Hobbes's Theory Of People example essay topic

Hobbesian Fright vs. Neitzsche an Might: Human Nature's Influence on Morality Nathan Pang 408-59-6025 Given the options of defending either Neitzsche's, or Hobbes's radical views on morality, I must conclude that Neitzsche's concept of the "Will to Power" is, despite the controversy of the concept of slave morality, at heart the more correct view on the origin of human nature and morality than Hobbes's theory of Psychological Egoism. Hobbes's claim that all men are equal is an absurd place to begin an argument, whereas Neitzsche is more in touch with the reality of the hierarchy of human existence. Hobbes's theory of psychological egoism is a concept that believes that all men are motivated by desire for pleasure, and avoidance of pain. However, since he believes that the "natural state" of mankind is a state of war, in which everyman is willing to kill another man solely for the purpose of acquiring what he may possess, the fear of death at the hands of our rivals prevents us from attaining any meaningful happiness. Therefore, Hobbes concludes, the root of all morality is in the creation of an unwritten "social contract", in which all men cooperate in order to attain a greater good by means of empowering a "sovereign" to maintain order, and uphold society's rules through the threat of force. Because after all, according to Hobbes, the fear of harm is the driving force in human existence.

Neitzsche's equally bleak interpretation of human existence, states that it is not the desire for pleasure and the fear of pain that drives men, but the "Will to Power". The "Will to Power" is the concept that men are, unlike Hobbes's view, unequal in power, drive, and ability. Due to this inequality of strength, human existence is a giant game of "king of the hill", in which all people are struggling against each other to reach the top and impose their wills on those not strong enough to oppose them. And in the end only a few exceptional people will be elevated by the masses of the weaker, lesser beings into a position of greatness. Those acquiring power are "happy", those who are merely followers of the herd resent their superiors in a state of power loss, or "unhappiness". Neitzsche's position is stronger because of the fundamental claims that he makes are more correct than Hobbes's.

Hobbes claims that since all men are basically equal in strength, that the driving force of humanity is the fear of harm and mistrust of other men. Which is not only shows the weakness of his character, but the weakness of his ideas. How would Hobbes explain altruism? Or how would he respond to the fact that people have an innate desire for love and friendship?

By nature, of these types of relationships require trust, the giving of one's self, self-sacrifice, and reciprocation, none of which are compatible with his theories. I believe that Hobbes would be backed into a metaphorical corner and would be forced to make unreasonable claims by redefining the nature of such relationships and saying that they are a product of one's self-interested behavior. But empirical facts clearly show that throughout human existence we have sought these types of relationships that are filled with trust and altruism. On the other hand, Neitzsche claims that people are all differing greatly in strength, and therefore the application of this power difference is the driving force of humanity.

If all men were equal in drive, intelligence, and energy then who would be the "sovereign" that Hobbes's social contract theory presupposes? Someone would have to have the "will" to achieve such a position. People will always rise to positions of power, and the ranks of the elite will always exist because all men are not created equal. Through a combination of nature's blessings, and the influence of one's environment, some men are given stronger bodies, or sharper minds, with greater courage, determination, and desire for the "Will to Power". Ironically Hobbes's theory of people desiring pleasure and the avoidance of pain is only a subset of Neitzsche's theory of Will (desire) as the driving force of humanity.

The desire for pleasure is only a manifestation of Will, and the avoidance of pain is simply the will to survive. Thus, one must also conclude that Hobbes's ideas are a cowardly interpretation of Neitzsche's base theory. Just as the Will of a stronger man would clearly dominate Hobbes, his ideas are clearly dominated by the accuracy of Neitzsche's theory. If confronted with my paper, Hobbes would probably respond to my (Neitzsche's) claim that people are not equal by saying that no matter how strong the will of an individual, we all are vulnerable to disease, weather, fatigue, old age, deception from other men, and violence in times of these weaknesses.

Although there is truth in the fact that all men are vulnerable to these calamities, the way in which one responds to them will vary from person to person. One person may crumble and break under the pressure of a freezing storm, whereas other will push forward and continue to march to shelter despite the opposition. So it is not the weakness of our bodies that keep men equal, but the strength of our "Wills" that provides the vast degree of separation in the hierarchy of power that is our society. It is difficult for a reasonable man to accept an argument based on the principal that all men are of equal strengths when it is clearly obvious through sports, war, and the hierarchy of society that some people have a greater desire to achieve and better means by which to achieve this desire.

This "Will to Power" is the fundamental driving force of human existence. For without desire, there would be no pursuit of power, love, friendship, material possessions, and anything else the Will can will. It is not that Hobbes's theory is not worth noting, because he does paint a picture of a world in which the slave mentality is central, while the strong dominate them. His view is only a one aspect of Neitzsche's ideas, a pessimistic, cowardly view of the world that stinks of resentment for the strong.

Whereas Neitzsche's view returns to the base fact that the "Will" is the driving factor in morality, while at the same time championing the strong as the beneficiaries of his philosophy.