Fundamental Nature Of Man – Good or Bad?
Do you intuitively trust or distrust other people? This boils down to whether your world view is Lockean or Hobbesian.
Many people regard strangers with suspicion rather than trust. Those of us who choose to believe the best of others (Lockeans) are regarded as naive by the other camp (Hobbesians) who consider themselves ‘worldly-wise.”
Let me introduce you briefly to John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, and explain in simple terms their opposing beliefs about the nature of man. Then you can choose which camp you want to belong to.
photo credit: Dare Darlington
The nature of man according to Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) held the depressing view that man, left to himself, would descend into “a war of all against all.” To prevent us from killing and otherwise hurting each other, government is needed. We grant the government our rights in exchange for its protection.
Hobbes thought that we cannot know the difference between good and evil, and cannot achieve peace by our own means. Civil society is thus based on a strong government telling us what to do, and peace is achieved when we do what we are told
Hobbesians, therefore, live in the belief that we are constantly at risk of being hurt by one another. Our assumption is that others are out to get us, and our instinct is to protect ourselves.
The nature of man according to Locke
John Locke (1632-1704) believed that man is by nature a social animal. For the most part, we are reasonable and tolerant. We tend to live in a state of peace and honour our obligations to each other. Occasional conflicts would arise and so it is important to establish boundaries of ownership.
Locke thought that people had an innate sense of right and wrong, even if we disagreed over the specifics from time to time. We are therefore capable of resolving conflicts in a fair and peaceful manner. The state exists to formalise our individual rights in the form of property rights.
Lockeans, therefore, are convinced that people are by nature good, and will deal fairly with each other. Our assumption is that others will respect our rights, and our inclination is to seek peaceful co-existence through mutual respect.
The nature of man according to you?
I like to think I’m Lockean in my outlook, because it just seems more politically correct especially if we’re into personal development and all that. Still, I’m aware that sometimes I tend to distrust the intentions of strangers and perhaps am more Hobbesian than I care to admit.
What about you? What is your world view regarding the nature of man? Do you fly the banner for the Hobbesian or the Lockean camp? Or are you like me, an unwilling Hobbesian who has decided that citizenship in the Lockean country is by far a better deal and is working on migrating over?
My readers may have noticed that I’m taking a long time to respond to comments. I’m sorry about this. I thought of closing off comments but there is much wisdom and insight in some readers’ contributions so I’m leaving comments open for others to read but asking your indulgence and understanding if I respond late or not at all.
I also want to thank all of you for your continued support. Despite my irregularity in posting, my Google PageRank remains at 4 and subscriber count continues to climb towards the 1,000 mark. All I can say is I am grateful.
You can subscribe for free updates by RSS or Email.
13 Responses to “Fundamental Nature Of Man – Good or Bad?”
Leave a Reply
Search this Blog
Most Popular Posts
- Let Go of Expectations
- How to Find Happiness That Lasts
- Your 24 Possible Personal Strengths
- 17 Inspiring Examples of Personal Creeds
- Parallel Universes: You May Be Everything You Ever Wanted To Be
- 7 Proven Ways to Live A Happy Life
Recent Posts
- Dealing with Emotions – Dos and Don’ts (Part 2)
- Dealing with Emotions – Dos and Don’ts (Part 1)
- Start Afresh
- Wine and the Taste of Happiness
- Detach from Outcomes
- Gratitude for 2010
- How to Stay Positive
- Joyful Days Awarded as a Top 50 Wellness Guru
- Simplify Your Life With The “One In, One Out” Method
- What Makes People Happy? The Top 10 List
- “I Want To Change My Life!”
- Setting Boundaries
- 206 Reasons To Be Grateful
- Making Peace with Criticism
- When Big Egos Collide
April 7th, 2010 @ 1:11 am
I think it’s mixed – we all have good and bad inside of us and for the vast majority of people, good is stronger.
However, I tend not to trust strangers. They need to earn my trust. And I don’t expect strangers to trust me!
April 7th, 2010 @ 1:23 am
Definitely Locke – or at least we start out that way.
I don’t tend to trust people I don’t know but I don’t expect anything bad from them either.
April 7th, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
This post reminds me of the two conflicting schools of thought in ancient China.
