Humans seem to have complexly rooted motivations and interests that can sometimes not be explained. My mind instantly travels to horrible occurrences in history such as the Holocaust. Most people stood by and did nothing to help those being persecuted, which would seem to support Hobbes' idea that humans are innately self- interested above all else. It was in the interest of their personal safety to not stand up and say anything. However, I think this is too simplistic an answer for the reason why, because it does not account for the extremes. How can Hobbes' theory on human nature account for the people who did stand up and try to help others, while risking their own lives? How can his theory account for those who were remorseful, and felt deeply ashamed of their part in the atrocities?
People often do things that endanger their own safety or standard of living for others, which makes me want to believe there is something more inside of each of us, some kind of moral being like Locke suggests. However, the cynical side of me sees that when analyzing most relationships and deeds you can find at least a flicker of personal benefit for whoever is partaking. Human nature is not easy to decipher, especially in light of scientific and psychological research over the varying affects of genes and environment. I choose to believe that neither Hobbes nor Locke is completely correct, and that there is room for both ideas when trying to decipher the very nature of human beings.
I agree that this subject is very difficult to decide upon. It seems that Hobbes and Locke, when referring to human nature, are talking about life without the structures of a society. It may be that we are unable to comprehend how human nature would actually behave, because we have not experienced a society that doesn't have some sort of community structure. I have no idea whether human nature is innately good, or bad. I would hope that in the absence of the social contract, we would be able to act as morally good beings. However, the more likely answer and the one that is scary to think about is that we may only be concerned with the survival of ourselves. When the laws of society no longer exist, the answer to survival, may be every man for himself.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that neither Hobbes nor Locke is completely correct because once we decide on either of them, there will always be exceptional. However, I still think there are chances that both of them can be true. If we come to the topic of faith we discuss in the other day, we will see that faith leads us to all noble and moral things. So once you have faith in you, you are moral. In this way, even if people do things out of self interest, they still have a reason to do so---their faiths. And faiths here can be not only in God but something else as well. In terms of this, I find it hard to believe that when the laws of society no longer exist, the answer to survival may be every man for himself. Because I guess people will at least care about people and things related closely with them such as their parents. And it is their faiths in them that drive them to do so. So personally, I would prefer the survival of people and things I love to the survival of only myself.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy your examples supporting both Locke and Hobbes and your conclusion that neither is completely right, yet questions about each have been popping in my head ever since I read this. In the case of giving your life up for someone else, I have been constantly struggling with whether or not I could honestly give my life for someone if they were to never know. I'm not a fan of pop-culture references but the end of Donnie Darko keeps popping in my head, and while I feel confident that I would give up my life for a certain person or cause, I just don't know if I could bring myself to do it without some recognition. I don't feel like many,if any, would. I know it is selfish, but I've always leaned toward Hobbes. Furthermore, in the account of the remorse of the Nazis taking part in the Holocaust, the fact that it was only when they were held accountable and the situation was no longer in their self-interest that they began to "feel sorry" leads me to draw a blank on any example that would convince me that Hobbes isn't completely right. It is a sad day for my world view.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can easily understand your lack of belief in sacrifice without recognition, I feel like it is almost unfair to agree with Hobbes. While this certainly would not pertain to everyone, I don't think that there is any shortage of individuals who would sacrifice themselves for others without any recognition. The problem with this argument lies in the extreme shortage of examples, for anyone who did sacrifice him or herself in this manner would not be well known enough to serve as an example. So, while a majority of individuals faced with this decision would probably choose not to sacrifice themselves, I almost want to say that it isn't possible to conclude that a select few would or would not sacrifice themselves knowing that they would not receive recognition.
ReplyDelete