To what extent do conservatives agree on human nature?

24 marks

Introduction

• Human nature = assumptions about human behaviour, rationality, and morality.

• Conservatism is rooted in a view of humans as imperfect, limited, and security-seeking.

• However, divisions exist between traditional conservatives (pessimistic) and New Right (more optimistic about rationality).

• Debate:

  • Agreement: humans are imperfect and require order.

  • Disagreement: extent of rationality and self-reliance.

• Judgement:

  • Conservatives agree on core limitations of human nature, but disagree on how capable individuals are, so agreement is strong but not complete.

Paragraph 1: Strong agreement on human imperfection and need for control

Point:

• Conservatives largely agree that humans are imperfect and require control through authority.

Explain (with thinker):

• Thomas Hobbes argues in Leviathan that humans are driven by self-interest and competition, leading to conflict without authority.

• This suggests individuals cannot be trusted to act morally without external constraints.

Evidence (with thinker):

• Edmund Burke reinforces this by arguing individuals have limited reason, so should rely on tradition rather than abstract ideas.

Analysis (developed):

• Together, this implies humans are both morally flawed (Hobbes) and intellectually limited (Burke), justifying a structured and hierarchical society.

• Michael Oakeshott adds that politics should not attempt to “perfect” society, because humans lack the capacity for rational redesign, reinforcing scepticism about human ability.

• This creates a shared conservative assumption that order must be imposed, not naturally achieved.

Paragraph 1 counter argument

Evaluation (counter-argument with chain):

• However, New Right thinkers challenge the extent of this pessimism.

Explain (with thinker):

• Ayn Rand argues humans are rational and capable of pursuing their own self-interest effectively, contradicting the idea that they require heavy control.

Analysis (chain):

• If individuals are rational → they can make decisions independently → less need for external authority → weaker justification for strong control.

• Robert Nozick supports this by arguing individuals can organise their lives without interference beyond minimal protection.

Mini-judgement:

• Despite this, even these thinkers accept some need for rules, so agreement on basic human imperfection remains strong.

Paragraph 2: Disagreement over rationality and indivdiual responsibility

Point:

• Conservatives disagree significantly over whether humans are rational enough to shape society.

Explain (with thinker):

• Michael Oakeshott rejects “rationalism in politics”, arguing human knowledge is practical and limited, not abstract or scientific.

Evidence (with thinker):

• Edmund Burke argues society should rely on accumulated wisdom, as individuals cannot fully understand complex social systems.

Analysis (developed):

• This suggests humans lack the intellectual capacity to design or radically reform society, reinforcing gradualism and tradition.

• However, New Right thinkers directly challenge this assumption by emphasising reason and choice.

• Ayn Rand argues reason is humanity’s primary tool, enabling individuals to make independent, logical decisions.

Paragraph 2 counter argument

Evaluation (counter-argument with chain):

• Some conservatives recognise limited rationality but still allow for functional decision-making.

Explain (with thinker):

• Thomas Hobbes acknowledges humans can reason instrumentally to pursue self-preservation, even if not broader societal understanding.

Analysis (chain):

• If humans have limited but functional rationality → they can make basic decisions → but cannot redesign society → supports partial trust in individuals.

• Robert Nozick builds on this by allowing individuals to make free choices within a minimal framework, showing some confidence in rationality.

Mini-judgement:

• Therefore, disagreement over rationality is deep, making agreement limited in this area.

Paragraph 3: Agreement on desire for stability and disagreement on independence

Point:

• Conservatives agree humans seek stability and security, but disagree on how independent individuals are within society.

Explain (with thinker):

• Michael Oakeshott argues individuals prefer the familiar to the unknown, showing a natural tendency toward stability.

Evidence (with thinker):

• Edmund Burke supports continuity, arguing society should preserve long-standing institutions that provide stability.

Analysis (developed):

• This suggests humans are risk-averse, preferring gradual change over disruption, reinforcing conservative opposition to radical reform.

• However, disagreement emerges over whether individuals are fundamentally dependent on society or self-sufficient.

• Robert Nozick presents individuals as independent agents capable of organising their own lives without reliance on wider social structures

Paragraph 3 counter argument

Evaluation (counter-argument with chain):

• Some conservatives argue stability actually depends on social interdependence.

Explain (with thinker):

• Thomas Hobbes implies individuals cannot achieve security alone, requiring collective structures.

Analysis (chain):

• If individuals depend on others for security → society is necessary → limits individual independence → supports organic view.

• Ayn Rand rejects this, arguing individuals can flourish independently through rational self-interest.

Mini-judgement:

• Therefore, while agreement exists on the desire for stability, disagreement over dependence vs independence means overall agreement is partial.

Conclusion

• Conservatives agree that humans are:

  • Self-interested

  • Limited

  • Stability-seeking

• However, they disagree on:

  • Whether self-interest is positive or dangerous

  • Extent of rationality

  • Degree of individual independence

• Final judgement:

  • Agreement is strong at a basic level, but divided in interpretation, so conservatism is only partially united on human nature.