M5A1 Discussion Notes

• What do our natures entail exactly, if anything? Do you align yourself more with
Rousseau, Hobbes or Locke? Accordingly, how might we successfully base our laws on the
laws of nature, if at all?
• So human nature is the core characteristic(s) we use to recognize humans as
humans. (finkleman, p. 173)
• Natural Law is the moral law written into nature itself. What we ought to do, according
to this theory, is determined by considering certain aspects of nature. In particular, we
ought to examine our nature as human beings to see what is essential for us to function
well as members of our species. We look to certain aspects of our nature to know what is
good and what we ought to do (MacKinnon, 2015, p. 82).
• Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau held that humans are naturally compassionate and
altruistic. Therefore, we are easily able to determine, with this state of nature, any
corruptions to our ideal state.
• “Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for instance, is credited with thinking that, by nature,
man is a compassionate and altruistic creature, and, hence, that the state of nature
offers an ideal against which the corruptions of society can be measured.” (p.
251)
• Alternatively, philosopher Thomas Hobbes regarded humans as wholly self-interested
and suspicious of one another. He felt that every living organism obeys the laws of
individual survival. In short, we are motivated by self-preservation, fear and a desire for
fame and glory. Accordingly, only a police state can successfully secure our existence in
society
• On the other hand, Hobbes is generally interpreted as regarding man as wholly
egoistical and suspicious of his fellows. (p. 252)
• As Hobbes puts it, “if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless
they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies”(p. 254)
• There are three main components that form the basis of his pessimism. First he
was a materialist: he believed that there's nothing more to reality than physical
objects and their observable properties. Related to this, he was also an
empiricist: he believed that experience is the only sure guide to knowledge.
Finally, as a consequence of these views, he was a moral anti-realist, rejecting the
idea that ethical claims – for example, “mudering superman is morall wrong” -
con be objectively and universally judged as true or false. (finlkleman, p. 174)
• Philosopher John Locke also believed the mind is a tabula rasa—a blank slate—at birth,
and that there is no universal agreement regarding principles perceived as innate.
• Locke (the philosopher) would say that reason guides our behavior. (p. 251)
• Natural law and the laws of nature do not mean the same thing. Laws of nature dictate
scientifically how things occur. Natural law states how things ought to be based on the
laws of nature
• Locke specifically disagreed with Hobbes assessment that human nature is essentially
self-interested, and that individuals surrender their rights, through a social contract, for
the sake of self-preservation.
•
• Referencing the television series Lost, what do you believe our natural rights afford us,
specifically, in terms of actual laws? What laws might we need to re-evaluate or change, if
any, to better reflect these rights?
• Hence, the principle: the more vital or scarcer the good that is the object of conflict, the
purer and more severe the state of nature.
• the principle: the fewer or weaker (that is, the less likely to be observed) the frames, the
purer and more severe the state of nature.
• In these terms, we can see that the survivors on Lost do find themselves in a pretty
severe state of nature, because among the goods that they are no longer guaranteed by
the society from which they are now isolated are the means of basic survival, and
because it is hard for them to tell in advance what frames, if any, will apply to the
distribution of those goods. The question, then, is: What can they do to reduce the
severity of the state of nature?
• Indeed, I think that we can under- stand the state of nature better if we are not
hampered by a speculative theory about the “nature” of the people in it, beyond
recognizing that, as animals, they need such things as food, drink, and protection.
• When Jack is led to discover the stream of fresh water later in the same episode,
and the survivors get the knack of hunting and fishing, they are no longer in tragic
conflict with each other for vital goods. Because none of the other survivors is a
threat to the survival of each of them, there is no reason not to group together. (p.
253)
• This condition of minimal bodily security corresponds to the core of what Locke
(the philosopher) had in mind in talking about a state of nature. There is no con-
stituted government; all humans are equal and independent (second Treatise, §4);
and everyone has the right not only not to be harmed “in his life, health, liberty or
possessions” (§6), but also to take and use the things they find around them so long
as there is “enough and as good” left for the others (§27). (p. 253)
• “commonwealth” (§§122ff.), in which, by the consent of its members, roles can be
established and rules can be laid down for the good of all those included.
• In short, if the survivors can begin trusting each other, they can reasonably adopt
more successful strategies than those that might be based on some merely
suppositious theory of human nature, whether Innocence or Trust No. 1. By doing
so, they can get a community off the ground so as to handle the shortages of some
goods (tragedies of the commons) and to coordinate the security of all (Lockean on
the inside and Hobbesian towards the outside) against the Others and whatever else
is out there.