Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war. This constant state of war is what Hobbes believes to be man’s original state of nature. According to Hobbes, man cannot be trusted in the state of nature. Limits must be put on freedom and inalienable rights. Hobbs believed that if man had complete freedom it would result in chaos.
He also shows men as incapable of conserving or prolonging their life without living under a ruling body, “augmentation of dominion over men being necessary to a man's conservation, it ought to be allowed him.” It is evident that both Machiavelli and Hobbes’ views of man greatly influence the way they think that man should be controlled. Machiavelli believes that man should be lead by a ruler who is manipulative and inspires fear
Locke stated that people were naturally good but Thomas Hobbes had a negative view towards human nature. Hobbes sees man as being evil. In his principal work, ‘Leviathan’ Hobbes believes that, “people are innately selfish and grasping.” Hobbes believes that ethical concepts such as good or bad or ideas of good or evil doesn’t exist in the state of nature. He thinks that mankind can use any power essential to protect him and his surrounding for good. Hobbes named this condition as ‘war’ which also meant that every man is enemy to every man.
For Hobbes, ethics is only something that comes with politics, and politics is rooted in selfishness and the desire for self-preservation. Hobbes viewed human nature as shown in the state of nature was that men have a natural tendency to be selfish and will hurt anyone to get what they want. That is why the social contract is formed, because of this continuous fear of death, that at any moment you could be killed. Hobbes and Orwell contrast each other. Orwell said humans will perpetually be at war because of a strong, centralised authority as in 'big brother is watching you'.
Hobbes view man as being generally evil, unlike Locke who viewed man being good. But they both agree that under the natural law men are all equal, no one has more power than another. However their idea about natural law is different. Thomas Hobbes says in the state of nature is a state of war which everyone is the enemy of everyone. Locke viewed the state of nature as a state of equality and freedom.
Conservatives have a pessimistic view of human nature, some would even agree with Hobbes view that the desire for “power after power” is the primary human urge. Two we are intellectually imperfect conservatives traditionally believe that the world is simply too complicated for human reason to fully grasp this leads them to trust in tradition as it is “Tried and tested” and it also explains there argument for letting society grow organically as conservatives would prefer to trust in nature then our own rationality this contrasts with both socialism and liberalism. Finally they believe we are psychologically imperfect conservatives believe we are security seeking, we fear isolation and instability and desire the security and belonging of “knowing are place” this is used as the argument for conservatives supporting social order as they accept Hobbes theory of a “Social contract” that individuals are willing to sacrifice liberty for the cause of social order. It is clear that traditionally conservatives strongly believed in human imperfection but too what extent the different strands of conservatism support this core principle differs. Strands that believe in the Human imperfection completely are traditional conservatives, authoritarian conservatives and paternalistic
The colonies received the bad end of the deal and were only being used for profit. Paine also suggested there be a distinction between society and government, making an even balance between the two so one does not overpower the other. Paine was against the ideal of a monarchy. He believed that all men are equal at creation and therefore the power difference between kings and their subjects should not exist. He believes the powers of the king should be sufficiently limited to prevent tyranny.
BladeHow does a comparative study of Frankenstein and Blade Runner bring to the fore ideas about the consequences of the desire for power? While values may change, mans humanity is epitomized by strong moral integrity, abetting a sense of empathy, and a connection to the natural. An inevitable conflict is created between the rhythms of nature and the exploitative nature of civilization, that being the obsessive desire for knowledge and power. Within this conflict, man is corrupted through his loss of empathy and morality, hence losing his humanity. The texts Blade Runner by Ridley Scott and Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, accentuate the notion that humanity’s moral constructs are the cornerstone to having a sense of humanity, and assert the centrality of humanity’s integral connection with the natural world.
Correspondingly, he implies that the people who continue to practice poverty only do so in an obsession to uphold subordinate religious morals. With this in mind, Undershaft takes it upon himself to maintain his wealth as a justifiable attempt to prevent poverty from casting a grim shadow upon society. His cause is achieved through means not only by the manipulation of the working class, but also through exploiting man’s inherent need to war over morality and religion. Undershaft’s complete faith in the creation and power of weaponry only proves the fallacy in believing that God
Alex is a mix of the most vile trouble and irresistible appeal. He feels that in choosing to be evil, he is choosing to be human, and that evil is the natural state for all human beings. The State, however, disagrees with him. It tries to strip him of his choice to be himself, violent or not. His struggle against his totalitarian government represents the struggle of human nature against the automaton, the individual against the mass as a whole and freedom against necessitarianism.