Would life in the state of nature be ‘solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short’? Answer with references to Hobbes.
People are astounded by the opinion of Thomas Hobbes about the natural state, and his hideous idea has been controversial for hundreds of years. He claimed that if there was not an extreme powerful authority, our lives in the pre-moral world would be ‘solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short’. This essay shall argue that despite the instinctive aversion we felt upon it, the opinion is still true.
It is not the first time we encounter a theory purporting human’s evil nature. Lu Xun, one of the most eminent Chinese authors and critics once said that he always dared to conjecture Chinese people with the greatest malice. His assumption could be easily generalized into all human beings. Most of the evil nature theories, including Hobbes’ one, are based on the belief that the every action of every body is for the sake of oneself, one only chases after his or her own interests, which is in a word, …show more content…
In this context, the concept of equality is slightly different from other well-known definitions, for example, ‘we hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ in the U.S. Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson. While modern people focus more on liberty, human rights and the pursuit of happiness, Hobbes went down on the ground of ability. It seems that men do vary from physique to intelligence in reality, but Hobbes believed that the overall ability of one is same with the others’. Even when there is any actual difference, it would be small enough to ignore, because a man can use his wits to defeat a stronger man, or one could unite with others to fight against a stronger man together. I don’t think that Hobbes provided a detailed deduction on quantity aspect for this premise, instead, he just made an assumption on quality aspect as if it is
People are astounded by the opinion of Thomas Hobbes about the natural state, and his hideous idea has been controversial for hundreds of years. He claimed that if there was not an extreme powerful authority, our lives in the pre-moral world would be ‘solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short’. This essay shall argue that despite the instinctive aversion we felt upon it, the opinion is still true.
It is not the first time we encounter a theory purporting human’s evil nature. Lu Xun, one of the most eminent Chinese authors and critics once said that he always dared to conjecture Chinese people with the greatest malice. His assumption could be easily generalized into all human beings. Most of the evil nature theories, including Hobbes’ one, are based on the belief that the every action of every body is for the sake of oneself, one only chases after his or her own interests, which is in a word, …show more content…
In this context, the concept of equality is slightly different from other well-known definitions, for example, ‘we hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ in the U.S. Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson. While modern people focus more on liberty, human rights and the pursuit of happiness, Hobbes went down on the ground of ability. It seems that men do vary from physique to intelligence in reality, but Hobbes believed that the overall ability of one is same with the others’. Even when there is any actual difference, it would be small enough to ignore, because a man can use his wits to defeat a stronger man, or one could unite with others to fight against a stronger man together. I don’t think that Hobbes provided a detailed deduction on quantity aspect for this premise, instead, he just made an assumption on quality aspect as if it is