Philosophy about Human Nature
Human nature is the behavior of human beings that denotes their actions, thinking, and feeling. Certain philosophers attempted to explain human nature from its roots effectively. Some of the philosophers include John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. The paper will discuss their perceptions of human nature, comparisons, and the accurate theory of the two.
Locke’s view on human behavior connects the character that humans portray to nature. His works argue that our rules bound within nature guide and govern our activities. He states that all humans who want to consult the law of nature should not cause harm to each other, whether in possession, health, life, or liberty, because all people are independent and equal. Moreover, everyone mutually understands the basic nature rules; thus, acting on them is varied on will.
He advocates that despite nature giving humans equality and freedom, there are laws that protect human life and property. The laws come from the natural sense of reason where an individual contemplates to do good rather than evil. Moreover, people can differentiate what is good from what is evil.
Hobbes view human nature as a relentless pursuant of self-interest such that they welcome pleasure and avoid pain, thus good is what people find to give them pleasure, and evil is what they find painful. According to him, the defining principle of all human action is the constant mediation between the emotions of fear and hope. Human beings want to have as much power and good as they would like. Unfortunately, there are no laws that prevent them from harming or killing the other to obtain their desire. As a result, people live in a world of constant worry as they do not know who will turn their backs in them. Thus, the only option they have us to keep peace with each other to survive. It is the law of nature that fosters coexistence of humans.
Some of the propositions that Hobbes makes about human nature include appetite. He says that everyone has a different level of appetite. Some people will have innate-like food; others derive appetite from experience. Moreover, it changes over time; thus, there is no level of uniformity in classifying people in terms of riches and power (Clarke, n.p).
Similarity
Locke and Hobbes use nature to describe human behavior. They use it as a possible condition to show the different causes that influence their action. Moreover, they value social contracts in human beings, which help in the formation if political bodies.
Differences
Locke views nature’s laws as moral rules, while Hobbes sees them as appetite. Locke states that it is nature’s laws which guide and govern people’s behavior. As such, it becomes natural and mutual for people to understand the laws of nature and treat each equally. They can differentiate what is morally right and wrong and choose to do the right thing (Schouls 177). On the other hand, Hobbes perceives nature as the behavior of humans to pursue what is beneficial to them and avoid negative things. He states that people follow their passions, meaning they will often act according to what is a pleasure to them. Thus there are no laws that govern morality since they are incapable of determining what is correct and that which is wrong.
Additionally, Hobbes believes equality in nature promotes hostility, while Locke believes it promotes peace. Locke insists on the equality of human beings, where nature creates a free and equal environment for everyone to thrive. Moreover, its laws make people treat each other fairly as subordinates. Thus, differences between people are insignificant and promote harmony. However, Hobbes believes that the equality which nature advocates for creates hostility. People on the same level who pursue the same desire end up enemies if both or either fails to attain it. It is because they will destroy each other. Thus it creates a world of superiority with a huge inequality gap among men and fosters hostility (Baumgold 217).
In my view, Locke’s approach is more accurate. It is because every human has a deep contemplation that tells what they do is either right or wrong. That inner conviction guides our actions of what we need to do. It is a natural law that evaluates human behavior. However, as humans grow, they learn desires which can change their character as adults. Despite the change, every person knows deep inside what is morally right to do (Rapaczynski 168).
In conclusion, Locke and Hobbes are philosophers who aim to explain human nature using nature itself. The two seem to have thus commonality; however, they differ in various aspects. Some of the comparisons include Locke, viewing the law of nature as morally correct, while Hobbes was viewing it as an appetite full of human desires. Moreover, Locke believes equality in nature promotes peace, while Hobbes believes it fosters hostility. According to my stand, Locke’s theory is more accurate because humans are naturally inclined to differentiate what is right from wrong.
Works Cited
Baumgold, Deborah. “12 Hobbes.” Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present (2017): 214.
Clarke, Antoine. HOBBES’S THEORY OF HUMAN NATURE: A WARNING TO LIBERTARIANS. 2015: n.p. Retrieved from http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn035.pdf
Rapaczynski, Andrzej. Nature and politics: Liberalism in the philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Cornell University Press, 2019.
Schouls, Peter A. Reasoned freedom: John Locke and enlightenment. Cornell University Press, 2018.