(H2) I found the discussion question regarding our opinions
on whether there is an objective standard of good and bad to be quite thought
provoking. Is there really a standard? Sure, we’re taught from a young age what
is “good” and what is “bad” according to the society we live in, but is there
truly a standard across the board?
I believe the answer is no. What is good to
us, can be bad to another person, culture, religion, etc. and vice versa. While
thinking about this subject, two prominent philosophers came to mind- Thomas
Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, believed
that man is naturally bad by default. He philosophized that we are beast-like,
savage, naturally motivated by selfish desires and will do anything to acquire
those said desires. He believed that we as humans need a strong government to
keep our desires in check and ultimately keep a level of peace and a sense of civility
among us. Jean-Jacques Rousseau philosophized quite the contrary. He believed
that man is naturally good and that we as humans are not born to be brute
savages, but society is what ultimately corrupts us.
So according to Hobbes,
human nature is bad and civilization is good. But according to Rousseau, human
nature is good and civilization is bad. So, which is it? I just think this
further proves the fact that there is no set objective standard of good and
bad. It's completely up to interpretation and based on your own beliefs and
moral code.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.