- Political ideologies are fundamentally shaped by their assumptions about human nature. The accuracy of these assumptions can determine the success or failure of the ideologies in practice.
- Historical and psychological evidence suggests that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
- Social democracies and welfare states, for example, are built on the premise that humans have a fundamental capacity for empathy and support systems that encourage compassionate behavior towards the less fortunate.
- Capitalist ideologies often emphasize personal responsibility and the motivation of self-interest, suggesting that people will work harder when rewarded.
- The degree of innate aggression in the average human is a contentious issue. Some ideologies, particularly those advocating for strong law and order, assume higher levels of aggression, necessitating strict control measures.
Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)
- Political ideologies are unavoidably tied to assumptions about human nature. How critical is it to a political ideology that it gets human nature correct?
- Provide 3 examples of political structures or policies that did not adequately take human nature into account.
- Create a dialogue between two political philosophers from history who have very different notions of the innate human disposition, and highlight the ensuing policy disagreements.
- Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.
- Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
Political ideologies are unavoidably tied to assumptions about human nature. How critical is it to a political ideology that it gets human nature correct?
Include the following considerations:
- The degree to which power corrupts the average humans.
- The degree of innate generosity and compassion humans intrinsically possess.
- The degree of innate laziness or industriousness humans express under different conditions.
- The degree of innate aggression in the average human.
- The degree of innate inventiveness and creativity humans have if given an opportunity.
- The strength of the innate propensity towards nationalism and group identity.
- The strength of the pull toward familial and domestic lives.
- The strength of the innate restlessness among unemployed young people.
- The innate skepticism and resistance toward political bodies.
The Importance of Understanding Human Nature in Political Ideologies
Political ideologies are fundamentally shaped by their assumptions about human nature. The accuracy of these assumptions can determine the success or failure of the ideologies in practice. Here, we consider several key aspects of human nature and their implications for political ideologies.
Power and Corruption
The degree to which power corrupts the average human is a critical consideration. Historical and psychological evidence suggests that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Political ideologies that do not account for this tendency may fail to implement effective checks and balances, leading to authoritarianism and abuse of power. Democracies, for instance, are designed to distribute power to mitigate corruption, reflecting a more realistic view of human nature.
Generosity and Compassion
The degree of innate generosity and compassion humans intrinsically possess varies, but most ideologies recognize the need for social structures that foster and channel these traits. Social democracies and welfare states, for example, are built on the premise that humans have a fundamental capacity for empathy and support systems that encourage compassionate behavior towards the less fortunate.
Laziness and Industriousness
The degree of innate laziness or industriousness humans express under different conditions is another pivotal assumption. Capitalist ideologies often emphasize personal responsibility and the motivation of self-interest, suggesting that people will work harder when rewarded. Conversely, socialist ideologies may stress the importance of communal effort and mutual aid, positing that cooperative environments can stimulate industriousness.
Aggression
The degree of innate aggression in the average human is a contentious issue. Some ideologies, particularly those advocating for strong law and order, assume higher levels of aggression, necessitating strict control measures. Others, like pacifist or utopian ideologies, argue that aggression is largely a product of environmental factors and can be mitigated through peaceful social structures.
Inventiveness and Creativity
The degree of innate inventiveness and creativity humans have if given an opportunity is crucial for ideologies that focus on innovation and progress. Capitalist and libertarian ideologies often argue that free markets and minimal government interference provide the best environment for human creativity to flourish. On the other hand, ideologies that support extensive state intervention might claim that ensuring basic needs are met frees individuals to pursue creative endeavors.
Nationalism and Group Identity
The strength of the innate propensity towards nationalism and group identity influences the cohesion and stability of societies. Nationalist ideologies leverage this tendency to build strong, unified states, sometimes at the cost of marginalizing outsiders. Conversely, globalist and multicultural ideologies seek to transcend national boundaries, emphasizing human commonalities over differences.
