Up@dawn 2.0

Monday, September 26, 2016


Hobbes’s state of nature suggests that people act toward self-preservation, causing life to be “nasty, brutish, and short”. Hobbes also denies free will. While, humans do make mistakes, I do not believe that our state of nature definitely makes us incapable of doing acts of good for others. There are people that may act selfishly, but there are also people that act for the good of others. Interesting thought though, do some people do good for others, to make themselves feel better, not for the better of the other person?... It is difficult to even say if there is a state of nature. What would we do in a place without government? We don’t live in a place or time that forces us to be in that situation. But there are some films and shows that seem to explore that idea. For example, The Walking Dead. There is no more government, and we follow characters that argue to help other surviving groups at the risk of their own safety. It is interesting to explore these ideas, but we are not in a time that we must seriously consider Hobbes’s philosophy. I also do not like Hobbes’s social contract. I find it depressing and limiting to the individual. I think many would accept a superiority over his peers, until someone controls you. Living in a place reflecting Hobbes’s and even Machiavelli’s philosophy would be bleak. They focus too much on the bad possibilities of actions people can do. Although Hobbes’s system would negate selfish actions, it restricts freedom. Hobbes could say it is foolish to lose security over freedom, but I think many people would like to hope that we would help others despite the risk it puts us in.

1 comment:

  1. In response to the first question you pose, there are some people that do good purely for the sake of others. Some people take pain and burden onto their shoulders just to lift others higher.