The question of whether the nature of human beings is good or bad has been argued throughout humanity. Philosophers, for many years, have discussed and opposed each other on whether we are good in nature but corrupted by the world, or we are naturally evil, and society keeps us in check. Historically, the world has been divided into two groups based on the morality debate. Several theories explain human nature. This paper seeks to evaluate Jean Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes outstanding and opposing views about the nature of human beings.
Thomas Hobbes, as one of the Early Modern apocalypse “four horsemen,” helped in shaping a controversial but enduring link between scientific revolution and medieval stagnation. He paved the way for a secular, modern statehood that supported robust social contracts (Darat, 2017). In the Leviathan, Hobbes explains his views on the nature of human beings and subsequently describes an ideal government that suits his perspective. According to Thomas Hobbes, our actions and motives depend on internal biomechanical processes. No good or bad exists in a strictly natural condition. Evil and good depends on what a person loves and hates. Therefore, everyone has a right to take what is good for them and leave what is wrong. He also believed that human beings naturally have equal power in body and mind. Hence no person can indefinitely dominate others.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Hobbes claims that humans were created equally and naturally desire to live well. However, they can never be satisfied if they do not acquire more power. Besides, after obtaining power, people always develop a new desire for things like glory and fame, admiration from other people, and sensual pleasure. Since one person can be attracted to things that other people want, and all humans are equal, everyone has the capability of killing another person. Although one person can be stronger than the other, the weakness of the other person can be compensated by his intellectual ability or any other aspect. According to Hobbes, the nature of humanity causes one to seek power (Darat, 2017). He believes that having a similar desire creates enmity between human beings who attempt to kill each other (war). The three fundamental factors that lead to conflict in Hobbes's theory include glory, distrust, and competition. In all these three cases, people violently invade the territory of their enemies either for fame, safety, or personal gain.
Hobbes concludes by saying that common interests unite people. Without it, people will be at war for as long as there is a will to fight. The state of war is the natural human being state, and peace is artificial among people because it is based on agreement. A group of people that has a common interest or enemy can agree to be at peace and unite so that they become more powerful against those who want to destroy them (Darat, 2017). Lastly, Hobbes noted the interest in self-preservation that is consistent among human beings.
On the other hand, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s "The Emile to the Social Contract" presents Rousseau’s humanity vision. Rousseau intensely dislikes and disgusts the current state of man. Therefore, his humanity theory is reactive against modernity and society (Beattie, 2016). According to Beattie (2016), Jean believes that human beings are naturally innocent and at their best. However, the unnaturalness of civilization corrupts them. Typically, people entirely lived for themselves; they were content and possessed absolute independence. Rousseau believes that people were mostly isolated, had circumscribed, and minimal desires and the war was absent. People did not desire to acquire great possessions and were satisfied with their basic needs for survival. There was no extensive social interaction since people did not or minimally relied on other people. Despite this, there was indiscriminate general compassion and an unreflective sympathy towards each other that was not based on merits.
People in their natural state are compassionate and not egocentric. Rousseau believes that compassion for people who do not deserve and generally for humanity is the highest virtue. According to him, contempt among people is always wrong, and a vice that can hurt their feelings (Beattie, 2016). Since Rousseau does not want anyone’s feelings to be hurt, he feels that humans should have a decent society that has no place for comparison with others, the distinction of worth, criticism, judgment, and blame among humans. He claims that is it not right to recognize differences because this makes humans unequal. The essential thing to him was the good intentions of a person and not his outer appearances and achievements.
Jean’s theory proclaimed that people are naturally good, and the nature of one man is as good as the nature of another. A man can be good without virtue and effort because the natural state of man was wise, good, and free. Besides, the laws of nature were benevolent. However, civilization corrupted and enslaved people to make them artificial. Since people were naturally equal, it follows that civilization and culture brought about the current differentiation and distinction among people (Beattie, 2016). As a result, the corrupting impact of society has led to misconduct and evilness among people.
Between the two sides, I agree with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s view of human nature. Human beings are inherently good. People are born with the capability to differentiate between what is wrong and what is right. According to the research by Yale University, human beings are born with a natural sense of morality (Holton, 2018). Although society and parents assist in developing a belief system for children, they do not start from zero. Infants have a pre-cultural brain that has expectations about how others should act around them. They interpret motivational movements of shapes and also help motivations over hindrances. Therefore, human beings are tightly linked to their nature through the ability of infants to make sense of motives in the world and prefer friendly acts over evil ones. I believe adult morality is built upon this foundation.
However, this does not exempt people from acting selfishly and violently. Some philosophers misinterpret this by claiming that our nature is evil; for example, Thomas Hobbes claims people are naturally antagonistic and will live a violent life without having a strong government (Darat, 2017). They consider one perspective of violent acts and wars to show that people are evil. Therefore, these acts are confused with the nature of people. The fact that conflicts exist does not predispose us to violence. Alfie Kohn, an educational expert, stated that every society that has made pottery does not have a pottery-making gene (Darat, 2017). Therefore, although there are wars and violent acts among human beings, this does not mean that we are naturally evil and antagonistic. Although the debate on good and evil is endless, I believe human nature is good, but society corrupts it.
References
Beattie, P. (2016). Review Essay: The Battle over Human Nature, Coming to a Resolution. Political Psychology, 37 (1), 137–143.
Darat, G. Nicole. (2017). Hobbes as a Sociobiologist. Rethinking the State of (Human) Nature . Kriterion: Revista de Filosofía, 58 (136), 163.
Holton, R. (2018). The Good/Bad Asymmetry. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 35 (1), 26.