Familial and Domestic Lives
The strength of the pull toward familial and domestic lives is a fundamental aspect of human nature. Political ideologies that recognize the importance of family structures, such as those promoting family values and support for parents, may foster more stable societies. Policies that support work-life balance, parental leave, and child care reflect this understanding.
Restlessness Among Unemployed Youth
The strength of the innate restlessness among unemployed young people is a significant factor for social stability. Ideologies that fail to provide opportunities for youth may face unrest and social upheaval. Political systems that prioritize education, job creation, and youth engagement tend to be more resilient and adaptive.
Skepticism and Resistance Toward Political Bodies
The innate skepticism and resistance toward political bodies is a natural part of human nature that ideologies must address. Democratic systems typically incorporate this skepticism into their structure, promoting transparency, accountability, and citizen participation to build trust. In contrast, authoritarian regimes may attempt to suppress dissent, often leading to greater resistance over time.
Conclusion
Understanding and accurately addressing human nature is crucial for the effectiveness and longevity of political ideologies. Ideologies that realistically account for human tendencies—both positive and negative—are more likely to create stable, prosperous societies. Assumptions about power, compassion, industriousness, aggression, creativity, nationalism, familial ties, youth restlessness, and skepticism all play pivotal roles in shaping political frameworks.
Getting human nature exactly right is very important to a political ideology, but it’s also incredibly difficult. Here’s why:
The Centrality of Assumptions:
- Power and Corruption: An ideology that assumes people inherently crave power and easily succumb to corruption might advocate for strong checks and balances or limited government. One that sees leadership as a burden might emphasize citizen participation.
- Generosity and Compassion: If an ideology views humans as innately cooperative and compassionate, it might prioritize social safety nets and public services. One that sees self-interest as the driving force might favor free markets and limited social programs.
- Work Ethic: Beliefs about laziness or industriousness influence ideas about welfare programs, work requirements, and the role of unions.
The Challenge of Certainty:
- Scientific Uncertainty: There’s no definitive answer to how much of these traits are innate versus shaped by environment. Psychology and anthropology offer insights, but human nature is a complex puzzle.
- Historical Fluctuation: Throughout history, humans have displayed remarkable cooperation in building societies and horrific brutality in wars. This suggests context can dramatically influence behavior.
Consequences of Miscalculation:
- Ineffectiveness: An ideology that misjudges human nature can create policies that backfire. For example, assuming inherent laziness might lead to overly punitive welfare programs that discourage work.
- Erosion of Trust: If an ideology constantly needs to control or manipulate people to function, it can breed resentment and cynicism.
Considering the Factors You Mentioned:
- Power: A healthy dose of skepticism about power is probably wise, as checks and balances are important.
- Compassion/Generosity: Assuming some baseline of empathy allows for social programs, while acknowledging self-interest can encourage incentives.
- Work Ethic: Policies should address situations, not stereotypes. Someone struggling might need support, not punishment.
- Aggression: Understanding aggression allows for conflict resolution strategies.
- Inventiveness/Creativity: Encouraging these qualities is crucial for progress.
- Nationalism/Group Identity: Understanding this pull allows for fostering a sense of national responsibility without sacrificing individual rights.
- Familial Pull: Supporting families strengthens the social fabric.
- Restlessness of Youth: Channeling youthful energy into positive outlets is important.
- Skepticism of Authority: A healthy skepticism keeps leaders accountable.
The Importance of Adaptability:
The best ideologies might be those that acknowledge the complexity of human nature and allow for adjustments based on evidence and changing circumstances. They should aim to create structures that encourage the best in people while recognizing the potential for the worst.
It is critical for any political ideology to have an accurate understanding of human nature, as an ideology’s assumptions about human behavior and tendencies will shape the policies and systems it advocates for. A mismatch between those assumptions and reality can lead to unintended and potentially disastrous consequences. Let’s examine the considerations you listed:
- Power Corruption: Most ideologies acknowledge that concentrated power can corrupt even well-intentioned individuals. Effective checks and balances are necessary to mitigate this tendency.
- Generosity and Compassion: While humans are capable of altruism, the degree varies considerably. An ideology expecting universal selflessness is likely to disappoint.
- Laziness vs. Industriousness: Humans are a mix of both, influenced by incentive structures and circumstances. Ideologies should account for this nuance.
- Aggression: Though present, extreme violence is not the default human state. Stable societies harness and channel aggression constructively.
- Inventiveness: Humans are remarkably innovative when given the right conditions and motivation. Ideologies should encourage and utilize this strength.
- Nationalism/Group Identity: A powerful force that ideologies must address, whether through cohesion, pluralism or transcendence of such allegiances.
- Domestic/Familial Pull: A near-universal drive that successful ideologies either embrace or develop mechanisms to accommodate.
- Restlessness of Unemployed Youth: Widespread among this segment, which can create instability if unaddressed by ideologies.
- Skepticism of Authority: An innate tendency that political ideologies must manage through accountability, transparency and civic engagement.
In summary, any comprehensive political ideology must grapple with the full range of human proclivities and potentials to create stable, just and prosperous societies. An inaccurate conception of human nature undermines an ideology’s viability from the outset.
Provide 3 examples of political structures or policies that did not adequately take human nature into account.
Examples of Political Structures or Policies That Did Not Adequately Consider Human Nature
1. Soviet Collectivization
(1928-1940)
Background: Soviet collectivization was an agricultural policy implemented by Joseph Stalin to consolidate individual landholdings and labor into collective farms (kolkhozes) and state farms (sovkhozes).
Failure to Consider Human Nature: The policy assumed that peasants would willingly give up their private land and work collectively for the common good. It did not account for the innate drive for personal ownership and the strong attachment to land that many peasants had, nor did it consider the potential for resistance to forced collectivization.
Consequences:
- Widespread resistance, including the destruction of crops and livestock by peasants who refused to surrender their property.
- Severe food shortages and famine, notably the Holodomor in Ukraine, resulting in millions of deaths.
- A decline in agricultural productivity due to lack of incentive and poor management.
2. The Great Leap Forward
(1958-1962)
Background: The Great Leap Forward was an economic and social campaign by the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong, aiming to rapidly transform China from an agrarian society into a socialist society through rapid industrialization and collectivization.
Failure to Consider Human Nature: The policy underestimated the innate limits of human labor and productivity, assuming that mere political will and mass mobilization could overcome technical and logistical challenges. It also failed to recognize the innate resistance to unrealistic quotas and the detrimental effects of fear-driven reporting.
Consequences:
- Massive resource misallocation, with efforts focused on unfeasible industrial projects like backyard furnaces.
- Severe agricultural disruption leading to one of the deadliest famines in history, causing the deaths of an estimated 15-45 million people.
- Long-term economic and social damage, with distrust in government policies and leadership.
3. Prohibition in the United States
(1920-1933)
Background: Prohibition was a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages.
Failure to Consider Human Nature: Prohibition did not account for the innate human desire for leisure and social drinking. It underestimated the public’s willingness to flout laws that conflicted with their personal habits and cultural practices.
Consequences:
- The rise of illegal bootlegging and speakeasies, leading to a significant increase in organized crime.
- Widespread corruption among law enforcement and government officials tasked with enforcing the ban.
- Loss of tax revenue from alcohol sales, and an eventual public backlash that led to the repeal of Prohibition with the 21st Amendment.
Conclusion
These examples illustrate the critical importance of incorporating a realistic understanding of human nature into political structures and policies. Ignoring fundamental human tendencies—such as the desire for personal ownership, the limits of productivity, and the inclination toward social behaviors—can lead to catastrophic consequences, undermining the goals of the policies and causing widespread suffering.
- Prohibition in the United States (1920-1933): Prohibition assumed people could be legislated into morality. It ignored the deep-rooted desire for alcohol and the ingenuity of people to find ways to produce and consume it illegally. This created a powerful black market controlled by organized crime, leading to violence, social problems, and a disrespect for the law.
