Now Accepting Apple Pay

Apple Pay is the easiest and most secure way to pay on StudyMoose in Safari.

Thomas Hobbes vs. Immanuel Kant

“Everyone is governed by his own factor, and there is nothing he can use that may not be a help unto him in maintaining his life versus his enemies (Hobbes, 120).” Thomas Hobbes, who is a thought about a rational egoist, makes this point in his book Leviathan. Hobbes believes that the methods of person’s actions can only be amounted to how it eventually impacts that person. Our moral tasks that we carry out in the end, all come from self-interest, instead of being warranted as morally right or incorrect.

Hobbes specifies that our desires pit us against one another, and the only way to safeguard our self-interests is to develop a typical power that secures the people who consent to it. Hobbes begins by explaining society as remaining in a “state of nature”, or a consistent power battle. All resources are limited, so when individuals desire the very same methods to an end they remain in competition with one another.

Get quality help now
Writer Lyla
Verified writer

Proficient in: Duty

5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

People are all similarly geared up, with an ability so to speak, that help them in their undertaking to defeat others with the exact same purpose. This continuing competition between people is only balanced out by our enthusiasm to sustain peace, maintain life, and acquire products essential for survival, which eventually supports Hobbes’ theory that people just act out of self-interest. This condition of peaces or liberty from endless turmoil is just fulfilled when there is a typical power that individuals accept follow.

Without common power, everyone acting out of self-interest produces a world he refers to as, “no location for market … no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual worry, and risk of violent death; and the life of guy, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and brief (Hobbes, 118).

Get to Know The Price Estimate For Your Paper
Topic
Number of pages
Email Invalid email

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Check writers' offers

You won’t be charged yet!

” To support this concept, Hobbes utilizes the usage of agreements, and natural laws. In his very first Natural Law he specifies to “seek peace and follow it (Hobbes, 120)”, indicating life is everything about self-preservation, and we need to do what is needed to retain it.

This leads to his second law that states, a person must defend themselves by any means and by doing so we act out of self-interest. Thus, to remove society from this state of nature people must consent to covenants governed by Leviathan, which facilitates the performance of the contracts. For this to work properly each person must give up some rights to an authority.

So if one person breaks a contract; lets say people agreed not to steal from one another, the Leviathan has the power to discipline the person by endangering their way of life, or even by death. And therefore not keeping a covenant is harmful to our self-interest because “ we are forbidden to do anything destructive to our life, and consequently this is a law of nature (Hobbes, 124). ” Hobbes believes that man act based on self-interest motivated by two ideas. Fear, which, “makes natural man want to escape state of nature and reason, shows him how to escape (Hobbes, 122).

” Using these two ideas if a person does not act out of self-interest to preserve themselves through a contract, or follow a covenant we form with others ultimately everyone that is governed by that third party will not want you to be apart of the society they have formed. This will result in a person being placed back into a state of nature. 25 PART 2: Immanuel Kant When Thomas Hobbes states that “our moral duties must provide each of us with excellent reasons to obey them, and that these reasons must ultimately stem from self-interest (Hobbes, 115).

” He fails to account that our actions posses moral worth solely when they are motivated by the good will. Immanuel Kant argues that our moral acts are only done apart from our gains in the end. Its to say if everyone acted out of self-interest, committing murder because of the fear of being toppled from the top would be morally right. “A human being however is not a thing and hence not something that can be used merely as a means, but in all his actions always be regarded as an end in itself (Kant, 113). ” It is our inclination, not duty, to commit acts based on self-interest or self-preservation.

Therefore using anything at your disposal as a means would have no moral worth. “It is not enough that the action does not conflict with humanity in our person as an ends in itself; it must also harmonize with it”(Kant, 113). People must act not according inclinations or rules, but it involves performing acts that have no gains for us, and that is the only way to preserve humanity. Although Kant agrees with Hobbes that a state of nature does exist without proper authority, he counters, saying it does not exist because everyone is acting out of duty.

