After the devastating earthquake in Haiti, the UN estimates the death toll above 200,000. Unfortunately, the situation has degraded to the point where, in some cases, there is an absence of government and police enforcement. The media has depicted incidents of violence, looting, and crime that have arisen in the aftermath of this devastation. However, there are also stories of heroism and bravery from average people trying to help out their friends and fellow citizens.
After our discussion of human nature and the Locke v Hobbes debate, we are now seeing a situation in which there is an absence of government in Haiti. The question now remains: In the absence of government, is human nature naturally selfish, greedy, and corrupt ?(Hobbesian View) Or is human nature naturally innocent or benevolent? (Locke) From reading the article below and what you have seen in the aftermath of the Haiti Earthquake please support Locke or Hobbes' view of human nature.
74 comments:
My opinion on the subject is that Locke's views on human nature are more accurate then Hobbes'. Though I do not feel particularity strong emotions on the subject while looking at what is happening in Haiti this is the most supported position.
After the earthquake in Haiti there has been signs of both good and bad coming out of the people that lived there.Yes, it is true that after the government left crime rates have climbed, but this is to be expected. The people Haiti do not know what to do they are lost, confused and have to find ways to survive. People that may have and little now have practically nothing so it is only logical that they do things like rob stores. They are perfectly innocent in regards to most of the crimes for most of the people do not intend to harm anyone. They only intend to fend for their family. Also there has been many different acts of heroism. The good side of people are going out and shinning. They are saving the lives of people they do not even know and overall proving my point that Locke was correct in regards to human nature. When in the absence of government humans are naturally innocent and benevolent.
It is my opinion that people are born innocent, but not necessarily benevolent. I definitely do not think that people were born evil. As a child, a person starts their life with a "clean slate," but their upbringing will cause significant dents onto that slate. It is their childhood and teenage life that determines whether a person will turn out to be benevolent or malicious.
In Haiti, the absence of government triggers all sorts of violence in the people. Of course, there are also those who do deeds to help save the lives of victims. It kind of seems to me as if those who rob and become thieves are those who act out of desperation: the majority of people in Haiti right now are homeless and probably very hungry. Those who do help others are the people that are slightly better off; they can survive while at the same time helping those in need. Those who commit acts of violence should not necessarily be considered naturally malicious; they are fighting for survival in one of the most needy countries of the world. Robbery is the way they were taught to act when in desperation.
~ Vivian Chen
Althought humans do act in ways that they shouldnt sometimes, humans are naturally innocent and benevolent. The country of Haiti is a disaster right now and those living are doing anything they can in the struggle to survive. Humans naturally need food to survive and so they may steal food. However, we do not know if them stealing food is for the right or the wrong purpose. We should give them the benefit of the doubt though since they are in such a dire situation.
There are also many people around the world that are trying to help Haiti. The human nature of those people around the world trying to help shows that we are naturally innocent and are not doing it simply for our own good. Even in our own school we raised about $4000 for Haiti. If we were naturally greedy we would have saved that money for ourselves. Instead we donated it to the cause which proves that Locke's ideas were correct in talking about humans and their nature.
Wow, Hobbe's got it all wrong. Once you were born, your off to a fresh start. Your just a baby, you have done anything bad or good yet. Your neutral. Its as simple as that. However after reading the Haiti article, the people there fight for their own lives. Yes looting stores is a bad thing, but its good in a way of survival.
I believe this is how Hobbes is thinking: You were born bad, and you need to do good deeds in order to help put one into a better state.
Meanwhile onto the Haiti argument again. People are fighting for survival. There government is practically useless right now, the police aren't doing anything and people are finding strategies for survival. There first priority is food and water. Where are they finding food and water? At the stores! Finding they loot stores to save their family. What if their baby child is dying of hunger? Its helping keep one's life in order. People aren't bad just for survival. It's just nature. What can you do bad in a state of panic and chaos? It really depends on how people view looting in 2 different scenarios. One is robbing. Another is for survival. Don't you see the difference?
After reading this article, I find that i much more support Locke's view of human nature, over Hobbe's view of human nature. In this article, they said that many people have resulted to crime in Haiti, and have been looting and have been violent, but I believe that these bad doings on the outside are actually good in the inside. From the looting in the destruction of Haiti, comes the desperation and need to support the haitian's families, and while looting looks bad at first, it is actually for the better good, and bringing hope for the children to live a longer and better life.
