scholar | arguments | quote(s) | strengths | weaknesses |
|---|
jean-jacques rousseau | believed the state of human nature was co-operative and appreciative, in which people act generously. This is ‘free’. He thought the ‘chains’ came from modern human competition for land, money, resources, power etc. The purpose of life is to cut free of these chains and return to our human nature.
In their natural state humans are essentially generous creatures and only act otherwise when situation and circumstance cause them to. The purpose of our society should be to remove barriers that result in our loss of freedom and try and regain our natural state as helpful, just and social beings.
| “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” | right in saying that humans have made life more difficult evidence of humans helping each other during disasters w/o any desire for rewards evidence that there are ‘chains’ that will prevent ppl from expressing themselves freely
| doesn’t detail what an ideal society would look like or how we’d get there how can we know that we have achieved a society that has no chains his argument does not make room for the possibility that the chains he speaks about could be intrinsic to human nature and not just external factors there is evidence in the world of ppl who will act immorally for no particular reason; there are no discernible chains as he claims it is argued that Rousseau asserts that only the general will of the ppl has the right to legislate, for only under the general will cab the ppl be said to obey only themselves. but the idea of a general will can be disputed as ppl will have their personal desires and objectives for their life
|
thomas hobbes | In short, he argued human nature innately selfish and animalistic. However, through the human power of reason we can realise that if we co-operate, life can be better. The purpose of life is to conquer our animalistic instincts to create just and fair societies.
In their natural state humans are not co-operative but selfish and brutish (animal-like). Humans are, however, different from animals in that they recognise if they co-operate with each other life can become more tolerable. This, however, often has to be backed with the threat of force (the police, the army, the courts) to make sure we don’t go back to our selfish ways.
| “The life of man, solitary, poor, brutish and short.” | historical evidence of war n colonialism etc offers support for his view, as at the heart is usually selfishness, greed, etc could be in support of Darwinism, presenting the idea of the survival of the fittest which was demonstrated in our intrinsic brutish nature socialisation of humans has required that we do not engage in destructive actions like murder/stealing, but just because we are civil does not necessarily mean that it is an intrinsic part of our human nature
| his view that humans are brutish n animal like except for the decision to cooperate for a tolerable society can be refuted as even within the animal kingdom there’s evidence animals cooperate with each other for the sake of the ‘pack, therefore, using animals as a comparison may not work In a society where we have the elite there will be evidence of the selfish nature, but those who may be struggling to survive could arguably not be regarded as selfish as they are trying to make a living for themselves under unfair conditions His view that it takes forceful authority to keep everyone in check can be countered as people can be compliant without the need for force
|
jean-paul sartre | We do not come into this world already determined by a ‘nature’, culture or anything else We are completely free as individuals to decide who we are and what we want to become This can be frightening, but also liberating Sartre’s basic claim is that the existence of humanity exists before there is conception of values and morals, humannature (Sartre, p 207). For Sartre humanity is born with a blankslate, no predetermined value and no basic essence that humanity shares Sartre doesn’t believe in a human nature or essence that precedes individuals. Rather our existence precedes our essence; we have to create our own essence. Nothing, not god or evolution, created us for any purpose other than the purposes we choose. Of course Sartre recognizes that we are biological beings, but there are no general truths about what we should or ought to be. The most basic thing we can say about humans is that they are radically free, to be anything except to not be free. [They can choose anything except choose not to choose.] In his words, we are “condemned to be free.” This means we have no choice in the matter of being free and being free even if it is against our will means we are responsible for all our actions. Being responsible for our actions without having a choice about being free to choose is a from of condemnation as we have to accept responsibility for our actions without being able to blame others for our situation
| “Man is fully responsible for his nature and his choices.” | | Not everyone’s lives are a result of their own actions and choices. E.g. a person could be wrongfully accused of a crime and imprisoned which was not because a choice they themselves have made. One’s environment could have a major impact on how one’s life turns out e.g. being born into a setting where there is much criminal activity could in some ways be the factor or pressure that to push a person in following the same path. If one believes in the concept of telos, then one’s future will be somewhat already determined and is not a result of one’s life being a blank slate. One’s choices are not a guarantee of the outcomes that you wished for as there may be external circumstances that have affected the choices you made.
|