Philosophy: The View of Human Nature
Locke’s view of human nature
There is much optimism concerning the state of human nature based on Locke’s theory. According to Locke, the guiding principles of human nature are the aspect of tolerance and reason. It defines that nature is pre-political and has no aspect of pre-morality (Vaughn, 2019). In such a state of affairs, humans are more conscious and can bind themselves to nature’s laws, and persons assume the principle of equality to one another. Locke’s view stipulates that the law of morality is based on morality and that morality is given to humankind by God (Vaughn, 2019). This law of morality prohibits humans from interfering with the health, liberty, and individual possessions of others. Since all humankind is ‘children’ of God and based on the fact that they cannot annul decisions made by god or take away anything that belongs to God, they are therefore prohibited from harming other humankind. Based on these, the state of nature is, therefore, one in which humankind enjoys absolute liberty and will, with the ability to pursue that which is noble to them without external interference or infringing on others. As such, based on the law of nature and the restrictions it imposes upon humankind, it is largely peaceful.
Hobbes’s view of human nature
Hobbes’s view postulates that the occurrence of social contract normally precedes the hypothetical state of nature, which is again ruled by the law of nature (Vaughn, 2019). He further describes the law of nature as that which prohibits humankind from terminating their own life or indulge in actions that would permit the loss of life in any way. Considering the passionate nature of human beings and the mechanistic understanding of mankind, Hobbes tries to give an insight into how the world and the life of humanity would be without a government in place. This he describes as the state of nature. In this particular state of nature, individuals would possess a right to everything in the world. However, this condition inevitably leads to conflict, which he terms as “war of all against all,” making the lives of humankind poor, nasty, solitary, and even short.
Additionally, all men are considered equal in terms of power and ability within the law of nature. Thus, contracts among individuals cannot be made without relative amounts of suspicions and doubts in the absence of a sovereign being. By defining the presence of a sovereign, Hobbes could be suggesting the power and ability compel, which definitely creates authority. However, there seems to exist no means a man can use to compel another person to heed to his commands apart from might, which is the criterion of order within the state of nature.
Difference between Locke’s view and Hobbes’ view of human nature
From the discussions above, one can clearly see that Locke and Hobbes are taking two completely different views regarding human nature. For instance, Hobbes is obsessed with the desire for the existence of a social order, which is the main reason why he prescribed a system that covers individuals. On the contrary, Locke was determined to preserve the holiness of individual liberty. This led him to incorrectly assume that upholding the sanctity of individual liberty would translate to an orderly society. He failed to realize that individuals drawing themselves together to form a society normally do so in order to prevent an unprecedented and ugly state of nature.
This from the discussion in this paper, I think that Hobbes’s view is more accurate because for the status quo to hold, some of the qualities and rights Locke proposed to man in his state of nature must be forfeited. Further, it reflects the state and condition on life in the contemporary society.
Reference
Vaughn, L. (2019). Philosophy Here and Now: Powerful Ideas in Everyday Life. Oxford
University Press