An Analysis of Position of Thomas Hobbes on Human Nature Happiness, Life, and Morality

Thomas Hobbes (5th April 1588- 4th December 1679) was an English philosopher best known for his work on political philosophy. However, he also argues the definition of human happiness and human nature. In this paper I will analyze his position on human happiness and life and morality, as stated in his most notable work, The Leviathan, and contest it with the claims of another notable philosopher, Aristotle and express why I feel Aristotle's view is more convincing than Hobbes. The Leviathan was written in a time of civil war and strife, and many of Hobbes' arguments reflect the situation in England at the time.

Hobbes emphasized on reading oneself and honest introspection. He had a secular and scientific way of looking at human life and believed that the human of power of deliberation did not make us special. Hobbes stated that the human experience is divided into appetites and aversions, and human life is the motion of our limbs towards our appetites and away from our aversions.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified writer

Proficient in: Free Essays

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Hobbes says, 'Pleasure or delight is the appearance or sense of good and molestation or displeasure is appearance or sense of bad.' (Leviathan, Page 23) He argues that human happiness is continual success in obtaining the things you want when you want them. Hobbes' position is strengthened by biological characteristics of human beings, who through years of evolution have always gravitated towards what makes them feel good (eating food, sex, and forming groups for safety) and avoided things that cause displeasure (cold, predators, pain)thomas hobbes human nature

Hobbes also defines the entire spectrum of human emotions as being influenced by our appetites and aversions.

'Appetite with an expectation of success is called hope, appetite without such an expectation is called despair, aversion with the opinion that hurt will come from the object, fear, aversion, with a hope of avoiding that hurt by resistance, courage” (Leviathan, Page 23-24)

Hobbes argument states that human beings are not so different from other animals, whose lives are dictated by primal instincts of seeking and avoiding things that cause pleasure and displeasure respectively. The complexity of human beings may pose a barrier to this argument, but the barrier dissolves when we associate Hobbes' philosophy to the concept of operant conditioning.

Psychology takes its roots from philosophy, and in operant conditioning, humans can actually learn new behavior through their appetites and aversions. For example, a child who receives sweets from a parent every time he cleans his room, will make cleaning his room a habit, not because he wants to clean, but because he has an appetite for the sweets because they cause him pleasure.

In another vein, alcoholics are often treated by bitter tasting substances mixed in their alcohol, and in order to avoid the taste, they will stop drinking, in an aversion response to the displeasure of the bitter taste. Just as Hobbes speaks of 'jucunda' and 'molesta' as 'strengthening' and 'hindering' to the vital motion (Leviathan, Page 23) we can say that the sweets strengthen the vital motion of cleaning and the bitter taste hinder the vital motion of alcoholism, hence it is possible to say that Hobbes is right when he says happiness is when we continually achieve our desires.

He does not stress on moral obligations, a refreshing change from the strict morality of Kant, and instead emphasizes on happiness being doing what you want, and moral is seen as passion. It may seem like a materialistic view, but in context to today's consumerist world, it makes perfect sense, because today, we feel happier when we can afford to own the latest iPhone, than we fulfill our moral duty. Hobbes argument is supported by the fact that people work for money, in order to get the things we want. It is possible to oppose Hobbes by saying that he does not prescribe ‘a good life', but later in The Leviathan, Hobbes puts great emphasis on the importance of a strong central authority to prevent a state of constant war, and hence we can say that Hobbes does stress on peace, security and stability, as the optimum conditions to achieve one's desires, and hence be happy.

Aristotle (384-322 BC) was a Greek philosopher whose work covers many subjects and fields of study, from ethics to zoology. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explains human happiness, humanness and virtue, his arguments disagree with Hobbes' idea of human happiness. Aristotle states that we do everything for the sake of something that makes us happy, and this happiness is the ultimate good. The fundamental difference between Hobbes and Aristotle is the concept of ultimate good, Aristotle believes happiness is the ultimate good, which prevents an infinite regress and prevents our desires from being empty.

Hobbes on the other hand, does not acknowledge the concept of ultimate good, and in his arguments, happiness is a cycle of getting what we want when we want it. Aristotle believes that all human action aims at good, by which we can fulfil the potential of our lives. Aristotle's idea of happiness is not satisfying appetites by acquiring things, instead, Aristotle proposes eudaimonia, which is good living.

Unlike Hobbes, Aristotle believes that everything has a function, and when something performs its function well, it is considered good. When applied to humans, Aristotle believed our function is not to merely live, but to lead a life of perception and to live rationally, because reason is a characteristic of humans. In his view, virtue and morals lead to success in living a humane life. Aristotle believes that humans are not defined by their desires, but their reason instead, and following reason instead of mere desire leads to a life with more purpose.

I find Aristotle's argument more convincing because it is more balanced than Hobbes' argument. Aristotle's life of perception also involves living in a certain way- classifying things as pleasurable and painful and acting in a self-motivated action towards them, while listening to reason and not impulsive desire. This is very similar to Hobbes' argument of following one's appetites and avoiding one's aversions, but unlike Aristotle, Hobbes leaves the enforcement of morals, in a way, to the government. However, I feel that, morals are intrinsic to human beings, and should not be externalized in the hands of an enforcer. In Hobbes' view, human nature causes us to seek power to gain happiness and humanity in its natural state is ugly, miserable and full of constant war and anarchy. In order to combat that this, humans should agree to rules, and an absolutely powerful state will keep the peace and enforce the rules.

I feel Hobbes' position is weakened and seems less realistic, when his arguments about power are introduced. Hobbes is of the belief that to ensure happiness through promotion of desires, one should gain as much power as possible. This implies, that only people in power can truly be happy. Hobbes view portrays humans as self-interested beings, with very simple motivational needs for their happiness.

Aristotle, on the other hand intersperses doing what you want with virtue, reason and education, while putting your learning to a good use. Hobbes' philosophy is not realistic, but very primordial, and undermines human reason and morals as mere passions, and the stronger passion wins. Hobbes stresses on what we 'want' while Aristotle limits our desires to our life of perception. However, gaining our desires may not make us happy, such as the example of a man who desired riches, and was able to make money, but now he feels empty and disillusioned with his life. In repeating the cycle of desire and achieving this desire, the true meaning of happiness is lost.

Aristotle's argument states that, happiness is the final good, and happiness becomes an end in itself, which prevents life and desires from being empty. Hobbes' view of human life is very mechanistic, and he undermines important things other than desires, such as human relationships or the human potential of achieving greater good beyond oneself. Hobbes' also does not seem to account for the fact that some desires, that might make a person happy can be severely immoral, such as murdering someone for money. It should be understood that a strong central power can enforce morals or punish the lack of morals but cannot imbibe morals or motivation into a human. Aristotle's view is more realistic than Hobbes' view, because Aristotle emphasizes the function of humans, and the unalienable human virtue that is essential to have a fulfilling life. Hobbes' happiness may not be humane, while Aristotle is able to balance happiness, ultimate good and human function.