Desire In A State Of Nature example essay topic

Thomas Hobbes argues that a state of nature will eventually become a state of war of everyone against everyone. According the Hobbes, the main reason behind this change will be the harsh competition over scarce resources caused by the nature of man. Through out this essay Hobbes's reasons will be explained in greater detail. In order to truly understand the logic behind Hobbes's claim, we must first understand his point of view of human nature. The key element in Hobbes's view on human nature was the importance of desires. Unlike many other philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, Hobbes had a different approach to desires.

He believed desires were real motive behind human behaviors. (Leviathan, p 119) What motivated human actions were not virtues such as wisdom as Aristotle and Plato would claim, nor was it a sense of duty as Cicero would say. It was rather simple desire. Hobbes did not see desire as a harmful feeling, which must be avoided.

He rather thought of it as a positive part of human nature, which could drive a person to achieve more and more. Hobbes had a definition of happiness closely connected to desires. Hobbes defined happiness as a "continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desire th" He used the phrase "felicity" for this definition of happiness. (Leviathan, p. 129) Important point here is, there is no limit to this attaining of goods and happiness is a continued process of desire fulfillment, which lasts from birth to death. It would not be wrong if we claim all reasonable people would like to live a life of happiness or in other words, a life of felicity. Having accepted Hobbes's definition of felicity, it can be further said that all people would want a life where all their desires are fulfilled.

Hobbes argued that despite minor differences, all people were close to being the same in both ability and intelligence. (Leviathan, p. 183) Hobbes further stated, because people are close to being the same they also have similar desires. This is the point where the problems begin. All people have similar desires for certain goods as well as the same hope of attaining them but unfortunately most of these desired goods are limited in numbers.

Because there aren't enough resources for everyone to fulfill their desires, people must compete with others to acquire the goods they desire. Because of competition people will see each other as rivals trying to avoid each other as much as possible. Eventually diffidence will spread among men. (Leviathan, p. 184) From diffidence a state of anticipation fearing other side will make an attack on them. Hatred and distrust will slowly grow eventually resulting in wars to take place among men.

However, we must also understand that these wars are not necessarily wars where actual fighting takes place; it can also be similar to "Cold War" between U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. But what are the reasons why people can have competition and not have diffidence or war among them? The answer to this question is hidden in Hobbes's understanding of "good", "evil" and "rationality". Hobbes believed that there are no certain natural definitions of good and evil. The meaning of these terms could change from a person to person. (Leviathan, p. 120) Hobbes believed that all the actions that help us fulfill our desires could be defined as "good" when examined from our point of view. For a person with such moral values, to kill the competition might seem like a reasonable act if it helps him attain the desired goods and obviously such as acts as murder can easily lead up to a war.

Another important view of Hobbes is the definition of rationality. According to Hobbes, rationality is no more than one's own self preservation. So, we can further claim a fully rational human being will take no chances against his self preservation. In a state of nature where all men have such interest based values and where all people are willing to do anything to fulfill their desires everyone else might seem like a potential threat to one's own self preservation. From this, Hobbes reaches to a conclusion where for a fully rational person it would be the most reasonable thing to eliminate the other people that pose a threat before they eliminate him. Once again such a pattern of thinking will eventually lead up to a state of war.

Having explained the reason behind Thomas Hobbes's argument we can much accurately analyze his claim. Over all Thomas Hobbes has made a well put argument. His argument that human behavior is driven by desires is a realistic look to human nature. Simply by looking at today's world it is possible to see the consumption being made by human beings. As Thomas Hobbes says there is no complete satisfaction us humans. As soon as human beings acquire something desired, it suddenly does not seem to be enough and we set our eyes on something new.

It can be agreed that desire is a positive thing for human race. If it weren't for our endless desire, could we still have achieved so much in the field of science? Answer would probably be no. Humans have come a long way since our ancestors thanks to our endless desires.

It can also be agreed on the point where Hobbes argues that this desire blinds us so much that we are willing to do anything to fulfill it. Even in today's so called civilized world of laws and authorities, it is surprising how much corruption and damage is made in the sake of having more and more. The reason most people obey the laws is no more than the fear of being caught and facing dire consequences. Thinking, if there were no laws to fear from, there is no telling what people who are blinded by desire would do to each other. But is his argument perfect?

No, some points in his arguments can be defeated by simply using his own ideas. The most obvious problem is present in his idea of how attacks will be made to others because they pose a threat. Hobbes argues that a fully rational person will attack using the element of surprise in order to destroy those that pose a threat before they destroy him. However, it is also known that the same Hobbes has stated that all humans are similar in ability and intelligence. So, if the other side has the similar ability and intelligence as you then he would obviously know that you are planning to make an attack making your element of surprise useless. Furthermore because your intelligence is about the same you can guess that he is prepared for your attack and that you no longer have the element of surprise.

So, you are stuck in paradox where you fear both attacking and being attacked. Another point where it is possible to disagree with Hobbes is the point where he argues that his state of war will be a war of everyone against everyone. I except that there will be a state of war but it certainly will not be a war of everyone against everyone. I can understand strangers becoming enemies to each other but it does not seem possible for families to become enemies.

Even animals whose sole goal is self-preservation mostly take care of their children with certain degree of love. Thinking that humans would become enemies to theirs seems illogical. In today's world parents take care of their children not because laws force them but because they love them. This is an instinctive love necessary for the survival of human race and it is doubtful this love of children will be overcome by desire in a state of nature.

The bottom line is that according to Hobbes, desires are the real motive behind human behavior. In order to live a life of happiness humans must constantly fulfill their desires. But, because human understanding of "good", "bad" is interest based and the aim of "rationality" is no more than self preservation, a state of nature with no authority to fear from turns in to a state of war where every one is against everyone. With the reasons he has provided, Hobbes has put forward a good but not perfect argument.

Even though there are some flaws, he has done a good job explaining how competition for desires leads up to a state of war. However, this "war" to take place between everyone against everyone including families doesn't seem to be a realistic argument.