The Duality Of Good And Evil In Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

843 Words 4 Pages
In this philosophical study, an evaluation of the dualistic ideology of “good and evil” will be examined in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. Hobbes effectively defines the skeptical aspects of human nature, which define human beings as a innately war=like and self-interested. These facts define the role of the “passions” in human behavior, which attempt to discern between the appetites and aversions of human choice, which force them to choose between an evil or a good co-existence with their fellow human beings. Keke’s (2012) philosophy also supports the contention that human beings tend to behave in malevolent ways (in a secular observation) yet Hobbes choses to view the dualism of good and evil through omnipotent power of God. In this manner, the …show more content…
Raibley (2012) claims that there is a secular force in the universe in the work of Kekes, which Hobbes has also calculated into his theory of the duality of good and evil in human emotion: “In order to explain the many atrocities of the 20th century, Kekes argues that we must reject both the Enlightenment assumption that “human being are basically reasonable and good” (p.119)…They [the human race] are given to self-deception, and they have malevolent streak the makes cruetly, hatred, prejudice, rage, and ruthlessness applying to them.” (p.598). This assumption of the inherent ‘evil” in human beings is as secular approach, but it conforms to Hobbes’ view of human beings as being warlike and malevolent. More so, Kekes (2012) agrees with Hobbes’ view of the evil state of human beings, although he chooses not to base the source of evil on religious terms. In contrast, Hobbes defines the premise of “evil” through God, which has left humankind in a natural state of perpetual malevolence and war: “Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man” (Hobbes, 1994, p.76). This is one

Related Documents