As we have talked about in class, Hobbes believed that people were naturally selfish, greedy, and corrupt. However, I believe that the only reason why Hobbes felt this way, was because of how bad the world was around him, influencing heavily his outlook on life. Locke's and Hobbe's outlook of human nature, to me resembles the term, "looking at the glass half empty or half full". What I like so much about John Locke and what makes me agree with this man so much, is the fact that even though Locke lived in a similar gloomy world as Hobbes, he wanted to help and change the world, whereas Hobbes just thought of how corrupt people were born being. In addition, John Locke has a trait that I have as well. Optimism. In definition, the belief of the power of good.
I am glad that in such a horrible situation Haiti is in currently, there are people around the world following Optimism, and believing that change can be achievable in Haiti. One of my biggest inspirations, Barack Obama, believes in hope and Optimism like myself, and I am so thankful, that in this time of need in Haiti, Barack Obama is here to lead america into bringing change in Haiti.
In conclusion, I agree with Locke's view of human nature, because i believe that eventhough it seems like the people of Haiti are resulting to crime, with the absence of the government, they are really being heroic and doing good deeds in the end.
I firmly believe that Locke's ideas are more correct; people in general are born innocent and unbiased. However, like science has proven and like we discussed in class, a person's disposition is affected by both his/her environment and hereditary traits. Regardless, I think that when confronted with an extreme situation, people show their true colours, and so far there have been many cases where people have helped complete strangers out of the good of their hearts.
People in Haiti aren't stealing food and things solely because they want to. They are unfortunately in a position where aid is difficult to get and so they feel as though they need to help themselves. I wouldn't say that it is good to steal things, but in an extreme situation like this earthquake, I wouldn't say that it is necessarily evil and corrupt to try and help your own family. In all cases though, there are also those who exploit the situation, and those who do were most likely either influenced by their environment or their genes. Also Haiti is basically a third world country, so it is very possible that a small minority of people ended up becoming criminals because they had to survive in a very difficult environment. However, I think that the people who are stealing to help their families are being benevolent, but some people might interpret it as being selfish. It depends on what your personal view is. From all of the examples that are coming from Haiti, I believe that people are innocent and benevolent not only in the abscence of a government, but in extreme cases such as the situation in Haiti.
Hobbes is wrong. People don’t “misbehave” and commit crimes because they are “evil”. People are born with a clean slate, why? Because they haven’t even begun existing. They have never had any way whatsoever to affect anything that goes on in the universe yet. All humans are born neutral. People naturally will do pretty much anything for their own survival. It’s our instinct. Yes, people can do bad things just because they are greedy, but this doesn’t make them evil.
Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world. It also happens to be where a huge earthquake recently hit. Like Haiti wasn’t miserable enough, now it’s a huge pile of dust that was once homes, workspaces, and stores, now it’s all destroyed. You can’t blame them for the crimes they have committed. They did it because they are desperate; all they want to do is to continue their existence. Even when the Haitians dreaded their life before, and even now they know that if they stay alive, they will have to keep living in poverty, depression, crime, and just overall unhappiness, they still do anything to stay alive.
The earthquakes in Haiti may have caused there to be a lack of government, but there is still no true way of telling what human's natural mindset is. This is mainly because, as the article states,"there have reports of violence. How could there not be? But there have been reports of heroism, too." Every person has their own way of thinking and acting in a time like this and I think it is because of how they are raised. People are grown up and take on the mannerisms of their parents. For example, if the parents live in a cruddy, dangerous, violent neighborhood and the parents are part of some gang, then the kid is surely going to grow up into a bad lifestyle. It is more easy to see in Boulder that the kids that do very well in school tend to have successful parents.
Another reason it is hard to see what babies are born as is that these are not babies. If a baby was left to grow up on his own in the wilderness, he would develop and use his or her savage instincts. But since most of the actions being seen are by grown teenagers or adults, there is no clear answer.
Also, in William Golding's "Lord of the Flies" these grown and civilized kids quickly become insane. Maybe if you give Haiti enough time, it will form into a more clear system. It will most likely become a dictatorship by some man gathering together people, being good at public speaking, convincing him he is god, and then killing those who disagree. All in all the events in Haiti aren't enough to truly decide what the State of Nature really is.
I agree mostly with Locke than I do Hobbes. I agree with Locke in a way that people are born innocent and benevolent. Though it depends on the person to really figure out who they really want to be.It also depends on what kind of an environment they grow up in. If a child lives in a house with a father who hits the mother or vice versa than just depending on the child they are more likely to get in more trouble in their life time than someone who lives in a house where family time is important and somewhat of a structured environment. People usually figure out who and what they want to do and be when they are in their mid to late teens. I do not think that people are just born to be evil. Just because little kids yell and fight or get mad at each other, does not mean that they are evil. It simply means that they have not been taught to have patience and kindness.
After the earthquake in Haiti it has been a disaster for them. People have been steeling things which can be expected. The two things that you need in order to survive is water and food. There for, if people go into stores and steel a bottle of water or some kind of food it means that they are simply trying to survive or help their family survive. In this situation that they are in right now I would say that this act is not evil. I would consider this wrong though if it were to be in a different country that was in a better condition. America is trying to help people in Haiti, but they are not able to help everyone. People in Haiti are just trying to protect their families and survive. The people that are helping can prove the point that Locke is correct. People innocent and benevolent as well as what he said about humans and their nature.
-Shelby Reaves
In general, I would normally support Locke's idea on human nature, but these extreme events in Haiti have changed the way people act. I wouldn't go as far to say that people are corrupt and evil in a disaster, but in a live or death situation people are definitely greedy and definitely selfish.
If thousands of years of human evolution has taught us anything, it is that you need to be tough to survive in a harsh environment. Even in the times of primitive man, people who were not willing to fight for their food ended up dying. This same principle applies in disasters. In Haiti there isn't enough food to supply everyone, so those who sit back and do nothing are probably going to die. The "good" people who say "you go first" or "you should eat first" will not survive in harsh conditions. It is because of this fact that our generation knows that nice people die and selfish people survive. It is a very sad concept but it is true and happens all around the world.
There has been many cases of people saving others from the Haiti rubble, but this doesn't mean that they are "good" people. In fact, before a person saves another, they first establish that they themselves are okay. In a disaster, people tend to there own needs before the needs of others. If you were trapped under the rubble in Haiti the first thing on your mind is your own safety. You'll notice that on airplanes in an emergency you are instructed to help yourself before helping others around you. This is because helping yourself is natural human behavior in a life or death situation.
In conclusion, when your life is on the line you will do anything to survive, even if that means stealing or leaving others to save yourself. Many of these people may not be selfish in a non-disaster life, but a life or death situation will trigger your past human instinct and that is selfish.
I personally agree with both Hobbs and Locke because everyone is different and they make different choices in their life. The article stated that people are stealing from stores and others are helping with the cause which shows that some people choose to help and others choose not too.
The people who are stealing may not be stealing because they can but maybe to help their family or friends. If a family member or close friend is dying of starvation because they can not get food for them selves and someone steals to help them then I think in that case people are born innocent. Some may be stealing just because they can. Since there government has disappeared it is a lot easier to get away with things. It is also much easier to steal when the store is falling apart and everyone is helping others. So I guess in that case I agree with Hobbs that everyone is born greedy.
Haiti is in a really bad place right now and people are taking the lack of government and ruined stores and building to an advantage and stealing, and that does support Hobbes idea that everyone is born greedy and corrupt. There are also those who are helping in everyway that they can and that supports Locke’s idea that everyone innocent and benevolent.I guess that i have to agree with both Hobbs and Locke but it also depends on what way you look at it.
I believe that Hobbes’ view on human nature is more correct than Locke’s view. That is, that we are born greedy, selfish, and corrupt. However, I do not believe that people are born so evil that if able, a baby would kill somebody. When a baby is hungry, tired, or has soiled their diaper, they will cry because they want their parents to feed them, put them to sleep, or change their diaper. They will keep on crying, even if their parents are doing something important. Many toddlers hoard their toys: if their friend or sibling starts playing with one of their toys, the toddler will take it back. If their friend or sibling makes him angry, he will hit them. Even as young adults, we are like this. We want to be the first to get our lunch, or if there is a group project, we want to do the least amount of work. Only through a parent’s scolding or punishment will children learn that being selfish and hitting is wrong. Despite learning what is right and what is wrong, if nobody is looking, we will do what we want. For example, no matter how ludicrous this may seem, if time were frozen indefinitely, we would probably go to the store and take food, clothes, and large screen HD televisions and not leave the money on the counter because “it is the law”.
The earthquake in Haiti was extremely devastating and I feel bad for the victims, but Hobbes’ view on human nature is still true in a situation like this. The nations that have sent aid are only there to show that they can provide the most, and elevate themselves above the rest. As for the thievery, even if it’s to keep their family alive, it’s still greedy and selfish. That family would rather take that food for self preservation than give it to another family. If the parents would rather go without food and let their children eat instead, they are doing it to make themselves seem like noble, self-sacrificing parents in the eyes of their children and to preserve their family line and possibly prestige. And the average citizens heroically helping their neighbors have got what they wanted: there are stories about them and people see them as heroes. I am not trying to make people feel depressed, but Hobbes’ views on human nature are the most accurate.
