This particular essay that I had written in my first year for a philosophy class is slightly more structured from academic readings than most of my posts. Nonetheless, the compelling positions made by both sides of the same coin of this argument are quite simple to demonstrate, and an interesting debate at that. Firstly, I will be discussing Thomas Hobbes’ understanding of human nature, then explaining the dissenting account of human nature put forward by philosophical adversary Peter Kropotkin. After explaining both philosophers’ views, I will be arguing why I agree with Kropotkin’s account more overall.
The state of human nature is left up to speculation of how the human species would fare without civilization. It “describes what the lives of people might have been like before societies came into existence” (Grellette, lecture 2). That is, without any rules, how would humans interact with one another? Thomas Hobbes brings a pessimistic, yet interesting point of view to the topic.
Hobbes states that, “[…] if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end, endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another” (Hobbes, 12). What Hobbes is implying here is that in the interest of resources and/or self-preservation, if two people require one object, they throw caution to the wind, so to speak, and will compete for resources in a “survival of the fittest” fashion. As a result of this, Hobbes states, each human is interested in the prolonging of themselves and will do anything to achieve longevity. Since humans are led to be out for themselves and because there are no laws outlining just and unjust acts, humans would consequently be living in fear and without knowing when they will be attacked, which is known as the condition of war. Hobbes’ reasoning behind this is that, without rules to be governed by, there is no act that can be considered as a misdeed (Hobbes, 14). Hobbes’ view on the state of human nature is that due to it, “the life of man [would be] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 13).
Kropotkin, on the other hand, argues the opposite. As a firm believer in mutual aid, Kropotkin suggests that “natural selection continually seeks out the ways […] for avoiding competition as much as possible” (Kropotkin, 30-31). He gives examples from nature of mutual aid, such as when ants form colonies, when birds fly south for the winter, or when certain animals eat alternative types of foods and avoid competition (Kropotkin, 31). His understanding of human nature is that humans will naturally avoid competition in order to attain and maintain resources. Instead of competing for resources, Kropotkin states that humans will inevitably aid each other for the maximum amount of return on their shared time and effort. Furthermore, Kropotkin contradicts the Hobbesian approach of thinking towards the state of nature. He states that Hobbes, and many writers before the 18th century, may not have had a clear understanding of human life, when it was just beginning. Kropotkin argues that since there is scientific evidence to reason that human life did not start in small quantities, which is what Hobbes and many others presumably assumed, Hobbes’ view of the state of human nature is flawed from Kropotkin’s perspective. Instead, Kropotkin states that men have lived in societies rather than in isolation, and this in turn functioned for the people to gather resources for the benefit of the society as a whole as opposed to individuals competing for resources themselves (Kropotkin, 32-33).
Overall, I agree with Kropotkin’s point of view on human nature more because of a few reasons. Firstly, it brings up factual evidence to support the conclusion which he had arrived on, such as animals living in mutual aid, as well as evidence of humans living in societies together in the past. Second, I believe that what Kropotkin is stating is a more evident answer than one which does not lead to societies, a head of state, and a government. If humans, at the base of their existence, did not want to find and share resources together and instead would compete for them, where is the transition from that school of thought to the modern one today, where there are civilizations? Observing Hobbes’ views on the state of nature, there is a large undefined gap between the core of his philosophy and human interaction today. Upon initially reflecting and choosing a side to agree with, the part of Hobbes’ theory that there was left unanswered caused me to question his whole philosophy. If humans will innately compete for resources, how did that way of thinking ultimately transition to a philosophy where there are developed societies, with the intention of mutual aid? At one point, there had to have been a large enough amount of people to oppose Hobbes’ philosophy and group together in the interest of attaining more resources with shared effort.
That being said, I do partly agree with Hobbes’ philosophy, because even though the majority of a given population would prefer mutual aid, there are also certainly people within the same population who think they could offer themselves a better life if they ventured out on their own, collecting and maintaining resources for their own preservation. Naturally, this school of thought will invariably lead to competition among resources, and is where I believe Hobbes’ philosophy on human nature rings true. A modern and appropriate example of the account of human nature that I have experience with, for example, is the choice to do a school project by oneself or with a group. Naturally, students will want to group up for a few reasons, such as less of a workload, and with that, less time to think about the other aspects of such a project, etc. Conversely, someone who believes that they could achieve a better mark by doing such a project by themselves would not partner up with anyone; in the interest of not letting anyone get a free good mark simply because they are in the same group as them, and because they think they can do a better job of the requirements on the project. Bringing back the debate of competition versus mutual aid, I believe that in most cases, humans will combine their efforts in the interest of a better life; unless someone believes they can offer themselves a better life in solitude, in which competition for resources will inevitably occur.
References
Grellette, M. (2017). PHILOS 1B03: Philosophy, Law, and Society. Tuesday, September 12th Lecture.
Rosen, M. (2012). Political thought. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Jeruson J., ARCHIVED. 