- The Great Leap Forward in China (1958-1962): This communist campaign aimed to rapidly transform China’s economy from agrarian to industrial by mobilizing millions into backyard steel production. It overestimated people’s ability to innovate without proper training and resources. The failed effort resulted in widespread famine and economic hardship.
- The Khmer Rouge’s Utopian Experiment in Cambodia (1975-1979): The Khmer Rouge aimed to create a classless, agrarian society. They forced mass evacuations of cities, leading to starvation and disease. They underestimated the human need for social connection, diversity, and skilled professionals. This brutal experiment resulted in genocide and the deaths of millions.
These examples highlight the dangers of political structures or policies that don’t consider human nature. They often underestimate people’s capacity for both good and bad, and the unintended consequences can be devastating.
Here are three examples of political structures or policies that did not adequately account for key aspects of human nature:
- Communist Command Economies
Communist regimes in the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere attempted to create centrally-planned economies that assumed a strict control over human economic behavior was possible. However, they failed to account for innate human desires for personal property, entrepreneurship, and self-interest. By trying to suppress market forces and individual incentives, these command economies stifled innovation, efficiency, and productivity gains. The mismatch between the system and human nature contributed to chronic shortages and economic stagnation. - Prohibition in the United States
The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages from 1920-1933. This policy did not adequately consider the strength of human cravings, social pressures, and profit motives that drive the demand for alcoholic drinks. Rather than achieve temperance, Prohibition led to a proliferation of criminal rackets, unsafe black market alcohol, and a general disrespect for the law. The human preference for vice ultimately doomed this effort at moral legislation. - One-Child Policy in China
Implemented in 1979, China’s one-child policy used strict fertility restrictions and pressure tactics in an attempt to control population growth. However, it underestimated the innate human desires for large families, male children, and the continuation of ancestral bloodlines. This led to sex-selective abortions, infanticide, undercounting of births, and a demographic imbalance. The policy failed to align with the deep-rooted human drive to reproduce and rear offspring, creating unintended social consequences.
In each case, the political policies clashed with fundamental human predispositions and impulses, leading to widespread non-compliance, unforeseen repercussions, and eventual reversals or reforms.
Create a dialogue between two political philosophers from history who have very different notions of the innate human disposition, and highlight the ensuing policy disagreements.
Dialogue Between Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Characters:
- Thomas Hobbes: English philosopher known for his pessimistic view of human nature, as articulated in his work Leviathan.
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau: French philosopher who had a more optimistic view of human nature, particularly in his works The Social Contract and Emile.
Setting:
A fictional debate in a European salon during the Enlightenment era.
Hobbes: Good evening, Monsieur Rousseau. It is a pleasure to engage in discourse with you. I have always found your views on human nature rather fascinating, albeit deeply flawed.
Rousseau: The pleasure is mine, Monsieur Hobbes. I too find your perspectives intriguing, though I must say, overly cynical. Shall we begin with the foundation of our disagreement? How do you perceive human nature?
Hobbes: Certainly. In my view, human beings are inherently selfish and driven by a desire for self-preservation. Life in the state of nature, as I have written in Leviathan, is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Without a powerful sovereign to impose order, humans would descend into chaos and violence.
Rousseau: That is precisely where we differ. I believe that humans are inherently good but corrupted by society. In their natural state, as I describe in Emile, humans are compassionate and peaceful. It is the inequalities and artifices of civilization that corrupt their innate goodness.
Hobbes: Ah, but your romanticism of the natural state ignores the brutal reality of human competition for resources and power. Without a strong, centralized authority, society would be torn apart by the relentless pursuit of self-interest.
Rousseau: On the contrary, I argue in The Social Contract that it is precisely the establishment of private property and hierarchical structures that lead to conflict and inequality. A just society is one where individuals come together to form a collective will, the general will, which aims at the common good.
