The concept of human nature, in a world in which humans claim to believe various theories, differs between different accounts by two intellectual men, Thomas Hobbes and Francis De Waal. According to Hobbes, he views every human being as equal because he believes that every individual, no matter the physical or mental difference, were born with the ability of killing or harming any other individual. According to De Waal, however, he believes the opposite of Hobbes idea of human nature because De Waal believes that humans are not alike and aren’t born with a desire to harm one another, but that humans actually require a strong human companionship. To further diverge into Hobbes idea of human nature, it is important to discuss the factors that
…show more content…
The difference between both behaviors is that with selfishness, it implies an individual has selfish intentions and with self-serving behavior, an individual has no selfish intentions but commits actions that appear to be selfish but are not intended; for example, when a plant grows over another plant, the plant kills the plant that was there before it but this action wasn’t intended, making this a self-serving behavior. De Waal’s claim implements the idea that evolution is based off self-serving actions rather than selfish actions most individuals would assume how humans have progressed over time. De Waal also focuses his idea on human nature on inequity aversion in animals. An example of inequity aversion in animals is when monkeys are placed in the same environment but one monkey refuses to perform a task as he realizes he isn’t being compensated the same reward as opposed to the other monkeys who perform the same task but earn more. This animal behavior supports the critique of Hobbes account of human nature as we are able to witness this behavior in human beings. Hobbes believes every human has an instinct to harm or kill another individual and with De Waal’s claim on inequity aversion in animals we witness something similar. Humans do not necessarily have a drive to kill one another
The difference between both behaviors is that with selfishness, it implies an individual has selfish intentions and with self-serving behavior, an individual has no selfish intentions but commits actions that appear to be selfish but are not intended; for example, when a plant grows over another plant, the plant kills the plant that was there before it but this action wasn’t intended, making this a self-serving behavior. De Waal’s claim implements the idea that evolution is based off self-serving actions rather than selfish actions most individuals would assume how humans have progressed over time. De Waal also focuses his idea on human nature on inequity aversion in animals. An example of inequity aversion in animals is when monkeys are placed in the same environment but one monkey refuses to perform a task as he realizes he isn’t being compensated the same reward as opposed to the other monkeys who perform the same task but earn more. This animal behavior supports the critique of Hobbes account of human nature as we are able to witness this behavior in human beings. Hobbes believes every human has an instinct to harm or kill another individual and with De Waal’s claim on inequity aversion in animals we witness something similar. Humans do not necessarily have a drive to kill one another