Immanuel Kant And Thomas Hobbes's Views On Human Nature?

Improved Essays
Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hobbes have different views on human nature. leading to what the government should do to overcome this lazy and aggressive behaviour. Kant is a philosopher from the 1700s who believed in people becoming enlightened. “Enlightenment is man 's emergence from his self- imposed immaturity” (Garside, Lecture: Kant 2014). Enlightenment causes people to question themselves and others which can also lead to becoming independent within society. Hobbes was a philosopher in the early 1600s, and wanted to provide a safe and secure place for people to live as long as possible (Garside, Lecture: Hobbes 2014). Both Kant and Hobbes believed that society is continually threated. However, Kant would view human nature as harmful, …show more content…
Hobbes raises many positive points that would make me choose to have lifelong security, but a life without freedom is not a place anyone wants to live in. Human nature will always be present and threatening society. therefore, you can never get rid of it all. People are attempting to overcome this natural lazy behaviour, but in today’s world (TRY –IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY-), we are still not always safe and the limitations are(OUR) government is presenting are still there. Bradley Manning tried to speak up about what the government is doing and was put in jail. The big debate was essentially between Kant and Hobbes’ theories, is there freedom of speaking out and being enlightened, or was it a threat that could put many lives at risk? Hobbes talks about the government being the only one in power and you cannot question it(TOTALITARIAN). If the government begins to break the laws nothing happens to them – there is no punishment. Even though Hobbes says we can vote for who we want to run the country, we need to be able to have a system that can best represent all the people and if the government breaks any laws, they are held accountable.(RUN ON SENTENCE) I think Kant’s use of freedom is key to enlightenment. Without freedom no one can be enlightened and thus, many people would be living a unhappy life. Why extend your life with …show more content…
The differences between the use of freedom or no freedom depends what is more important, safety or living an enlightened life. The limitations the government put on its people needs to be balanced properly from security to ensuring the rights of its citizens. Hobbes’ natural laws provide a tough punishment system while Kant may find a tough punishment is to take away someone’s freedom. Human nature is a strong power in everyone and is always a threat to the rest of society. Kant’s ‘what is enlightenment’ and Hobbes’ rational view on the right to live offer a large spectrum of how social view change in society. Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hobbes have different views on human nature leading to what the government should do to overcome this lazy and aggressive

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    It is human nature to naturally be evil and we must have government to maintain and regulate society, in order to prevent citizens from trumping others rights. Ideologies is a “prescription for society based on personal values.” A truly objective political ideology is almost impossible, but if it can be sensitive to the individual and best promotes their cooperation towards mutual ends. Ronald Reagan was a modern conservative who proposed many changes to how he thought…

    • 1738 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The state of nature is a philosophical device used to denote the hypothetical conditions of what the lives of people may have been like prior to societies coming into existence. This foundation of thinking poses many different scenarios and questions about the state of nature. Where some theorists remain optimistic about a state of nature, others argue it would be disastrous and impossible without a government. The way, in which one envisions the society will have drastic consequences for how the state and function is perceived. Two prime examples we can look at today are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.…

    • 981 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Forcing humans to give restrict their freedom to gain freedom from the state is a contradicting concept. This form of government is much more autocratic and demanding of citizens. This is no way of freedom. Negative liberty would be a much more successful approach to freedom as society is now highly civilized and this is a laissez-faire. The common goal of all people is freedom as everyone wishes to be able to achieve what they want without the government telling them it is not right.…

    • 1090 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Marx, for example, believed that the best way to re-balance society was through the ballot box. That is, until a government denies the people the political expression they are entitled to through modern democracy, this includes free speech, free assembly, and freedom of the press. It is then the job of the people to demand change through nonviolent revolution. For this to work, there needs to be enough anger, and enough people who are willing to stand up for change. To draw from Zizek’s work, these movements are like “rage banks”, and the people need to invest enough “rage capital” in order for it to succeed.…

    • 1777 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes wanted an absolute monarchy, he believed that people were wicked, selfish, and cruel and that they would act on behalf of their best interests, basically that the humans only think in our self’s, “Every man for every man” Hobbes said. But in the other side we have John Locke that he basically wanted a democracy, he said that since we were born we have certain inalienable rights, that are: life, liberty and the right to own property, he also believed that the people were by nature good and that they could be trusted to govern themselves. Humans constantly need rules, laws and consequences, without them is very easy that people can do what they want. Without the laws the families wouldn’t act like a family there would not be fraternity…

    • 1080 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Madison brought many valid points into the equation. Factions need to be regulated by the government. A point that I find very important is that Madison stated that we cannot remove the causes of factions because differing opinions will always occur.2 This is very true, but Madison also brought up another point and that is: not everyone’s prayers can be answered. If every faction achieved their goal, there would be nothing but utter chaos. It is the government’s job to keep policies in action that support the public as a whole, rather than meet the needs of the few.…

    • 837 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    On another note, the individuals discussed above would do worse under Hobbes’s political system because they would all be directed to endure tasks that would serve as a sacrifice, rather than an improvement. For instance, the government can take away land without a valid reason, or could have someone murdered, simply because the leader commands so. Hobbes claims that society has to obey its government at all times. This would create tension and oppression with individuals a, b, c and d. As Young states, “The powerless are those who lack authority or power even in this mediated sense, those over whom power is exercised without their exercising it; the powerless are situated so that they must take orders and rarely have the right to give them” (Young 52). This quote helps illustrate the weaknesses that becomes the structure of one’s will, especially individuals a, b, and c because they will not have the necessary power to exercise their will, but…

    • 1396 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    While some philosophers studied these subjects others like John Locke 1632-1704 focused on the mind, political subjects, and various abstract concepts. New ideas like human rights began to take form and Locke believed that the power of a government to rule comes from the consent of the governed, which means people should be able to choose who governs them. He also believed every person is born with three basic natural rights: life, liberty, and the ownership of property. It was the job of government to protect these fundamental rights, however if a government failed to provide these basics human rights to the governed, they deserved to be overthrown. So there is no doubt that he was a huge supporter in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.…

    • 2457 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In order to have power and for a state to flourish, Hobbes believed the best methodology would be to conform to the social contract, because without it they would be living in a society of ‘bellum omnium contra omnes’ (Oxford Reference, 2008) which translated to a war of all against all, much like the English Civil War which Hobbes was writing after. ‘For Hobbes, the purpose of politics is to escape war. As such, he insists that in order to establish a democratic political order, all individuals need to hand over their will to a single point of ultimate authority’ (Field, 2015). Due to their beliefs on human nature, Hobbes and Machiavelli shared comparable principles with regards to the need of a sovereign ruler, and the requirement for a functioning supreme power in order to control the people. In the enlightenment period in which Hobbes wrote in his book the Leviathan about the human nature of people, he, similarly to Machiavelli, described that they were selfish and war-prone.…

    • 1550 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Rousseau says the source of insecurity is property, its where greed, selfishness and a vicious nature comes from. The reason for government is to protect the people of society. Locke believed justice and law to be the same thing; he felt the “general will” determined justice. This meant he believed in justice by the people, that the overwhelming majority could change the state of government anytime they please. The people have the control over the state and what happens to them, this is the first time this kind of concept of complete freedom comes about this differs from Hobbes and Locke’s views.…

    • 957 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays