Egoism and the Golden Rule

Good Essays
According to Thomas Hobbes, in the state of nature every human being acts in a way to maximize their satisfaction with disregard to the self-interest of others. The state of nature is a state of war where everyone must fend for his or herself and all are against all. No one has any sort of moral obligation to anything else except to maximize one’s own satisfaction. Although the goal is to maximize satisfaction over time, the constant threat of war or someone plotting against you to get what they want does not allow the full enjoyment of life. Hobbes concludes that the second law of nature would allow mankind to get more satisfaction over time.
Hobbes states that the second law of nature is that all people should seek personal satisfaction by acting towards others as he or she would want that person to act towards his or herself. By doing so, Hobbes believes that the overall satisfaction of life will increase, supporting the idea of ethical egoism, which is the idea that every individual should always do what will make his or her life better over time.
The idea of ethical egoism leads to the same idea of the “golden rule” in Hobbes’ theory. The golden rule states that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you, while ethical egoism is used to maximize your satisfaction. Hobbes’ theory states that if you do to others as you would have them do to you then you are more likely to have people do those good things for you in return, maximizing your satisfaction and supporting the idea of ethical egoism. If one were to do bad things to others and not treat them well, then that person is more likely to have bad things done to his or herself, achieving the opposite effect of ethical egoism.
Although Hobbes has an in-depth and complicated theory of how ethical egoism and the golden rule are the same, there are also some flaws in his thinking. He states that the golden rule and ethical egoism always come to the same thing; that it is not possible

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Hobbes was a philosopher who saw humans as a purely physical being. He believed that all human actions can be explained through the motions in our bodies. According to Hobbes all feelings and emotions are a result of phantasms, our perception of the objects around us. This perception is a motion within our bodies and each person perceives these phantasms differently causing love, hate, desires, and what we think is good and bad. Every feeling that comes from ones perspective has a physical feeling, such as desires can cause certain pains and it is only human nature that one does whatever is needed in order to relieve those pains. Hobbes therefore sees humans as being able, by their state of nature, to take or do whatever necessary for themselves even if it shows no regard for the other people their actions may harm. This inevitably would end up in a fight for survival or “the war of all against all”. In order to prevent such a war from happening Hobbes thought it necessary that the individuals must promise each other to give up their right to govern themselves to the sovereign for the mutual benefit of the people. This sovereign then has absolute power to rule with no questions asked and not to only act on behalf of the citizens but to completely embody their will. In summation, Hobbes believed that society could only exist under power of the sovereign and that life in the state of nature is violent, short and brutish, as all men act on self-interest.…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    hobbes and kant

    • 1500 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Hobbes was a different kind of philosopher that had a very pessimistic view on humanity. In Hobbes’ book the Leviathan, he believed that humans were naturally nasty creatures and needed to be regulated in a society. For Hobbes one thing he also believed in was Utilitarianism, which is the desire for pleasure that drives our actions, basically, the most useful choice for your benefit. Hobbes had a theory that was called “the state of nature”, which in the eyes of Hobbes was life for humans before any kind of laws or governments. He says that the state of nature is a violent place with no lows. In the state of nature there is no business, no account of time, buildings, and there is always danger around the corner. For Hobbes the “state of nature” was a savage place that could only be fixed by laws, there is only peace when there is no war and no war is a place with laws. Hobbes came to the conclusion that humans cant live in groups without law. Hobbes was…

    • 1500 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The view Locke had on the state of nature is conceptually different. Locke's view of the state of nature says that humans have limits as to what we should or should not do, but he believed that humans are generally nice to one another, and we will not bother one another. Therefore, in Locke's state of nature, humans are peaceful. Hobbes, however, believes that humans live in a state of war and fight with each other constantly.…

    • 841 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes contribution was the suggestion that the social order was made by human beings and therefore could be changed by human beings. Hobbes looked on the individual as selfish, concerned with self-preservation, searching for power, and (potentially at least) at war with others. For Hobbes, in the state of nature, there was a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short. Since individuals are rational, they agree to surrender their individual rights to the sovereign in order to create a state whereby they can be protected from other individuals. Locke and Rousseau further developed this idea of a social contract, although in a somewhat different form than Hobbes.…

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Enlightenment Thinkers

    • 503 Words
    • 3 Pages

    John Locke was another philosopher of the Enlightenment. He viewed human nature very differently from Hobbes. Locke said a person is not born good or evil. Rather he said, people's characters are shaped by their…

    • 503 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Through reason a “Law of Nature” can be discovered. A law of nature is unlike a civil law because a law of nature is inherently known to all. Hobbes deduces that the only way to escape the terror is to seek peace and so the first law of nature was created. The first and most fundamental law is “to seek peace and follow it” (Hobbes 80). In seeking peace, humans will fulfill the natural right to defend themselves. Additionally, humans must give up certain rights to escape the natural condition of humanity. By giving up their rights, they are agreeing to a social contract. This social contract leads to self-preservation and peace. Hobbes created nineteen laws of nature and the basis for them all is to treat others the way you want to be treated. Hobbes believes that by following these laws and the social contract, humans can escape the natural condition of…

    • 690 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The idea of the natural human is a topic discussed for centuries. Philosophers for generations asked question regarding the form of government that human beings react best in. In class we examined both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's theory of the State of Nature which allowed us to see their viewpoints on humankind. Hobbes believes that humans are selfishly motivated and are constantly at war with one another. However, Locke has a more positive outlook. He believes that humans behaved based on the Law of Nature which is given to us by God (hobbeslockedocument). In Locke’s opinion, the State of Nature is free and has the right to life, liberty and property and if people want their rights respected, they should respect others. However, Locke is not delusional, he knows…

