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.
Machiavelli has strongly persuasive arguments on leadership since he apprehends in his famous book ‘The Prince’ in chapter 17 the human nature very accurately. He reveals that how crucial it is for a prince being aware of the dangers within the city in order to achieve dominance in the state. He offers a possible threat to the prince as people’s in sincerity. Since human beings are inherently self-seeker and ungrateful, they may easily let down the prince in case of a dangerous situation. (Machiavelli 71) Therefore, when it comes to people’s benefits, the rupture of relations between the prince and his people may be broken.
He says that men are “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of danger, and eager to gain. As long as you serve their interests, they are devoted to you” . According to Machiavelli’s theory on human nature, it is mans pure self-interest that allows them to be easily controlled, by coercing them through manipulative and sometime violent means. He states that attempting to rule over people by honourable means would only lead to a ruler’s downfall, as an honourable ruler is always surrounded by “unscrupulous men” . Machiavelli states that “a
Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On the Genealogy of Morality” includes his theory on man’s development of “bad conscience.” Nietzsche believes that when transitioning from a free-roaming individual to a member of a community, man had to suppress his “will to power,” his natural “instinct of freedom”(59). The governing community threatened its members with punishment for violation of its laws, its “morality of customs,” thereby creating a uniform and predictable man (36). With fear of punishment curtailing his behavior, man was no longer allowed the freedom to indulge his every instinct. He turned his aggressive focus inward, became ashamed of his natural animal instincts, judged himself as inherently evil, and developed a bad conscience (46). Throughout the work, Nietzsche uses decidedly negative terms to describe “bad conscience,” calling it ugly (59), a sickness (60), or an illness (56); leading some to assume that he views “bad conscience” as a bad thing.
Chaos and savagery come as a result of men trying to find pleasure without making sacrifices. Order are situations in which humans are forced to suppress their instincts and follow rules to attain their goals. 4D. The subject ive chosen is sort of a broad idea that can be grasped by looking deeper into the idea. By looking at the fact that Golding is trying to explain that all humans are evil can tie into the Chaos on the island.
In one of Machiavelli quotes, he talked about what a prince could do to get out of trouble and to become a more better leader. He states, “[The Prince] is rendered despicable by being thought changeable, frivolous, effeminate, timid, and irresolute; this a prince must guard against as a rock of danger, and so contrive that his actions show grandeur, spirit, gravity, and fortitude...and let him adhere to his decisions so that no one many think of deceiving or cozening him.” A prince will be dishonored if he has the characteristics changeable, a carefree person, effeminate, showing a lack of confidence, and an uncertain person. If a prince contains these kinds of characteristics, then they need to immediately change themselves. They
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'.
Even through the changes that society as a whole has experienced from Emerson’s time to our own, Emerson’s idea continues to hold merit; society continues to disapprove and put down those that are individuals only to protect its-self and hold on to what is known. Emerson writes using persuasive rhetoric to stress his ideas of the dangers of the conformity that faces mankind and the importance of being an individual. "Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immoral palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness." Emerson states that a man to become an individual must question every orthodox belief that he faces and must decide what he believes to be true, not what society thinks to be true.
This, in his view, helps maintain a governing body of authority that will provide peace and security. When he talks about the nature of man from chapter 13 of Leviathan, he positions that there are three principle causes of argument or differences of man which are competition, hesitancy and splendor in a state of nature which he professes to be ultimately the worst situation to be in in society. He speaks of how man will invade to achieve gain, safety and reputation. He concludes that man will use violence to be on top of the social ladder having power over other men’s property (land, wives and children) and in doing so, will defend to keep that power all the while making a name for himself for self-interests. Hobbes and his social contract may be ideal where order is necessary but how he approaches this grand scheme of absolute monarchy is not achievable to keep people in check because of the abuse of power being granted to one person.
Locke stands firm in the belief that people can incite a revolution against their government when it begins to work against what is in the best interest of the populace (Locke, p. 112). He places limits on these actions - such as what a conqueror is entitled to and what would justify as tyrannical behavior - but still justifies the right to instigate a shift political power. On the other hand, Hobbes finds private discourse against one’s sovereign to a disease (p. 197). He finds contempt in the populace under the sovereign, noting that most of were incapable of understanding the inner mechanisms powering the sovereign (p. 207). By deeming the collective population incompetent and likening their anti-governmental chatter to a plague, it is not a reach to assume Hobbes would not prescribe a right to revolution.