Is The World A Dangerous Place Analysis

The problem addressed in the module two discussion was whether the world was a harsh, cruel place, or is it a friendly, meaningful place? It also asked if people were naturally selfish and insensitive, or selfless and caring? It posed the question of whether civilization corrupts human nature, and if it is so civilized, why do we need rules, regulations, and enforcers of them? In a nutshell, is the world a dangerous place, are we naturally driven by self-interests, is civilization bad, and why do we have to enforce rules? There were four trains of thought proposed in that chapter, but I believe the two with the most solid bases were that of Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. Thomas Hobbes believed that the world was a cold unforgiving place where the people were driven solely by self-preservation. He took the view that natural selfishness would drive people into war with one another over resources necessary for survival. Thomas Hobbes stated that a strong central government was necessary to keep the people from …show more content…
John Locke took the opposing view. Locke stated that the world was naturally a place about equality and freedom. Locke believed that it was natural for people to seek peace, and after man’s own needs were met, would cooperate to preserve the rest of humanity. Finally Locke believed that it was possible to live an acceptable life, even in an absence of government. To critique each man, I would say neither one’s views are totally correct. Neither one’s viewpoints are complete, nor do they not always promote the best standards of living. Thomas Hobbes’ viewpoint is pessimistic, and conveys a feeling of hopelessness for humanity. As Hobbes’ stated in his book Leviathan, “In [the state of nature] there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequentially no culture of Earth; … and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the