Hobbes: Your idealism overlooks the necessity of a Leviathan—a sovereign authority to keep human passions in check. Your general will is a fragile construct that would crumble without the enforcement of strict laws and a powerful ruler.
Rousseau: And your Leviathan, Monsieur Hobbes, is a tyrannical construct that stifles human freedom and creativity. I advocate for a form of direct democracy where people are actively involved in the legislative process, thereby maintaining their liberty and moral integrity.
Hobbes: Direct democracy, you say? It is a recipe for disorder. The average person lacks the wisdom and restraint to govern effectively. Only through a strong, centralized power can peace and security be maintained.
Rousseau: You underestimate the capacity of humans for self-governance. When people are free and equal, they naturally work towards mutual benefit. Consider policies that emphasize education and civic engagement to foster a sense of community and shared responsibility.
Hobbes: Education and civic engagement are noble goals, but they must be underpinned by a robust framework of law and order. Policies must account for the inherent selfishness and potential for conflict in human nature. Only then can we hope to achieve lasting stability.
Rousseau: Stability, yes, but not at the cost of liberty. I propose policies that promote equality and communal ownership, reducing the sources of conflict and allowing for genuine freedom. We must trust in the innate goodness of humans and design our societies accordingly.
Hobbes: Trust in innate goodness is a dangerous gamble. It is safer to assume the worst and design our policies to prevent the descent into anarchy. A powerful sovereign, with the authority to enforce laws, is essential.
Rousseau: And yet, I remain convinced that a society based on mutual cooperation and the common good is not only possible but desirable. We must strive for a balance where both freedom and order are preserved, recognizing the potential for goodness within us all.
Conclusion
This dialogue illustrates the profound differences between Hobbes and Rousseau regarding human nature and the ensuing policy implications. Hobbes advocates for a strong, centralized authority to control human selfishness, while Rousseau envisions a society based on mutual cooperation and equality, reflecting his more optimistic view of human nature.
Scene: A bustling Parisian cafe in the 18th century. Across a small table sit two towering figures of political philosophy: Thomas Hobbes, the gruff Englishman, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the passionate Genevan.
Hobbes: (Sipping his wine) Another delightful day contemplating the follies of mankind, Rousseau?
Rousseau: (Eyes sparkling) On the contrary, my dear Hobbes, a day spent celebrating the inherent nobility of man!
Hobbes: (Scoffs) “Nobility”? Man is, by nature, a solitary, brutish creature. Left unchecked, the “war of all against all” erupts, a bloody chaos. Fear, not nobility, drives us to form societies.
Rousseau: Nonsense! Man is naturally social, a creature of empathy and cooperation. It is the corrupting influence of civilization, of private property and inequality, that breeds the very vices you see as innate!
Hobbes: Then explain, my friend, the constant warfare that plagues our history? The greed, the violence? It’s in our blood, Rousseau, a primal urge for dominance.
Rousseau: But who creates these wars? Power-hungry monarchs, a ruling elite who exploit the natural goodness of the people for their own gain! In a truly just society, one based on a social contract that guarantees equality, man’s natural goodness will flourish!
Hobbes: A social contract? Utopian dreams! Without a strong sovereign, a leviathan, to enforce order, society descends into chaos. People need a firm hand to keep them in check.
Rousseau: And who wields that firm hand? Another man, corrupted by power! No, the answer lies in empowering the people, in creating a government that reflects the will of the general – a direct democracy!
Hobbes: (Shaking his head) The masses are easily swayed, Rousseau. They need the wisdom of a strong leader to guide them. Democracy can be a mob rule, a tyranny of the majority.
Rousseau: Then educate the masses! Let them be citizens, not subjects! Only in a society that fosters reason and participation can true freedom and justice exist.
Hobbes: (Sighs) We seem to be at an impasse, my friend. Perhaps a second glass of wine will help bridge the gap between your optimistic dreams and my…realistic cynicism.
