The Age of Enlightenment brought about a new wave of philosophical thought, with influential thinkers expressing contrasting views on human nature and the role of government.
Some believed that humans were inherently selfish and violent, while others saw them as cooperative and reasonable.
In this article, we will explore the different theories related to human nature that emerged during this time period. Join us as we delve into the contrasting perspectives of two prominent philosophers and their views on the natural state of human beings.
How Did Thomas Hobbes And John Locke View Human Nature
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two influential philosophers who had very different views on human nature. Hobbes believed that people were naturally selfish and violent, while Locke believed that people were naturally cooperative and reasonable.
Hobbes argued that people lived in a constant state of fear and always acted in their own self-interest. He believed that without a strong central authority, life would be “nasty, brutish and short”. In contrast, Locke believed that people had basic morals that would guide their behavior. He argued that people were naturally good and did not need a strong central authority to govern them.
Hobbes believed that the natural state of mankind was a state of war of one man against another, as man is selfish and brutish. He thought that the only way out of this “state of nature” was through a social contract, where people agreed to be governed by a strong central authority. Hobbes believed that the ideal form of government was an absolute monarchy with maximum authority.
Locke, on the other hand, believed that the natural condition of mankind was a “state of nature” characterized by human freedom and equality. He argued that people voluntarily give government some of their power through a social contract in order to protect their “natural rights” of life, liberty, and property. If a government fails to protect these rights or breaks the social contract, the people are entitled to rebel against the government and create a new one.
Locke claimed that human life in the state of nature was characterized by reason, equality, and justice. He claimed that society leads to corruption, injustice, and inequality, not man’s inherently depraved nature.
Introduction To The Age Of Enlightenment And Philosophical Thought
The Age of Enlightenment was a period of intellectual and philosophical growth that occurred in Europe during the 18th century. Enlightenment thinkers sought to challenge traditional beliefs and promote reason, science, and individualism. The ideas of the Enlightenment had a profound impact on political philosophy, including the works of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
Enlightenment thinkers believed that humans had the ability to think for themselves and were not bound by tradition or authority. They promoted the idea of natural rights, which included the right to life, liberty, and property. These ideas were reflected in the works of Hobbes and Locke, who both believed in the importance of social contracts between citizens and their government.
Hobbes believed that absolute monarchy was the most effective form of government because it provided strong central authority and prevented chaos. Locke, on the other hand, believed that government should be based on the consent of the governed and should protect individual rights.
The Enlightenment also promoted scientific inquiry and experimentation. This approach to knowledge influenced Locke’s belief in reason and tolerance as fundamental human characteristics. He argued that humans were capable of creating a civil society that resolved conflicts in a peaceful and just manner.
Theories On Human Nature During The Enlightenment
The Enlightenment was a period of great intellectual and philosophical activity in Europe during the 18th century. It was characterized by a renewed interest in reason, science, and individualism. During this time, many influential thinkers, including Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, developed contrasting views on human nature.
Hobbes believed that people were naturally selfish and violent. He argued that without a strong central authority to govern them, life would be “nasty, brutish and short”. In his famous work Leviathan, Hobbes stated that people lived in a constant state of fear and always acted in their own self-interest. He believed that people were naturally greedy and violent with a complete lack of morals.
Locke, on the other hand, had a much more positive view of human nature. He believed that people were naturally cooperative and reasonable. He argued that people had basic morals that would guide their behavior. In fact, he believed that people were naturally good and did not need a strong central authority to govern them.
Locke’s theory of government was based on the idea of a social contract between the people and the government. He believed that people voluntarily give government some of their power through this contract in order to protect their “natural rights” of life, liberty, and property. If a government fails to protect these rights or breaks the social contract, the people are entitled to rebel against the government and create a new one.
Thomas Hobbes And His View On Human Nature
Thomas Hobbes believed that human nature was essentially selfish and violent. He argued that people were in a constant state of fear and always acted in their own self-interest. According to Hobbes, the natural state of mankind was a state of war of one man against another, where life was “nasty, brutish and short”. He believed that the only way to escape this “state of nature” was through a social contract, where people agreed to be governed by a strong central authority.
Hobbes believed that people were naturally brutish and selfish, and that they would always act in their own self-interest. He argued that without a strong central authority, society would be characterized by chaos and violence. In Hobbes’ view, the ideal form of government was an absolute monarchy with maximum authority.
Hobbes’ view on human nature had a significant influence on modern-day moral philosophy. His belief in the need for a strong central authority to control human behavior has been used to justify authoritarian regimes throughout history. However, his view has also been criticized for its pessimism and its failure to recognize the potential for cooperation and collaboration among people.
John Locke And His View On Human Nature
John Locke had a much more positive view of human nature compared to Hobbes. He believed that people were naturally cooperative and reasonable, and if given the opportunity, would work well with each other towards a common goal. Locke did not agree with Hobbes’ idea of a strong central authority and argued that people had basic morals that would guide their behavior.
Locke believed that the natural state of mankind was characterized by reason and tolerance. He assumed that the sole right to defend in the state of nature was not enough, so people established a civil society to resolve conflicts in a civil way with help from the government in a state of society. Locke’s conception of natural rights is captured in his best known statement that individuals have a right to protect their “life, health, liberty, or possessions” and in his belief that the natural right to property is derived from labor.
Locke’s idea that the rights to life, liberty, and property are natural rights that precede the establishment of civil society influenced the American Revolution and modern liberalism more generally. However, there is an ongoing debate among scholars over the disparities between Locke’s philosophical arguments and his personal involvement in the slave trade and slavery in North American colonies, and over whether his writings provide justification for slavery.
Comparing And Contrasting Hobbes And Locke’s Perspectives
Comparing and contrasting Hobbes and Locke’s perspectives on human nature reveals a stark contrast in their beliefs. Hobbes believed that people were naturally selfish and violent, while Locke believed that people were naturally cooperative and reasonable. Hobbes argued that the natural state of mankind was a state of war of one man against another, while Locke claimed that human life in the state of nature was characterized by reason, equality, and justice.
Hobbes believed that the only way out of the “state of nature” was through a social contract, where people agreed to be governed by a strong central authority. He believed that the ideal form of government was an absolute monarchy with maximum authority. In contrast, Locke argued that people voluntarily give government some of their power through a social contract in order to protect their “natural rights” of life, liberty, and property. If a government fails to protect these rights or breaks the social contract, the people are entitled to rebel against the government and create a new one.
Implications Of Their Views On Government And Society
The views of Hobbes and Locke on human nature have significant implications for their views on government and society. Hobbes believed that a strong central authority was necessary to prevent chaos and ensure the safety and security of individuals. He believed that an absolute monarchy was the ideal form of government, as it provided maximum authority to enforce order and prevent conflict.
In contrast, Locke believed in a more limited government that protected individual rights and freedoms. He argued that the purpose of government was to protect the natural rights of individuals, including life, liberty, and property. If a government failed to do so, the people had the right to overthrow it and establish a new one.
The differing views of Hobbes and Locke also have implications for their views on society. Hobbes believed that individuals were inherently selfish and violent, and that society could only function through a strong central authority. In contrast, Locke believed that individuals were inherently good and capable of reason, and that society could function without a strong central authority as long as individual rights were protected.
Overall, the views of Hobbes and Locke on human nature had significant implications for their views on government and society. While Hobbes believed in a strong central authority to prevent chaos, Locke believed in limited government that protected individual rights and freedoms. These differing views continue to influence political philosophy today.