I believe that all humans are naturally born innocent, but I think that humans go in different directions depending on how they are raised. They're different types of families, some are raised to be selfish, i wouldn't go as far to say evil, and others are raised in maybe less fortunate families, or very giving families. It also, i think, depends on the personality, and what the persons child life was like. Everyone has different experiences throughout life, and that makes them who they are.
The earthquake in Haiti, was devastating, and many families got ripped apart and homes were destroyed. Not much food, not much water, it's survival of the fittest. Everyone is on their own, they need to fend for themselves to stay alive. Crime was expected, it's human nature. Yet, it's not all selfish. Families are working hard for each other, depending on each other, it's not all crime. Yes, there is an absence of the goverment in Haiti, and that has contributed to all of it. Humans do what they have to, to stay alive and keep their families with them.
I firmly believe that babies are not born EVIL. Yes, babies are selfish and greedy. But one would only believe that if they looked at the surface. Babies are also sweet and innocent and their parents are their to help them grow up to be "good."
And yes, I suppose you could compare the government in Haiti to the parents of the baby. And by taking the parents/government away, then that would equal poorer decisions. But I don't think that the people of Haiti can be compared to babies. Babies don't know who they are yet and I do believe in Locke's view that people are born with a clean slate.
The people of Haiti are just acting out because they are scared. Their land just got destroyed so who can really blame them for being afraid. Also not everyone is acting in violence and a lot of those who are stealing or doing anything else are just doing it for their family. They are just trying to protect themselves and their family.
I feel that it is unfair to say that we are all born evil, because I feel that it is the situations that we are in that make us who we are. It's situations like Haiti that could make people believe in Hobbes' view, but I feel that when we are in bad or scary situations we all act differently. No matter how we act, I think that deep down we are all good.
I disagree with Hobbes' perspective on human nature. People are born innocent rather that evil. I believe that the environment that a person lives in has a huge effect on that person. For example, Haiti's crime rate increased because of the anarchy of Haiti's government. It's not that people are born evil, it's actually their surroundings that have great impact on them.
Secondly, I don't think that people can generalize that Haitians stealing for their own survival is necessarily "evil". Stealing is still wrong, however, I believe that it is very natural for people to try to save their own life. In Haiti, people have no shelter, food, water, and stable government that can support them. I think it's very normal for a person to save their life because they simply don't have anything.
With all these reason, I disagree with Hobbes' perspective on human nature.
I strongly disagree with Hobbes' view on human nature. I don't believe that people are born evil, greedy, and selfish, but rather change the way they are based on their surroundings, as in Locke's view. If people were born corrupt, I think we would be seeing much stronger signs of that in the world today. I think there are both good people and bad people, and that is not decided for us when we are born but instead we decide for ourselves. There are people who's parents are good and they turn out good, or who's parent's are bad who turn out bad, but there are also the people who are evil and corrupt and come from loving families in which they were raised well.
In Haiti people are looting stores for food and water, but I believe it is completely unfair to say that they are selfish, greedy and corrupt people. Although it may seem that some are taking advantage of the circumstances and taking much more food then they need for their family, those same people have experienced incredible loss and may not be in the state of mind that they are usually in. As for the people who are only taking a bag of rice and a bottle of water, they are simply trying to survive, and to call them corrupt would be completely unjust. I think we need to consider the great loss they are experiencing in Haiti, and if we were experiencing a tragedy of the same magnitude in the U.S., people would be doing the same.
Personally, I believe that children are born innocent and learn from their surroundings. I think that ones surroundings play a key role in who they are and what decisions they will make in certain situations. However, I also think that the argument that all people are selfish is correct to some extent. I do believe in selfless acts, but if you think about it, a lot of things are done for the benefit of ones self. For example, when someone does community service, are they really looking out for the good of the community or are they looking to feel better about themselves?
These ideas also relate to the stories that we hear form Haiti. I imagine that most people are acting out of desperation. Those who steal are taking basic necessities, such as food and water, which they may not find anywhere else. On the other side of this argument, however, it can be said that the people who steal are only looking out for themselves, even though they have lost everything.
All in all, I cannot say whether or not I am for or against what either Hobbes or Locke are saying because I think that part of each argument is correct.
- - Cierra Russ
My view reside with Locke's point of view though I do believe that Hobbes holds an intresting point. People are born with a clean slates and the actions that procced them decide whether or not thay are "evil" or "good". I believe that though there are some very maniacal and dangerous people in the world like Hitler, Attila the Hun, Saddam Hussein, etc, they were not born bad. I highly doubt that when they were little they knew that they would be remembered in history as the tyrants of the past.
