In the natural law in the Leviathan, it is evident that Hobbes significantly differs from the traditional natural law theorists on this point. For instance, there is a significant difference between Hobbesian perception of human nature and the view that of St. Thomas Summa. In his account, Hobbes philosopher argues that people in the society do not have defined ends and they do not strive to achieve ends such as happiness because they continuously strive for more power (Hobbes, 2013). From this view, Hobbes argues that in the absence of a leader, human nature would be characterized by an increased level of fear and danger of violent death as people strive to achieve more power. However, St. Thomas differs from this view by arguing that people usually have calculated means and that they have well-established mechanisms designed to achieve natural ends such as happiness.
Regarding deciding g on the place of our reason in moral and ethical life, it is evident that there are significant differences among the philosophers. For instance, St. Thomas argues that people are naturally created with the reasoning for differentiating between what is right and wrong in their life. The rational part behind this argument is that God blessed such people with thinking and that people may live an ethical life without intervention by law. On the other hand, Aristotle argues that people need to undergo training in an attempt of creating a chance through which they acquire skills and traits required in ensuring that people understand ethical and moral characteristics that govern their interactions (Martens, 2016). This argument is closely related to the discussion by Hobbes which requires that people have the right to acquire whatever they need irrespective of whether it is moral, immoral, justice, or injustice. As a result, there is a need for ensuring that people in society usually have political leaders and law that can be applied to achieving what is right in society. Hobbes differs with Plato argument about the moral right in that Plato argues that people need to train through sciences, mathematics, and philosophy to understand what is right and wrong. In this case, what is required is to understand how goods such as friendship and pleasure can work together thus ignoring the existence of violence in the society.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In his work, Rousseau criticizes the argument by other philosophers regarding human nature. Most of the criticism regards the evidence St. Thomas that people blessed with moral reasoning and they make decisions by naturally differentiating what is right and wrong. This argument suggests that people can act rationally without the existence of government intervention which Rousseau disagrees significantly and recognizes the importance of government involvement in imparting moral values to human beings (Darwall, 2017). Rousseau has discovered that human nature is characterized by peace, but they violate such moral values with an objective of satisfying their interests. Hobbes appears to be right by arguing that human beings are naturally violent because they always violate laws even when they know that it is wrong to engage in such behaviors.
References
Darwall, S. (2017). The foundations of morality: virtue, law, and obligation. The Cambridge.
Hobbes, T. (2013). Elements of law, natural and political. Routledge.
Martens, S. B. (2016). The Invention of the Natural Man in Political Theory: Hobbes’s Leviathan. In The Americas in Early Modern Political Theory (pp. 69-93). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
