CONCEPTS OF GOOD AND EVIL
According to Thomas Hobbes, human life, in its primitive nature, is brutish, nasty, poor, and solitary (Hobbes, 1999). The philosopher specifically argued that human nature is innately or inherently evil. On the other hand, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that humans are good by nature (Rousseau and Gourevitch, 1997). Therefore, philosophical views on human nature are divergent. Notably, evil refers to immorality or wickedness. The vices that are experienced within today’s society, such as violence, crime, and war are clear examples of what constitutes evil acts (Hume, 2003). The argument on human nature seeks to demonstrate whether or not man is hurtful by nature. The main question that surrounds this argument is whether man was born with a natural desire to cause pain or become destructive. On the basis of this understanding, this paper presents an argument in support of Hobbes’ philosophy that humans are evil by nature (Latzer, 1993). Illustrations of evils that characterize human nature and contemporary society, in general, are used to support the main arguments in the paper.
Opposing views on human nature are associated with historical philosophical views and theological arguments. Two centuries ago, philosophy and psychology were considered to be the same discipline. Philosophers of the Enlightenment era, such as John Locke believed that human destiny was determined by experiences and education rather than birth (Anderson-Gold, 2001). Notably, the philosophical views of the Enlightenment era were opposed to traditional perspectives, such as idealism. Hobbes’ traditional views on human nature were opposed by Locke and Rousseau during the Enlightenment era (Hobbes, 1999). Nonetheless, Hobbes presented convincing arguments to demonstrate that man is innately evil. The philosopher maintained that human beings are selfish, materialistic, destructive, and deterministic (Latzer, 1993). The laws that governments establish to keep people in check illustrate the truth behind Hobbes’ philosophical views. Therefore, the existence of laws indicates that humans are destructive and have to be kept in check to avoid the evil that they are capable of.
Examples of actions and happenings that are completely evil can be used to support the argument that humans are innately evil. Torture in all its forms is an example of vices that accurately depict human nature and the evil of man. Acts of torture that are executed by men, such as solitary confinement (Mathewes, 2011), exposure to extreme cold or heat, stress positions, threats of death, sensory exhaustion or deprivation, simulated drowning, and sexual humiliation reveal the intrinsic evil characterizing human beings. It is notable that the moral arguments that oppose torture are based on the fact that it violates human dignity (Rorty, 2001). Therefore, the evil in torture and its immoral nature demonstrates that the capability of humans to torture or humiliate others is based on intrinsic evil in man. It is the extreme nature of the evils in the societies of the past and contemporary times that make the argument that evil is an intrinsic trait of humans convincingly valid (Mathewes, 2011).
Immanuel Kant’s philosophy on morality can also be used to support the argument that man is innately evil. Kant’s philosophical views were motivated by the desire to respond to theological and philosophical arguments on morality and metaphysics in the early 21st Century (Latzer, 1993). Kant opposed early philosophers, such as Rousseau, by arguing that humans who have not adopted the moral law are wholly evil. Therefore, the vices that man engages in are based on inability or unwillingness to obey the moral law. In line with Kant’s philosophical views on morality, evils in the world, such as torture depict that humans are wholly and intrinsically evil (Kant, 1996). This is because torture and similar vices go against the moral law that was proposed by Kant.
Rape is another notable example of the intrinsic evil of humans. Such actions go against the philosophical ethics dating back to the 17th Century. For example, Gottfried Wilhelm (von) Leibniz proposed an ethical framework in the 17th Century that is applicable in demonstrating that humans are innately evil. Leibniz's Ethics, such as the theory of good reveal that it is only God who exhibits the highest level of perfection (Leibniz, 2000). Therefore, man with his imperfections, is naturally evil. The imperfection that causes man to engage in evil actions, such as rape, depicts the intrinsic nature of wickedness that characterizes humans. Furthermore, the imperfect human being is naturally evil because of the heinous nature of crimes such as rape that are reported within the contemporary society (Anderson-Gold, 2001). Religious teachings also indicate that man is naturally inclined to error and sin. This means that there is an evil nature in humans that contributes to societal vices or crimes (Hume, 2003).
Rousseau’s argument that humans are innately good does not explain the dreadful happenings which characterize contemporary society. Conflict, war, and terrorism are examples of evil in today’s society that cannot be explained by Rousseau’s view that man is inherently good (Rorty, 2001). Notably, terror and war contribute to thousands of deaths of innocent people, including children across the world. Therefore, perpetrators of war, terror, and conflict cannot be described as inherently good, as was argued by Rousseau (Latzer, 1993). In this sense, Hobbes’ argument on the inherent evil in man is more convincing than Rousseau’s philosophical views. Hobbes’ compelling account of human nature reveals that the motives of human beings are influenced by biomechanical processes related to evil (Murphy, 2000). Hobbes specifically argued that the evil in man is intrinsic and cannot be attributed to society alone. Therefore, Hobbes' philosophy was aligned with the natural law theory that was proposed by Leibniz (Leibniz, 2000).
