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.
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.
ReplyDelete