How Do Hobbes And Kant Differ In Their Approach To Nature

How Do Hobbes And Kant Differ In Their Approach To The Nature

How do Hobbes and Kant differ in their approach to the nature of human beings? Who do you think is less convincing out of the two and why? Why is Hobbes associated with the school of Realism and Kant with Liberalism in International Relations? Guidelines: Font style: Times New Roman; Font size: 12 1-inch margins on all sides of the document 2-3 pages long (double-spaced), with a separate reference page. APA citation or Chicago style citation throughout the text (in-text citations) and on the Reference page. Please visit the OWL Purdue website for detailed instructions on citation. the (Links to an external site.) Failure to cite any materials used will result in an automatic zero for the assignment. Do not include any direct quotes in the writing assignments. File uploads to Canvas will have to be in either Microsoft Word (.doc, .docx) or PDF (.pdf) formats. Use links and articles attached for the essay Websites.

Paper For Above instruction

The philosophical perspectives of Thomas Hobbes and Immanuel Kant offer contrasting insights into the nature of human beings, which underpin their respective theories of political philosophy and international relations. Examining their views reveals fundamental differences in their understanding of human nature, which influence their broader political ideas. Moreover, their association with the schools of Realism and Liberalism respectively demonstrates how their philosophies extend beyond individual humans to the international arena.

Hobbes and the View of Human Nature

Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher, is renowned for his bleak outlook on human nature. In his seminal work "Leviathan" (Hobbes, 1651), he posits that humans are naturally driven by self-interest, desires, and a constant struggle for power and security. Hobbes contends that in the state of nature—an hypothetical condition devoid of civil authority—life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes, 1651). This view suggests that humans are inherently inclined toward conflict and chaos unless a strong, centralized authority intervenes. Hobbes's emphasis on self-preservation and the inherently aggressive tendencies of humans forms the foundation of his political philosophy, which advocates for a sovereign authority capable of enforcing peace and stability (Lloyd, 2009).

Kant and the View of Human Nature

Immanuel Kant presents a markedly different perspective on human nature rooted in his moral philosophy and Enlightenment ideals. Kant believed that humans possess reason and the capacity for moral development, which distinguishes them from mere creatures of instinct or self-interest (Kant, 1795). In his works, such as "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," Kant emphasizes the importance of autonomous moral agents capable of acting according to universal moral laws derived from reason (Kant, 1785). Unlike Hobbes, who views human nature as inherently prone to conflict, Kant optimistically asserts that humans have the potential for moral progress, cooperation, and peace—especially when guided by rational moral principles. This fundamentally altruistic and rationalist view underpins his advocacy for international cooperation and perpetual peace (Mueller, 2008).

Comparison and Assessment of Their Convincing Nature

While Hobbes's perspective on human nature provides a pragmatic and somewhat pessimistic foundation for understanding human behavior and the necessity for authority, it has been criticized for overemphasizing self-interest and neglecting humans' moral capacities. On the other hand, Kant's optimistic view offers hope for moral progress and international cooperation but may underestimate the persistence of self-interest and conflict in human affairs. Personally, I find Hobbes's account less convincing because its pessimism might overlook the capacity for moral improvement and altruism inherent in humans. His theory risks justifying authoritarianism and suppressing individual freedoms under the guise of securing stability. Kant's faith in moral rationality appears more aligned with contemporary global efforts toward human rights and international law, even though it may be idealistic in practice.

Hobbes and Realism, Kant and Liberalism in International Relations

The association of Hobbes with Realism in international relations stems from his emphasis on the anarchic nature of the international system and the self-interested behavior of states. Hobbes's view that humans are driven by power and that peace requires a strong sovereign mirrors the realist focus on power politics, security dilemmas, and the necessity of a hegemon to prevent chaos (Mearsheimer, 2001). Conversely, Kant aligns with Liberalism due to his focus on moral progress, institutions, and international cooperation. Kantian liberalism advocates for international organizations, democratic governance, and perpetual peace—ideas rooted in his belief in human rationality and the potential for moral consensus among sovereign states (Ikenberry, 2011). This contrast highlights how perspectives on human nature inform broader theoretical approaches to international stability and conflict.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Hobbes and Kant offer contrasting visions of human nature—with Hobbes emphasizing inherent conflict and the necessity of authority, and Kant emphasizing rational moral capacity and progress. Their ideas not only shape political philosophies but also underpin the theoretical foundations of Realism and Liberalism in international relations. While Hobbes’s skepticism may be more pragmatic, Kant’s optimism inspires ongoing efforts toward international cooperation and peace.

References

• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Kant, I. (1795). Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay.
• Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal internationalism 3.0: America and the dilemmas of liberal world order. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 55–72.
• Lloyd, C. (2009). Hobbes: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Mueller, J. (2008). Peace and War in International Politics: An Introduction to Strategic History. Routledge.