Rousseau: (Raises his glass with a smile) Perhaps. But even a cynic can appreciate a good argument, wouldn’t you agree?
(They clink glasses, their philosophical disagreement simmering beneath a veneer of civility. The debate on human nature, and the best way to govern it, continues.)
Here is the full dialogue again with bold formatting for key words and speaker tags:
Rousseau: Ah, Master Hobbes, it is a pleasure to engage with the mind behind the famous Leviathan. Though I must say, your cynical portrayal of humans as inherently selfish brutes existing in a perpetual state of war troubles me deeply.
Hobbes: And you, sir, subscribe to far too rosy a view of the natural man. This notion that humans are born pure, innocent creatures corrupted only by the trappings of civilization is mere romantic folly.
Rousseau: You fundamentally misunderstand me, Hobbes. I do not claim humans enter this world as flawless angels. But neither are we, at our core, the aggressive, antisocial egotists you make us out to be. If left to develop naturally, unfettered by artificial constraints, our intrinsic capacity for empathy and virtue will shine forth.
Hobbes: Empathy? Virtue? Ha! Even the slightest study of humanity reveals these qualities as mere trifling veneers over our beastly selves. Why, without a strong leviathan – a sovereign power to subdue our inborn cruel impulses – human existence would be, as I described, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
Rousseau: There speaks a man far too tainted by the corrupt systems of his age. You fail to see that the great ills you bemoan are not products of freedom, but of its deprivation! An enlightened society fostering the positive instincts of its citizens requires no draconian leviathan.
Hobbes: Then your naive vision would leave us ripping each other asunder! The brutal state of nature is an inescapable fact. Only an absolute authority holding a blanket monopoly on force can impose the security and stability required for society.
Rousseau: I pity your jaded view, sir. You paint humans as intrinsically wicked simply because our corrupt institutions have beaten us into submission like wild animals. But strip away these artificial constraints and we would rediscover our natural harmony with one another!
Hobbes: Harmony? More like unrestrained savagery! This romantic mirage of a noble state of nature is mere whimsy. Without the iron fist of enforcement, the selfish impulses of our base nature would render any semblance of civilization impossible.
Rousseau: Then we shall agree to disagree, though I deeply lament the grim insecurity that clouds your philosophy. An enlightened society honoring the fundamental goodness of its people requires no oppressive state – merely a steadfast commitment to personal liberty.
Hobbes: And you, sir, are a dangerous dreamer. Permit me to retire before your naive ramblings tempt me to raise my cudgel in demonstration of the brutish reality you so blithely dismiss!
Rousseau: sighs There is the bitter wisdom of experience. I pray future generations will awaken to embrace the noble vision of our unbounded human potential.
Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.
Quiz on Human Nature and Political Ideologies
- What is one major factor that political ideologies must consider to be successful?
- a) Economic policies
- b) Human nature
- c) Technological advancements
- d) Military strength
- Which philosopher believed that humans are inherently selfish and need a strong sovereign to maintain order?
- a) John Locke
- b) Thomas Hobbes
- c) Jean-Jacques Rousseau
- d) Karl Marx
- What assumption did Soviet collectivization fail to consider about human nature?
- a) Humans’ desire for technological progress
- b) Humans’ drive for personal ownership
- c) Humans’ propensity for violence
- d) Humans’ need for education
- According to the dialogue, what did Rousseau believe corrupts the inherent goodness of humans?
- a) Education
- b) Democracy
- c) Society and civilization
- d) Religion
- Which policy did Prohibition in the United States fail to consider about human nature?
- a) Humans’ desire for personal ownership
- b) Humans’ drive for creativity
- c) Humans’ inclination towards social drinking
- d) Humans’ need for security
- What does Hobbes argue is necessary to prevent chaos and violence in society?
- a) Direct democracy
- b) Strong, centralized authority
- c) Technological innovation
- d) Religious institutions
- What did Rousseau suggest as a solution for promoting equality and communal ownership?
