Locke vs. Hobbes

Who do you agree with: Locke; Man is by nature a social animal, who in a state of nature will perform honorably. Or Hobbes; all men are by nature evil and need to be ruled by the state?

I think that man is in a state of nature in which we all compete. This 'state' is constantly changing and revolves around the concept of power. Have you ever read any Nietsche? Great read. I've read 5 of his books. A good one to start with is "Human, All To Human", interpreted by Kaufman. Anyway, to answer your question more, I do not believe that good or evil actually exist. These are simply relative terms or concepts we label things, people, etc. according to our morality. I could be wrong... So I do think in our 'state' of nature we make choices and decisions simply based on the power we will gain from the choice or decision. Ultimately we achieve a level of power we accept for ourselves and then decide to establish our theories of morality. Unfortunately, I think, established entities in our world have figured this out and apply and sometimes force their morality and ideas on other people. Religion is a shining example. Well, I've talked enough for now... Write back and let me know your thoughts...

Schulz

Neither or both, all mankind is both "good" and "bad".

Thanks rschuls, I like your annalysis a lot. So, you don't believe there is such a thing as good or evil? How do you do define state of being exactly? Is it supposed to represent the state that man would be in if he were to never have interacted with a governing force?

I will tend to side with Hobbes. Philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau were naive in a sense, or optimistic. They believed that the evils of their society were largely state-caused and believed in the "noble savage".

However, its clear that what we might call "natural" societies have their own great flaws and evils. Ultimately... man in his "natural" form is somewhat less dangerous, but he is different in that he is totally ignorant of what danger he does cause.

I would not label man either "good" or "evil"... he just 'is'. He is ignorant of the reason for his actions, ignorant of the consequences of his actions, he is ignorant of the universe and the meaning of it and quite quite ignorant of his own nature. Man has one quality: he by necessity believes, in something, even if it is his own disbelief.

Given all this, man's helplessness as it were, I would not describe man in moral terms.

man is inherently nothing. "evil" is defined by our own laws, rules and regulations. in nature man is neutral, simply surviving to the best of his ability. given todays society, man would be defined as inherently evil. in reality, all we want is survival. survival is not evil, it is natural.

its the nature's verses nurture debate lol i think its a little of both animals some times esp if they're pets have to have boundries of things they can and cannot do but they still have to do what they were born to do whether its predators prey or friend

Wyote - Lots of people want suicide. I would argue instead that man is partially guided by what he thinks will give him pleasure (or end pain) but mostly his actions are basically arbitrary.

i think in nature the suicide rate would be almost non exsistent. some may kill themselves out of curiosity(stupidty?), but thats about it. society forces strong emotions on us, which causes the rise in suicide.

you are right though, we are heavily guided by pleasure. i still think survival comes first.

It can happen either way.

I would tend to agree with Hobbes. I see far more instances of selfishness under our social contract than kindness. I'm not saying there isn't kindness in the world; I'm merely saying that kindness isn't as common, or as celebrated as selfishness. For this reason I can't see a state of nature being anything more desirable that what Hobbes describes.