argument of why Hobbes was pessimistic of man, and

In order to analyze Hobbes’s work of moral and political philosophy, one must first understand his view of human nature. Hobbes’s was greatly influenced by the scientific revolution of the early 17th century, and by the civil unrest and civil war in England while he wrote. Hobbes views the nature of man as being governed by the same laws of nature described by Galileo and refined by Newton .He writes in Leviathan “And as we see in the water, though the wind cease, the waves give not over rowling (rolling) for a long time after; so also it happeneth in that mation, which is made in the internall parts of a man” . From this, he concludes that man is in a constant state of motion. Being at rest is not the natural state of man, but rather a rarity.

He argues that each individual has a subjective moral code that is derived from their own personal desires. Rather then individuals adhering to a similar notion of justice based on consensus and rationality, they will construe their moral values to align with their passion. As individual morality is relative to their own desires this is bound to create a sense of anarchy and conflict within a society that lacks a state as man’s passions are able to run wild. Hobbs in combining this individualistic morality along with the general conclusion regarding the rule of nature, highlights that their will inevitably be conflict the demand for resources by humans will continuously outweigh the necessary supply. . As humans are guided by their own virtues which is based on passion rather then rationality, there idea of what defines self preservation are misconstrued. Therefore their is a substantial incompatible imbalance between these two notions as an individual is able to justify any decision (killing another person) on the basis of achieving his own desires. This mindset of Hobbes is further compounded when reviewing the context of the author, who developed his concepts during a time of great civil

Further, he aims to convey the notion that all men, by design, love liberty and dominion over others. Hobbes proposes the only way to protect the liberties of all is for the people to follow a contract (covenant), however the sole way to ensure the covenant works is to instill some sort of terror of power -- causing a reflex to stray away from our “natural passions.” This seems to be his reason for the need of a sovereign, or form of government. Moreover, he then describes the rights of the sovereign and begins to play with Aristotle's analogy about bees, like humans, being political creatures. Evidently in disagreement with Aristotle, Hobbes mentions six reasons (Leviathan, 331-332), as to why the realm of politics is complex when it comes to dealing with humans; firstly, men are continually in competition for honor and dignity; secondly, for man, joy is consistent in comparing himself with other men; thirdly, many men think themselves wise enough to govern the public better than the rest, leading to civil war; fourthly, man has the ability to represent others, whether that be of good or evil; fifthly, man is most troublesome when she is at most ease; and lastly, that of man, is by covenant only, therefore it is a requirement to ensure their agreement is constant and lasting. These concepts are

Hobbes observed that, while one man may hold an advantage in one area of his life, the next man will be better suited in another. In this way, all men are equal when looking at his existence in it’s entirety. Similarly, Locke describes that in the state of nature, men are “all equal and independent… for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker” (3). Although their reasoning is distinctive, the argument of equality is consistent. Additionally, both Hobbes and Locke speak to the dangers of the state of nature. Hobbes claims that, arising from this equality in “ability”, there is an equality of hoping to attain similar items, “and therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (1). According to Hobbes, as long as man is in a state of nature, he is in a state of war. Likewise, Locke speaks to dangers in that, “if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he had done, every one may do so…. And this in the state of nature on man comes by a power over another” (4). This, Locke claims, leads to a state of war. All in all,

The paper will begin with demonstrating the common ground between Hobbes' and Hutcheson's moral systems: moral anti-rationalism. Both thinkers are committed to the notion that virtue is not based upon any form of abstract reasoning. Rather, both thinkers are of the perspective that virtue is more of an emotional issue. Both thinkers, quickly reject any notion of scholastic metaphysics informing morality and are not committed to a eudemonistic account of morality as "final cause". For both thinkers, there is an explicit rejection of the scholastic notion of "rational nature"; "reasons for acting" are much more likely to be reduced to motivations for action rather than some kind of reference to an abstracted notion of a human being. Morally speaking, these motivators are the moral emotions of shame, benevolence and most notably sympathy. The paper will argue that both thinkers ultimately come from this antimetaphysical, psychologistc view of morality.

To begin, there are a few terms and concepts brought forward in Hobbes piece that I will define now. The first being “egoist,” an egoist is someone whose sole goal or ultimate end is their own happiness. Psychological egoism is a slight variation of this idea, in that everyone does act egoistically, because it is our human nature. The next term, “sovereign,” is an authoritative ruler of state, one who uses fear to enforce contracts. The “Right of Nature,” Hobbes defines is the right someone may invoke if their is danger presented that harms their lives. The most important thing to an egoist is staying alive, therefore Hobbes implements the “Right

In the Leviathan, Hobbes systematically tackles the topic of human nature and it’s relation to a centralized political power. In doing so, he effectively replies to the question of why man cannot live sociably in a stateless condition like other social creatures. Hobbes’ most effective reply to the objection is man’s use of reason in the state of nature. He thoroughly illustrates reason’s role as a stimulant and solution to the state of war. Firstly, I will examine reason’s contributions to the state of war as it promotes competition, diffidence, glory and self-assurance. Secondly, I will dissect reason’s role as a solution in directing man towards the law of nature. Lastly, I will present the strengths of Hobbes’ argument and it’s fallibility due to his radical assumption of equality.

Hobbes believes in psychological egoism, the idea of giving priority to your own interest. He believes humans want to preserve and prosper only themselves and human nature brought out an animal nature. This nature meant humans would act in his/her own self interest, without the regards to other humans. The result of this was “state of war” ultimately meant nothing is unjust. Since humans are so indulged in themselves, we cannot live peacefully together without order.

Hobbes welcomes us to consider what life would be similar to in a condition of nature, that is, a condition without government. Perhaps we would envision that individuals may charge best in such a state, where each chooses for herself the right direct, and is judge, jury and killer in her own particular case at whatever point verbal showdown create—and that at any rate, this state is the suitable illustration against which to judge the legitimacy of political outlines. Hobbes terms this circumstance "the state of direct nature", a condition of famously private judgment, in which there is no relationship with saw vitality to official common contention and productive imperativeness to support its choices.

In the previous chapters of the book, Thomas Hobbes describes the state of nature in which men, driven by appetites and aversions, are constantly in a state of competition and conflict with one another. Because there are limited resources like food and shelter and people have a desire for the same end, there is no peace or unity in society. Every man must fend for himself in this individualistic, power struggle. The combination of finite resources, mistrust of other men, and equality of power in the state of nature, an unending state of conflict arises in which "the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (Hobbes, 125 sect.9).”