Confucian and Daoist teaching is that man’s nature is fundamentally good and is inclined towards good. Confucian teaching of taking the middle road and his emphasis on ethics “kindness, righteousness, loyalty, justice, courtesy, wisdom and trust,” and Daoist philosophy of living simply, maintaining a tranquil mind and letting things take their natural course according to cosmic energy, have served as the guiding principles of common people. They are the moral standards for the people; one governing their interaction with the outside world and the other governing the way that they handle things internally. The two played an important role in maintaining the stability of society and the harmony of the family.
Legalist philosophy, however the ruler firmly controls the state with the help of three concepts: his position of power, certain techniques, and laws. Legalism assumes that everyone acts according to one principle: avoiding punishment while simultaneously trying to achieve gains. Thus the law must severely punish any unwanted action, while at the same time reward those who follow it. Legalism believed human nature is evil and people should be punished according to their actions.
April 7th, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
Hi Daphne .. great to see you here.
Interesting post – I guess Locke .. but sometimes I see people and think “no – not sure about this one, or usually group of people” .. then I remind myself we all have good in us, some people are down on their luck, possibly have little going for them and cannot see beyond themselves – they’ve never been offered another way, or been in a kind environment .. where others matter.
Society hasn’t perhaps helped us enough – I hope we can help the world in our tiny ways, the butterfly ripple effect ….
thanks for these thoughts & glad your readership etc .. is keeping up – hope all’s well with all the other changes: sounds as though it’s happy times. Hugs – Hilary
April 8th, 2010 @ 9:09 am
@ Vered,
I think it’s easy to trust family and friends. Trusting strangers is when our fundamental beliefs about human nature is put to the test. Over the years I’ve learnt to trust strangers more – they’re just people like me – good, kind ;) but I haven’t got to know them yet. I think that’s where I want to live – Lockean country!
@ Kim,
Interesting that you say we start out Lockean. Maybe we learn distrust… sad. But the good thing is if it is learnt, it can be unlearnt and we can re-learn what we choose to believe. Thanks for this insight.
April 8th, 2010 @ 9:13 am
@ Victor,
Wow, I learnt a lot from you today. I’ve known about Confucius, of course, but am not familiar with Daoist teaching. I love how you explained it: “living simply, maintaining a tranquil mind and letting things take their natural course”. As I grow older maybe I’m becoming more Daoist then. You have made me interested enough to find out more. Thank you!
@ Hilary,
I’m like you – sometimes I start out suspicious and have to remind myself that there is good somewhere in people and learn to trust that good to prevail. Thanks for commenting here. Several times I’ve thought about closing down my blog then I see the readership and comments and I think I still have something good here. Your support means a lot, thank you.
April 11th, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
I stand by the view of Christianity, that man is borne of God, that we are imperfect at the present (and hence, neither perfectly good or vice versa), but we have hope, and one day, our love and empathy for one another would be perfected by God’s wonderful grace! ;-)
April 12th, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
Crash, the movie, had an interesting way of showing how people are good and bad depending on the scenario and depending on how you look at it.
April 15th, 2010 @ 11:08 pm
I struggle to find the good in myself many times. This doesn’t make me more suspicious of others, but more appreciative of their smiles, help, and joyfulness that warm my day. What does bother me is the number of people who turn away from a greeting or refuse eye contact to a stranger. I think they miss out on many blessings.
April 16th, 2010 @ 1:30 am
Hi Daphne.
My gut decides if I stay around a person long enough to look for reasons to trust them. Good point Vered noted about not expecting strangers to trust us either.
April 30th, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
Hi,
Awesome the way you make us reflect on these things =)
I believe we can be various degrees of selfish or unselfish. Bad is then to be selfish. The reward for being unselfish is happiness.
In that way there will always be a balance.
May 8th, 2010 @ 1:44 pm
Hey Daphne, this is great food for thought. I tend to think that we are innately good, except our innate goodness is blocked over by pain – which makes us go out and do “nasty” stuff. I have no idea where that leaves me, probably I’m both Lockean and Hobbesian.
September 22nd, 2011 @ 5:25 pm
I did trust people. Wow but they eat you up & spit you out’.Have a look how they help the poor!!!It nice to say your lockeans.I belive it sad to to read these comments.May there priest would dis-agree