Stating self-interest is the motivation for our actions and ultimate end conflicts with the principle of forming a covenant to protect our self-interests. We would still be in a state of nature, due the “fool” who does not obey his covenant. Thusly, making a covenant out of self-interest can lead to people in society breaking this contract or making empty promises, as a result of later gains they may receive by not abiding. Instead, when acting out of duty “I must reflect carefully whether this lie (broken covenant) may later give rise to much greater inconvenience (Kant, 107),” which ultimately can harm our inclination to self-preserve.

Before one can act they must ask the question would they want others to act in that manner? This sets a maxim for each individual to follow, so a covenant is formed that society will not break because it our duty, and acting out of from this principle conforms to good will. The only way for society to not be in a state of nature is for everyone to be socially conscious. No one wants to be in conflict with each other and in a constant power struggle, people acting out of duty, even if calls for actions that have no means or gains to oneself is the only maintain contract.

Acting out of self-interest creates turmoil, and only through good will can people conform to their duties and feel a sense of moral worth through their actions. 20 PART 3: Thomas Hobbes Hobbes over comes Kant’s criticism that people should act out of good will by arguing that people never act purely with altruistic motives. If society as a whole acted based on what actions have moral worth, and had no means to an end, society could never prosper.

People are instinctively always looking to better themselves and Kant can agree, “Persevering one’s life is a duty (Kant, 105)”. As our duty, whether it is morally right or wrong we must do what is necessary. This agrees with Kant’s idea that if everyone’s maxim agrees to self-preserve, it is ultimately a universal law to act out of ones self-interest to do so, in the end contradicting his idea that we must exclusively act out of moral goodness. Kant also states that good will must be good in itself, but does not define what is truly morally good or bad.

If a person is a volunteer firefighter, Kant can say that this person is acting out of self-interest (feel good about helping others), so his actions have no moral worth. By stating this he claims that people in society acting with conformity to their duties rather than from duty alone have no moral value, therefore their actions cannot be just or unjust. This idea in itself is flawed, because people’s actions whether they are of self-interest or good will can be seen as morally right or wrong, because they serve to better the covenant, which they consented to.

Hobbes dismisses Kant’s idea that a covenant formed from self-interest will ultimately be broken by people who seek gains by not following it, or who do not consent to the societal agreements by simply stating, those “fools” will have no part in that society. Acting out of self-interest better preserves a covenant because when we do not follow this principle we are no longer socially accountable. Therefore, through the fear of hurting our fundamental duty to self-preserve by any means possible and reason we consent to maintain our covenant. 23 PART 4: Immanuel Kant.

While Hobbes addresses that acting out of good will leads to a society that cannot prosper, he is wrong because if society as a whole is working together and acting out duties based on good will, there will be no continual struggle for power (motivated by self-interest) allowing the covenant of man to prosper as a whole. This will eliminate the individualism and personal self-motives of man that can hold back society from making gains aimed at the whole. Hobbs misunderstood the nature of the maxim, when he states that it is solely motivated by self-interest.

In regards to the idea that all men should act out of goodwill, this leaves only one viable option for a true maxim. That maxim is the only choice that disregards means to an end. With this in mind no choice for or against our moral self-interest but for the duty of acting on good will. In Hobbs statement he leaves much to be desired in the definition what serves as goodwill. When a covenant is formed from self-interest, members seeking internal justification will slowly pollute and over destroy the covenant as a whole.

The only way to maintain authority among men is to work without regard to personal goals and aspiration and only out of goodwill, which conforms to duty. 18 WORK CITED Shafer-Landau, Russ. “Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes. ” The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. 115-25. Print. Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Ethical Life: “Immanuel Kant, The Good Will and the Categorical Imperative. ” Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. 115-25. Print. 86.

Cite this page

Thomas Hobbes vs. Immanuel Kant. (2016, Nov 14). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/thomas-hobbes-vs-immanuel-kant-essay

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

get help with your assignment