Unlike Rousseau, Hobbes believed that civilization is good. Therefore, the good actions that are depicted by human beings can be attributed to civilization and not an inherent nature of being good. Kant’s idea of human dignity indicates why people engage in good actions meant to uphold moral values. Nonetheless, humans are inherently wicked, as was postulated by Hobbes (Hobbes, 1999). Civilization and the establishment of laws that uphold human rights explain good deeds in society today. Therefore, without civilization, more heinous evils would be experienced in society. Pedophilia acts are among specific examples that provide compelling reasons to argue that even civilized man is inherently wicked. This is because such acts violate both religious and secular laws (Mathewes, 2011).
According to Leibniz’s theory of moral psychology, a good person is one who engages in virtuous acts (Leibniz, 2000). Therefore, immoral actions, such as pedophilia acts reveal that the immorality of man is attributed to an inherent wickedness. Kant’s theory on evil indicates that the impurity of man that contributes to the immoral acts that characterize modern society is attributed to inherent evil (Kant, 1996). The corruption that is experienced in society and within many government institutions is an example of impunity in man that demonstrates that evil is inherent. Additionally, humans prioritize self-interest due to their impure nature and inherent evil. Notably, evil and harm go hand in hand. Therefore, the harm that is perpetrated by terrorist groups, such as ISIS is attributed to the inherent evil within terrorists (Anderson-Gold, 2001). The lack of mercy and disrespect for human life and dignity that exemplify terror acts effectively demonstrates the inherent nature of man to be evil.
The motivation of evil acts, such as sodomy and adultery is argued to be inherent. This means that it is the intrinsic nature of man to do evil which motivates immoral or wicked acts (Rorty, 2001). It is notable that regardless of the differences among philosophical and theological arguments on evil, harm, immorality, vice, and evil are associated with the impure nature of man. Therefore, Hobbes convincingly linked evil and the intrinsic wickedness which characterize man (Latzer, 1993). Contemporary theories on evil actions are also aligned with Kent’s ethical imperatives and Hobbes’ philosophy (Murphy, 2000). For example, theories on evil and motivation associate heinous actions with both natural and deterministic causes. This means that evil is linked to specific biological mechanisms which lead to the argument that humans are innately wicked. Notably, vices in the contemporary world such as genocide further provide compelling examples that depict humans as naturally wicked.
In conclusion, there are several reasons why Hobbes’ philosophy on the natural evil in human beings is compelling and correct. Examples of heinous actions, such as rape, genocide, torture, terrorism, war, sodomy, pedophile acts, and murder are used to convincingly demonstrate that Hobbes was right about man being inherently wicked. Rousseau’s argument that humans are innately good is not convincing because it does not explain why man engages in monstrous acts. Kant’s ethics reveal that acts that violate human dignity are immoral, wicked, and motivated by the intrinsic nature of man to be evil. Leibniz’s natural law theory also demonstrates that the evil that is experienced in society today is due to the nature of man to be evil. Notably, the argument on the intrinsic evil of man is pessimistic but provides a persuasive explanation of the wicked acts that characterize society today. Civilization and the enforcement of legal and policy frameworks on human rights play an important role in safeguarding society from the natural evil that defines human beings.
References
Anderson-Gold, S., 2001. Unnecessary evil: History and moral progress in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. SUNY Press.
Hobbes, T., 1999. The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic: Part I, Human Nature, Part II, De Corpore Politico; with Three Lives. Oxford University Press, USA.
Hume, D., 2003. A treatise of human nature. Courier Corporation.
Kant, I., 1996. Kant: The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press.
Latzer, M., 1993. The Nature of Evil: Leibniz and his Medieval Background. The Modern Schoolman, 71(1), pp.59-69.
Leibniz, G.W., 2000. Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Mathewes, C.T., 2011. Why Evil Exists. Great Courses.
Murphy, M.C., 2000. Hobbes on the Evil of Death. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 82(1), pp.36-61.
Rorty, A., 2001. The many faces of evil: Historical perspectives. Psychology Press.
Rousseau, J.J. and Gourevitch, V., 1997. Rousseau:'The Discourses' and Other Early Political Writings (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.
