Contrasting Views On Thomas Hobbes Philosophy Of Human Nature

Words: 1303
Pages: 6

There are many contrasting views on human nature, and whether or not we as a species are evil or good. A good human nature would mean complete selflessness. If the root of a human is altruistic and good, that human ultimately has to value the majority over himself. I define good human nature as the innate desire to help mankind and prioritize the needs of the many over individual self interest. If the core of humans is altruistic, then our species is motivated by compassion and love rather than greed. This would mean that humans instinctively put others above themselves. Sadly, this isn't the case. If humans valued one another equally, we wouldn't kill one another as casually as we do for profit, duty or pleasure. We would not steal, lie, rape or harm those around us in an attempt to satisfy our desires. We …show more content…
Thus, humans are born selfish and evil, and either learn to control their instincts through society's teaching of right and wrong or succumb to their impulses and face the consequential punishments. Thomas Hobbes' philosophy of the human condition states that humans are inherently evil. As a species we are driven to prioritize our wants and needs above the wants and needs of others to make our living experience easier and more pleasurable. This behavior is exemplified in infants, who are entirely self centered as a survival strategy. If they do not get the attention they need to survive, they will die, and because of this threat they don't take the wants and needs of others into consideration. They are narcissistic by instinct. Children demonstrate egoism perfectly, because they have to be taught goodness. If they were naturally good (which I define as an innate impulse to help mankind before yourself), feeling and expressing gratitude would come instinctively and not have to be reinforced by society.