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
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