- a) Strong centralized government
- b) Direct democracy
- c) Militarization
- d) Industrialization
- What consequence did the Great Leap Forward have due to not considering human nature?
- a) Economic prosperity
- b) Increased agricultural productivity
- c) Severe famine and loss of life
- d) Technological advancements
- What did Hobbes believe about the average person’s ability to govern effectively?
- a) They are fully capable
- b) They lack wisdom and restraint
- c) They are naturally inclined to it
- d) They are indifferent to governance
- Which philosopher had a more optimistic view of human nature, believing humans are inherently good?
- a) Thomas Hobbes
- b) Niccolò Machiavelli
- c) Jean-Jacques Rousseau
- d) Immanuel Kant
Answers
- b) Human nature
- b) Thomas Hobbes
- b) Humans’ drive for personal ownership
- c) Society and civilization
- c) Humans’ inclination towards social drinking
- b) Strong, centralized authority
- b) Direct democracy
- c) Severe famine and loss of life
- b) They lack wisdom and restraint
- c) Jean-Jacques Rousseau
- Who among the two philosophers believed that people are naturally inclined towards selfishness and conflict?
- What historical period are the two philosophers depicted in?
- What was the name of the communist campaign in China mentioned as an example of a policy that ignored human nature?
- What was the name of the utopian experiment in Cambodia that resulted in genocide?
- What famous event in the United States attempted to legislate morality but backfired due to human nature?
- According to Thomas Hobbes, what is the main reason people form societies?
- According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, what is the root cause of human vices and corruption?
- What political system did Rousseau believe would create a just society?
- What power did Hobbes believe a strong sovereign should have?
- What did Rousseau believe was the key to a society reflecting the will of the people?
… Answer Key … - Thomas Hobbes
- 18th Century
- The Great Leap Forward
- The Khmer Rouge’s Utopian Experiment
- Prohibition
- Fear
- The corrupting influence of civilization
- Direct Democracy
- The power to enforce order and prevent chaos
- Education of the masses
- According to Rousseau, what does Hobbes cynically portray humans as?
- What notion does Rousseau claim he does not subscribe to?
- What qualities does Rousseau believe humans possess at their core, contrary to Hobbes’ view?
- What does Hobbes argue would be necessary to subdue humanity’s cruel impulses?
- What does Rousseau claim the great ills bemoaned by Hobbes are products of, rather than freedom?
- How does Hobbes describe the state of human existence without a sovereign leviathan?
- What does Hobbes argue would happen if Rousseau’s vision was implemented?
- What does Hobbes say only an absolute authority with a monopoly on force can impose?
- What does Rousseau lament clouds Hobbes’ philosophy?
- How does Hobbes warn he may be tempted to demonstrate the brutish reality to Rousseau?
Answers:
- Selfish brutes existing in perpetual war
- That humans are born pure, innocent creatures corrupted only by civilization
- Empathy and virtue
- A strong leviathan/sovereign power
- The deprivation of freedom
- Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short
- Leave people ripping each other asunder
- Security and stability
- Grim insecurity
- By raising his cudgel
Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
Discussion Questions
- How do differing assumptions about human nature influence the development of political ideologies?
- In what ways can a misunderstanding of human nature lead to the failure of political policies?
- What are the key differences between Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s views on human nature, and how do these differences manifest in their proposed political structures?
- How does the concept of power and its corrupting influence shape the design of democratic institutions?
- What role does human compassion and generosity play in the formulation of social welfare policies?
- How do ideologies that emphasize personal responsibility and self-interest differ from those that focus on communal effort and mutual aid?
- To what extent should political systems account for innate human aggressiveness when designing laws and enforcement mechanisms?
- How might the degree of human inventiveness and creativity influence economic policies and the promotion of innovation?
- What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of nationalism and strong group identity in political ideologies?
- How do family values and the importance of domestic life impact political policies related to work-life balance and parental support?
- Why might policies fail if they do not address the restlessness and aspirations of unemployed young people?