    • 536 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The first premise is certainly false. “If we (everyone) minded her own business, and tended to their own needs, then everyone would be better off.” This premise, as it is, cannot hold up the self-reliance argument let alone ethical egoism. If John, an elderly man, was walking in the park and had a fall, would he be better off if Jill, a bystander, just continued on her way? She was running late to work and could easily tend to her own needs leaving John on the ground moaning in pain.…

    • 565 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hobbes credits to each person in the state of nature a liberty right to preserve herself, which he terms “the right of nature”. This is the right to do whatsoever one sincerely judges requiring for one's protection; yet because it is at least possible that virtually anything might be judged necessary for one's protection, this hypothetically limited right of nature becomes in practice an unlimited right to potentially anything, or, as Hobbes puts it, a right “to all things”. Hobbes further assumes that people should accept what they see to be the necessary means to their most important ends.…

    • 214 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Ethical Egoism

    • 502 Words
    • 3 Pages

    I believe in Ethical Egoism and think it would be the best way for people to live. If everyone believed in Ethical Egoism, the world would probably have better people in my opinion. With Ethical Egoism, a person will be able to get ahead in their own life and provide a better life for him or his family. While being an ethical egoist you can still help others so the world won’t be a completely selfish world. And combined with the social contract, it keeps people and things in an order.…

    • 502 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Locke and Human Nature

    • 399 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Hobbes’ theory is a pessimistic look at human being and the way they act around each other but Locke’s theory suggests that people are more easy-going and peaceful towards each other. As we see in the news daily, people are often cruel and inhumane, and we also see kinder people in everyday life. We see people who give up their own personal pleasure so they can serve others. But these people are far and few between, it becomes quickly obvious that humans are drawn towards self-happiness…

    • 399 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes doctrine the Leviathan based on his social contract theories. As the book was written in the midst of a civil war much of it focuses on the need of a strong central authority to avoid discord and civil war. In his Leviathan Hobbes hypothesizes what life would be like without government, also known as state of nature. In this state each person would have a certain right, or license to all . This would eventually lead to a “bellum omnium contra omnes” or war against all, and people would love solitary, poor, short lives. In order to avoid this he states that man needs to agree to a social contract and establish civil society. Hobbes states that “society is a population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede their natural rights for the sake of protection”. This means that man gives up some of his natural right to the sovereign in exchange for protection and order, and any misuse of this power is to be acknowledged as the price of peace, although in extreme cases rebellion is to be expected. The sovereign is in charge of and must control civil, military, judicial, and ecclesiastical powers. To prove this Hobbes said "If men are naturally in a state of war, why do they always carry arms and why do they have keys to lock their doors? "…

    • 508 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were political philosophers of the seventeenth century who each attempted to decipher the best form of government. Though they were both naturalists, Locke and Hobbes shared very different views on the natural laws that moved humans and this led to radically different beliefs on what they thought to be the ideal form of government. The first conceptual difference between Hobbes and Locke is the necessity of a central authority for humans to be able to live together in a peaceful and stable environment. For both philosophers, when humans exist without any acting authority it is known as a state of nature. According to Hobbes a state of nature was a condition in which humans are constantly fearful for their safety and experience only fleeting moments of pleasure. This means that it is almost impossible to have any sort of meaningful existence without the presence of a universal authority, or as Hobbes calls it a Leviathan. In a Hobbesian state of nature, humans are all provided with four things: scarcity, equality, reason and a universal aversion to death. The scarcity of the world leads to a life or death competition for a limited amount of resources. This competition for basic needs, along with the ability to reason, leads to the understanding that the acquisition of resources for oneself, comes at the expense of another human. According to Hobbes, these rationalizations are always present in a state of nature and this leads to the idea that humans are naturally non-social animals. Hobbes believes that without a central power, humans have no chance of living together in peace. An important issue that arises both in both Locke and Hobbes is conditions in which a person can legitimately exit civil society. Hobbes’ view on the nature of civil society allows him to conclude that societies are held together by reason and not inclination or affection. Hobbes goes on to explain that once a civil society is in place, rationality will make…

    • 796 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Without a distinct framework, ethical egoism fails as a moral theory to assist moral decision making because it endorses the animalistic nature of humanity, fails to provide a viable solution to a conflict of interest, and is proved to be an evolutionary unstable moral strategy.…

    • 1238 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes vs Hume

    • 999 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher published his masterwork, the Leviathan, in 1651. This book influenced western philosophy with its view on the Social Contract theory. A social contract theory is an act by which individuals agree to establish a government by the people who unite to achieve some goal. This contract importantly binds people into a community that exists for mutual protection and preservation. In this condition everyone is involved in making the contract together to gives up their rights. People who agree to the contract retain only those rights over others that they are content for everyone else to retain over them. In his moral psychology, one of the important areas discussed was the innate selfishness of humans. The theory of psychological egoism in which our actions are selfishly motivated held that some of our actions are caused by selfish desires even if an action seems selfless. If, for example, if somebody is volunteering at a local hospital or donating to charity it may have an underling selfish motive like to get references to get into med-school or to get rid of guilt respectively. Likewise, according to Hobbes “the true doctrine of the Laws of Nature is the true Moral philosophy” (pg 66). He says in his laws of nature that human beings live in a miserable state of nature and where everyone is at war with one another. When everybody is fighting, basic needs are not met. So we all should…

    • 999 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays