If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Blablabla. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Blablabla paper right on time.
Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Blablabla, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Blablabla paper at affordable prices!
In discussing the nature of morality there exists two major positions that an individual can take. One can argue for the existence of a universal, autonomous body of moral codes that pertains to all possible situations, one that is independent, unchangeable and timeless. One could also argue for a subjective morality, that is, a case where morality is owed to an immediate rational deliberation in the name of the collective good. Following is a discussion of both of these notions as they pertain to the work of two very influential philosophers', Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Thomas Hobbes, known for his book The Leviathan, argues for a subjective morality. Hobbes saw morality only as an incidental condition rising as the individual attempts to remove themselves from the ravenous state of nature. Locke, on the other hand, believed morality to be a universal body handed down from god and applied by an exercise of reason.
To best understand the position of Hobbes and his moral philosophy it is important that he is introduced as a political philosopher. Hobbes was interested in the development of a commonwealth, with a dominant sovereign, and its capacity to offer the individual increased power and security. Only by entering this commonwealth and subjecting oneself to the decree of the sovereign, Hobbes felt, did the need for a moral concept arise. The route to Hobbes's morality, therefore, begins with his understanding of the individual and the associated state of nature.
For Hobbes, the state of nature is the condition in which humans exist without institutions or collectively agreed upon authorities, it is selfish, violent and chaotic. The state of nature is this way, according to Hobbes, due to the innate nature of human beings. Hobbes held that humans are essentially physical machines cared only to satiate their needs; they desperately seek what they require and consider others merely as obstacles to their goals. In the state of nature Hobbes believed this innate human way ruled, and because no preconceived notions about human worth exist, morality immerges as backward and irrelevant while hostility reigns. This can be further understood in a quote from Hobbes himself, which reads "to this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust."
Hobbes also sought to explain the kinds of actions humans are capable of. He felt that each person was capable of two kinds of action, vital actions and animal actions. Vital actions referred to the involuntary actions of the physical body; they include elements such as the beating of the heart, the lungs facilitating oxygen exchange, and the elimination of waste. Animal actions, more importantly, describe human voluntary motion, they are believed to originate in the mind and give rise to voluntary actions. Hobbes termed this voluntary action human endeavor, of which he claimed there were two kinds, appetite and aversions. When human behavior is directed toward that which causes it, the behavior is said to be a reflection of an appetite. When human behavior involves striving to avoid that which causes it, the behavior is said to reflect an aversion. The significance of Hobbes' notion of endeavors is that appetites and aversions that are unbound represent the state of nature. That is to say, the defining feature of Hobbes' state of nature is the fact that in such a state humans live only to quench appetites and remove aversions, and furthermore, they are free to do anything in their capacity to achieve this goal. Humans are free in the sense that, as mentioned, no assumptions pre-exist. One can note the particular intensity of this notion from Hobbes' own words, which state "The passions that incline men to peace, are fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commobious living; and a hope by their industry to attain them."
After describing Hobbes' notions thus far, one may now turn to his concepts of the commonwealth. Hobbes felt that the highest achievement of civility came a humans agreed to enter into a collective society, or commonwealth. In a commonwealth Hobbes stated that each member agreed to give up a portion of the freedom of will they maintained in they state of nature. The condition of one individual surrendering part of his freedom is met in the commonwealth by the condition of another surrendering an equal portion of their freedom, this is met to reduce the chaos and remove one from the state of nature. For example, one agrees to the boundaries of his neighbors land, and in return his neighbor agrees to the boundaries of his land. In defining their property both men no longer have to fight constantly for the basics of survival, they now have the opportunity to produce excess, survive longer, and live happier as they are now more secure.
From this notion of the commonwealth one can now discuss Hobbes' ideas of morality. Morality for Hobbes arises in the rational decision of the human creature to escape the state of nature and enter the commonwealth. That is to say, in the commonwealth the individual assumes a series of laws or agreements, which increases their security. Breaking these laws then becomes the greatest sin as in such a case those involved are returned to the brutish state of nature. In the commonwealth the individual must adhere to two central principles, the right of nature and the law of nature. The right of nature stipulates that even in the commonwealth your unlimited in actions when your life depends on it. The law of nature has three parts. The first stipulates that you must not take your own life, and furthermore you must choose the best means to preserve it. The second stipulates that one must practice compromise and allot as much freedoms to them as they would allot to others. The third law stipulates that the individual maintain the agreements made of the commonwealth. These laws provide the boundaries of Hobbes' commonwealth; they are the lines separating society and the state of nature.
Morality, therefore, according to Hobbes involves living by these laws and thus enabling the individual to avoid the state of nature. In addition to these fundamental laws the collective group also agrees to a number governing sub laws, they give full power to a sovereign to enforce these laws, with the ultimate objective of maintaining the compromise of freedoms. With this, one sees' as the essence of Hobbes' theories subjectivity in the fact that laws are developed by the collective, for the collective.
Problems, however, exist with Hobbes' theories. Hobbes fails to account for all the capacities of humanity and as such his ideas fail to depict an accurate picture of human civilization. Hobbes' most fundamental error is his exclusion of human reason. From his exclusion of objective human reason, as something driving the search for pure knowledge, one can attack his model of the state of nature and by extension the concepts that follow from it.
By purposing that humans are driven simply by the desire to fill the void created by needs, Hobbes fails in attempting to account fully for human voluntary motion. One cannot claim that humanity in its best exercise of reason aims to merely reduce obstacles, and at the same time say they may produce excess in this negative space. Moreover, the fact that excesses do exist adds further controversy to Hobbes' theory of the productivity of the commonwealth. These excesses can be seen in the expression and development of pure, as apposed to applied knowledge. To account for these excesses one must add a concept to human nature that dissolves Hobbes notion of the state of nature, the concept that humans are active beyond the realm of practical gain. This new definition of endeavor or voluntary motion implies that the active pursuit of pure elements supercedes need satisfaction. If need satisfaction was utmost, one becomes caught in a circle, perpetually satisfying needs from which stagnation develops and no excesses grow.
From these new definitions, in the revised state of nature individuals seek to constantly improve and are never satisfied with just enough. This by extension suggests an innate value for all things, as the world and its inhabitants draw enough worth for one to desire to improve upon them. The ravenous state of nature as described by Hobbes therefore is incomplete and as such not telling of humanity.
The fact that humans are capable of diverging values further alters Hobbes notions, particularly its subjectivity. The existence of human value diversity suggests that in our active efforts to constantly improve, one is uncovering new territory and not creating it. This is implied because the error that exists between individual values, if our efforts are progressive, suggest an attempt to merge to the same answers. What one is attempting to uncover in a constant quest, therefore, is something timeless and universal, an objective not subjective law that exists beyond the individual. These kinds of efforts can be understood with a brief look at the teachings of Aristotle. Aristotle held that morality existed as a mean between excess and deficiency. That is, to live morally one should search for the middle ground, for example continence as apposed to incontinence or insensibility. Some individuals fall into incontinence, some into insensibility, yet they will always push to reach the timeless, objective mean of continence as it offers the best, most consistent life. One can then extend Hobbes' morality beyond upholding subjective creations, and claim it as part of the objective truth that individuals seek. One now values humans in as much as they value themselves. The equality in value across humans arises because equality is the mean between inequality and honor. Furthermore, equality alone allows for constant improvement as humans work with and not against one another. This co-operation is different then the agreements of Hobbes' commonwealth because humans are now attempting to improve one another not simply to stay out of each others way. Acting moral becomes an end in and of itself. Finally, according to the revisions on Hobbes' theories, the commonwealth is not a different kind of human existence but an improvement in degree only.
The second philosopher to be discussed is John Locke. Like Hobbes, Locke had developed his own political and moral theories, however, they were very much the contrary to Hobbes'. The most fundamental principle of Locke's morality is its autonomous and objective nature. Locke's morality in this sense exists as an equal with the natural development of other institutions including religion and politics. Locke's notion of the natural condition of man holds that, although there are no agreed upon institutions, humans are free to do as the chose only within the bounds of reason. This can be best understood within Locke's own words, they are "To understand political power, right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions…within the bounds of the law of nature…" From god, Locke argued, we have inscribed within us all that is moral and just and we uncover this through an exercise of reason. In this light one can see that, because we come from an omnipotent maker, and that we exist under their providence and creation, some morality always persists even in the natural condition. We uncover this persisting morality in our exercise of reason, given to us by god. Locke states this in the quote "…and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will consult it…" Some of these moral precepts of Locke's natural condition of man include the notion that you cannot kill yourself, or other's unless your life depends on it as were our maker's property and about his actions. This notion also rests on the precept that were all the same and equal as individuals as our creator has made us all equally, therefore we inherently must maintain a certain degree of concern for another's well being.
Locke did maintain that laws are to be enforced, even in a state of nature, yet this chore is up to each individual in an exercise of reason. In Locke's society therefore, all power is not given to an all-powerful sovereign. Instead, an impartial judge is appointed who must answer to the people as a whole; this is to facilitate a balance between reparation and restraint. That is, in Locke's society two rights exist, that of reparation and that of restraint. Reparation allows one to punish a transgressor of others and society, while restraint ensures the punishment fits the crime. Fundamentally, what this means is that the appointed judge can forgive the offender if it is best for society. Locke also imposed several conditions on man in a society. First, he stated that no man can judge his own case of transgression for his own self love will bias him. Second, he developed an argument for capital punishment. This argument stated that any individual committing a relatively serious crime, murder for example, removes himself from gods prescribed humanity and can thus be punished as such.
From his theorizing, Locke maintained one very fundamental problem to explain. Because Locke felt that, as revealed through scripture, god gave the earth to all mankind in common he had to explain the element of private ownership. Locke explains this by suggesting that we take for ourselves for the duration of our life that which we have worked for. That is to say, Locke felt that we all have an inborn property in our own person, and therefore, by the labor of this body we work to earn possessions such as hunting and fishing. Locke did describe an exception to this rule, which is, in circumstances where resources are particularly low, the right of restraint swells. That is to say, in a case of impending starvation one may freely steal bread to feed their family. Furthermore, Locke put a restriction on how much an individual can amass or own. He held that it was wrong for any individual to take from the world more than they need, including land and food resources. If one takes more than they can use, others must go without, moreover, wasting that which god has provided and given us reason to use properly is a transgression against this providence and society.
This objective tune of morality is both prescriptively and descriptively convincing. The reason that Locke speaks of is an undeniable element of humanity, and the term reason by definition suggests the pursuit of something objective, not emotional or subjective. Furthermore, the strength of reason that Locke explains, the kind that separates humans from animals, accounts for the possibility that humans act upon the world, they don't just react. This notion of the active human is compelling as it accounts for all the successes of history, including artistic achievement and medical discoveries, while discrediting the notion of negative ambition as no excess could come from this.
Prescriptively Locke's theories are also very seductive. In purposing that we live in the name of our own preservation as well as the preservation of other's one is inspired. Living with this kind of respect for the world and the people in it, while adhering to the objective search to better respect this world suggests the opportunity maintained in a society can increase exponentially. Each individual is working toward the same goal along the same principles.
Locke's notions have also been to a certain extent shared by many influential thinkers. Some of the thinkers that share a view akin to Locke's include St Thomas Aquinas and Plato. In his doctrine of natural law Aquinas describes a similar concept of moral law, he saw it as something given to us from god that reason allows us to discover. It is not, however, the reliance of god that gives the ideas of both men the power in objectivity. More important than the belief in its roots is the adherence to reason itself, this practiced by all people must by definition must guide all view a particular circumstance equally, squashing biases and thus inequality. Of course, no human can always judge completely free of their own emotional biases. This emotional bias does not, however, have to rule humanity. If humans pursue reason objectivity will persist because in that pursuit a certain level of consistency is maintained.
Plato offers a much less theological approach to objective morality. Plato theorized about an ideological world of forms. This world maintained no direct connection to the physical world and it held in it the perfect concept of all human pursuits. Plato held that it was the human responsibility to seek to reduce ignorance of this world in order to best imitate it, which included universal concepts of morality. For both Plato and Locke, the individual must, through the exercise of reason, seek to uncover a persisting moral world. This moral world then units all people in the objective pursuit of it, and regardless of its origins humans begin to work with, and for one another.
Please note that this sample paper on Blablabla is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Blablabla, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on Blablabla will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
