He believes that there is a God but he does not strictly adhere to the religious wagon that many people are behind. According to John Locke, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and…teaches all mankind…that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke 6). He believes that our individualism is stemmed in a set of natural “rights” such as life, liberty, and the right to own property, which God has set. Also, Locke believes that humans are not only interested in surviving but in the survival of the community and the race as a whole. Due to this, Locke believed “Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another…” (Locke 87).
John Locke, Jean- Jacques Rousseau and Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli analyze the concepts of human nature. Individually each philosopher has a distinct perception on human nature in itself. Locke and Rousseau define the natural state humans are born into, while Machiavelli illustrates the characteristics a person must have to be a effective leader. These alternative conceptions of human nature outline the differing mental processes of each author. Locke, Rousseau, and Machiavelli- used syntax and interpretation that varied, which served to characterize their stances on human nature.
Therefore, for Locke, sovereignty does not reside in a monarch, but the people. With this idea, Locke suggests that people do not need to be afraid of their sovereign. There is no need for Hobbes’s Leviathan because, “men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent” (The Second Treatise of Civil Government, 8). For Hobbes, a civilized peaceful society would not exist if it they did not have a leviathan. On the contrary, for Locke, the existence of the government was not necessary for society to exist, it was necessary for mankind to exist comfortably.
Wilson is absolutely sure in his point of view; and according to that in “The Biological Basis of Morality” he says “I believe in the independence of moral values, whether from God or not, and I believe that moral values come from human beings alone, whether or not God exists” (1998, p.112). In other words, it means that E.O. Wilson believes that moral values are independent from God or another perfect being; and come along with humans. It is not necessary to be a God to distinguish what is good and wrong. However, there is one common thing that Wilson shares with Kant and that thing is free will.
It is important that we know that the state of nature describes a pre- political society prior to the social contract. Both social contract philosophers defended different views about moral and political obligations of men living in the state of nature stripped of their social characters. The state of nature illustrates how human beings acted prior to entering into civil society and becoming social beings living under common legitimacy. The state of nature is to be illustrated as a hypothetical device to explain political importance in the society. Thomas Hobbes, propounded politics and morality in his concept of the state
So humans, by tempering them, are challenging the will of God, and as a result, they are likely to make human affairs worse, rather than better. They believe that the human beings are imperfect creatures who are always in an urge for power, and can be persuaded to behave in a civilized fashion if they are deterred from expressing their violent anti social impulses. They believe that this can be done, only if they are governed by tough and strongly imposed law, which will be backed by sanctions, long prison sentences, and the use of corporal or even capital
As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars. For it is the wrongdoing of the opposing party which compels the wise man to wage just wars ”. In all of this, Augustine is not far from and is, in fact, probably drawing upon the ideas of Cicero and the author of Deuteronomy. He goes further than either of them, however, in his condemnation of war itself and in his refusal to allow that the aggressor may be just. For Augustine, war is never a good but only a lesser of evils, and the one who causes the war is always unjust.
He introduces the concept of the ‘state of nature’ in his articles. He describes this as a hypothetical time in the human beings life where he/she live uncorrupted by society. One of the main characteristics of the ‘state of nature’ is that people are free to do as they wish. They have complete physical freedom. With that being said, it also has a few disadvantages such as, people are unaware of morality and rationality of life and societal requirements.
Machiavelli seemed to have a critical look regarding human nature. He assumed that individuals have good and bad characteristics, yet would generally turn towards self-interest. With this being said, Machiavelli commonly questioned the loyalty of the citizens of the state. His views on human beings were that absolutely selfish and egotistical creatures, so a prince could not trust the word of the people. This is the reason a prince ought not to be excessively compassionate, because men were characterized as being “ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers”, and when there is danger they is a threat they will betray the prince in a heartbeat.
Power is the mainspring of all of them; it can’t, however, be the concrete objective itself. This is because it’s abstract, and the world simply can’t indulge directly in the abstract. Instead, power needs a physical vehicle by which it could take form and become noticeable. The physical vehicle in our case is greed in its multifarious forms. I admonish you, thus, to look at power as the aspect that forges all forms of greed, not as a distinct one separate from them.