One argument that has prevailed throughout time and knowledge is the conflict between nature and nurture. This argument proposes that humans are either products of their genes and inherited traits, or of their environment and social relationships. Although many recognize that both nature and nurture play a role in humankind, this conflict still poses an issue till this day (Moore, 2001). This problem was brought to light during the eighteenth-century, also known as the Age of Enlightenment or Age of Reason. As this period promoted an increase of a well-educated society that emphasized reason, people began to investigate human behavior. The enlightenment movement resulted in a change of thinking towards philosophy, religion, science, and political
…show more content…
He believes that in order for man to be protected by other men, an ultimate supreme leader must be placed. He named this absolute ruler the “Leviathan,” a sea monster depicted in the Bible, which later became the name of his treatise (Fiero, 2011). Nevertheless, Hobbes believes that if there is no leader, then there is no justification for good or bad, no man will know if what he is doing is even wrong. He states that there is no law until a person creates it, because there is no justice or injustice in nature, but only in society (“Hobbes Leviathan,” 2012). Hobbes also includes in his treatise the Leviathan that there are two things that allow people to break free from the state of nature: Fear and reason. Fear keeps people from causing conflict, and ultimately leads people to seek peace. On the other hand, reason shows man how to attain this peace. All in all, Hobbes ultimately conveys in the Leviathan that fear is the savior of human life (Hobbes, …show more content…
Thomas Hobbes believes humans are born evil, their natural instinct is to be envious, violent, and narcissistic, however, by fear and reason, they are capable of preserving peace. On the other hand, John Locke believes humans are mostly peaceful, good, and pleasant, but circumstances can cause people to be violent and war-like. Locke and Hobbes also differed in social contract theories, whereby John Locke believed that all people have rights that need to be protected by a government, yet the people should remain in power; Thomas Hobbes supported the idea that people are all bad, and because of that, an ultimate ruler needs to establish laws that man should abide by. Although these views seem very apples and oranges, there is a huge discrepancy. John Locke promoted the preservation of all human rights, and on several occasions disapproved of slavery, however, it turns out that he actually endorsed it and proposed that people should have absolute power over them. Coincidently, Locke’s hypocrisy promotes Thomas Hobbes’ idea that people only strive for power, and will do whatever it takes to sustain that power (Hobbes, 1651 & Locke, 1689). In the end, the idea of human nature is inevitable subjective to each and every person and their philosophical
He believes that in order for man to be protected by other men, an ultimate supreme leader must be placed. He named this absolute ruler the “Leviathan,” a sea monster depicted in the Bible, which later became the name of his treatise (Fiero, 2011). Nevertheless, Hobbes believes that if there is no leader, then there is no justification for good or bad, no man will know if what he is doing is even wrong. He states that there is no law until a person creates it, because there is no justice or injustice in nature, but only in society (“Hobbes Leviathan,” 2012). Hobbes also includes in his treatise the Leviathan that there are two things that allow people to break free from the state of nature: Fear and reason. Fear keeps people from causing conflict, and ultimately leads people to seek peace. On the other hand, reason shows man how to attain this peace. All in all, Hobbes ultimately conveys in the Leviathan that fear is the savior of human life (Hobbes, …show more content…
Thomas Hobbes believes humans are born evil, their natural instinct is to be envious, violent, and narcissistic, however, by fear and reason, they are capable of preserving peace. On the other hand, John Locke believes humans are mostly peaceful, good, and pleasant, but circumstances can cause people to be violent and war-like. Locke and Hobbes also differed in social contract theories, whereby John Locke believed that all people have rights that need to be protected by a government, yet the people should remain in power; Thomas Hobbes supported the idea that people are all bad, and because of that, an ultimate ruler needs to establish laws that man should abide by. Although these views seem very apples and oranges, there is a huge discrepancy. John Locke promoted the preservation of all human rights, and on several occasions disapproved of slavery, however, it turns out that he actually endorsed it and proposed that people should have absolute power over them. Coincidently, Locke’s hypocrisy promotes Thomas Hobbes’ idea that people only strive for power, and will do whatever it takes to sustain that power (Hobbes, 1651 & Locke, 1689). In the end, the idea of human nature is inevitable subjective to each and every person and their philosophical