- How does skepticism and resistance towards political bodies influence the design of transparent and accountable governance systems?
- In what ways did the failure to understand human nature contribute to the disasters of Soviet collectivization and the Great Leap Forward?
- How did Prohibition in the United States illustrate the need to consider cultural practices and social behaviors in policymaking?
- What lessons can contemporary policymakers learn from historical examples where human nature was not adequately considered?
These questions are designed to stimulate critical thinking and in-depth discussion about the intersection of human nature and political ideologies, drawing on the themes and historical examples provided in the previous content.
Discussion Questions:
- Do you agree more with Hobbes’ view of human nature as inherently selfish, or Rousseau’s view of natural human goodness corrupted by society?
- Can a political system be designed to account for both the positive and negative aspects of human nature?
- How can we balance the need for order with the desire for individual freedom?
- Is a strong central authority always necessary to maintain order, or are there alternative ways to achieve social cohesion?
- How important is education in shaping human behavior and promoting a just society?
- What are the potential dangers of a direct democracy, as envisioned by Rousseau?
- Can historical examples like Prohibition or the Khmer Rouge be used to definitively prove or disprove theories about human nature? Why or why not?
- How do cultural influences impact the expression of human nature? Are there some traits that are more universal than others?
- Is it possible to create a society that fosters both cooperation and individual innovation?
- In today’s world, what are the biggest challenges posed by human nature to effective governance?
- How can we create political structures that encourage empathy and compassion alongside personal responsibility?
- Does human nature change over time, or are there certain core characteristics that remain constant?
- Should our assumptions about human nature influence how we approach issues like social welfare or criminal justice?
- How can we strike a balance between acknowledging the potential for human cruelty and maintaining optimism about the possibility for progress?
- Is it even possible to definitively understand human nature, or is it a concept that will always remain open to debate?
Here are 15 discussion questions relevant to the dialogue between Rousseau and Hobbes:
- Which philosopher’s view of human nature do you find more convincing, Rousseau’s or Hobbes’? Why?
- How might people’s life experiences shape their view of whether humans are inherently good or bad?
- Can you think of real-world examples that seem to support Rousseau’s belief in humans’ intrinsic capacity for empathy and virtue?
- Can you think of historical examples that seem to reinforce Hobbes’ view of humans as selfish brutes requiring an authority to control their cruel impulses?
- How might Rousseau respond to events like wars, genocides, and atrocities as counterpoints to his “noble vision” of humanity?
- How might Hobbes justify the oppressive actions of authoritarian regimes and their monopolies on force and power?
- To what extent do you think humans are shaped more by their innate nature versus their social environments and institutions?
- Rousseau argues for personal liberty, while Hobbes prioritizes security and stability through authority. How can societies try to balance these two priorities?
- Is there a middle ground between their opposing perspectives, or are Rousseau and Hobbes’ views of human nature fundamentally irreconcilable?
- How might their views on human nature impact their positions on other political issues like democracy, rights, economics, etc.?
- Do humans require robust systems to restrain our worst impulses, as Hobbes argued, or can we create harmonious societies by fostering our intrinsic goodness, as per Rousseau?
- How have the ideas of Rousseau and Hobbes influenced actual political philosophies, ideologies and government systems in the modern era?
- Are their contrasting viewpoints more applicable to humans in certain stages of societal development versus others?
- How might evolving human civilization, technology, and interconnectedness affect the validity of Rousseau and Hobbes’ centuries-old perspectives?
- If Rousseau and Hobbes were alive today, how might their views of human nature be shaped by contemporary events, cultures, and information?
Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)
- Political ideologies are unavoidably tied to assumptions about human nature. How critical is it to a political ideology that it gets human nature correct?
- Provide 3 examples of political structures or policies that did not adequately take human nature into account.
- Create a dialogue between two political philosophers from history who have very different notions of the innate human disposition, and highlight the ensuing policy disagreements.
- Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.
- Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
Byteseismic Philosophy 
Leave a comment