In Haiti for example, they are a group of people who by a very sad and misfourtunate event were throw even deeper into poverty. Their homes were destroyed and in the chaos of the small island there have been report of stealing which under this curcumstance isn't the worst becasue they steal rice and water and other things they need to help themself and hopefully others. Other nations lend help and raise money to save those people who are stuck under deprease and rock. Fairview high school reciently raised some four thousand dollars to help these people which in the grand scheme of things isn't alot, but its a symbol that we care. There is alot of good in the world and just because there are some who get pursueded by bad influence doesn't mean that everyone has to fall under "evil".
In my opinion, humans are naturally innocent and benevolent when faced with a choice between good and evil. I believe that the disaster in Haiti strongly supports Locke’s theory that humans are good and thus will help each other in times of need. In a crisis as extreme as this, one must look at the broad scope of the human nature being exhibited, instead of focusing on individual cases. The reason I say this is that there has been a lot of looting and crime in Haiti. Without a government for protection this is almost inevitable, as individuals will take advantage of the situation. However, we do not know the history of these individuals, their motives and desperation, or their gain. When taking human nature via actions into account, one must first know of the history of the individual. In a country as poor as Haiti, it is very likely that people have been exposed to crimes in the past, thus influencing their behavior and changing their natural state.
Even with the lack of government, there have been wonderful acts of bravery and kindness where people have helped each other. There is no requirement for them to do this and no one to govern their actions, but when faced with an opportunity to help one another, many people take it. Even looting can sometimes be justified under such extreme conditions. With starvation and dehydration threatening, looting can become the only way for yourself and your family to survive. People helping each other out of rubble and to deal with deaths in their family, only taking what they need to survive, making the best of their situation, and trying to continue on with their lives during such a disaster only serves to emphasize natural human goodness and benevolence. I believe Locke was correct in that humans are born innocent and good, as demonstrated by the feats of bravery in Haiti during this crisis.
By Kira Headrick
In my opinion i believe that human nature is innocent. Human nature is responsible for what happened in Haiti and what many other natural disasters have done to the world but in time they have gotten through it.
The people of Haiti are distraught by this earthquake and therefore that is what is making people to steel and commit crimes. Also, since there is no form of government right now in Haiti the people are having to do everything themselves in terms of trying to recover from it and if that means that they have to commit small crimes to be able to eat for example then those people have to do that to survive. Many people in the world are naive in many ways and when a natural disaster occurs the people have a hard time of recovering from it in a civil way. What happened in Haiti was a true disaster and even though human nature did cause an earthquake we can recover from it.
In my opinion, people are born neither good nor bad. They have done nothing that would decide what type of person they were at their time of birth. There are good and bad influences that can persuade a person to do good or bad things.
It is not the absence of government that caused people to steal. What has happened in Haiti was an awful natural disaster. The people who were affected by the earthquake cannot be blamed for taking food or water from a ruined shop. There are millions of people who were affected by this tragedy. There is too great a number of people in need, for help to come quickly to all of them. It is only natural that they find any food they can for themselves, which in this case happens to be from a wrecked store. Hobbes' view that humankind are greedy, selfish, and corrupt is not shown in Haiti. A starving, thirst-ridden person taking food and water from a collapsed store can hardly be called greedy or selfish, especially since their intentions are to help their families.
In my opinion all people are born innocent. You cant be born bad. When you are born, you have a new, clean start. It just doesnt work out to be bad. Depending on how the children are raised and what they have been taught they can or cannot do bad things.
The earthquake in Haiti was definitely a devastating thing. People there are starving and need water, so they have to resort to stealing things in order to actually live! This is such a bad situation that i think that they shouldnt be too penalized for practically trying to live. Yes, stealing is very wrong, but for these people, its not entirely wrong.
As for us, we are doing so many things to help these people out, donating money, and some people are actually going out to Haiti to help out. This is not a greedy thing, and we are definitely not doing this for the benefit of the doubt. So thats why i believe humans are born innocent.
It is my belief that Locke's view on human nature is correct. Although I do not normally contemplate the human nature, this topic has brought me to realize the many examples in this world that support this view.
Even though there are many people in this world who are "evil" but when we are born, we are not born evil but innocent. We turn out the way we are now because of the environment we grow up in (but I won't go farther on that debate). Locke's view applies in this certain situation because of the nature of humans: What will we do if we had no government to control us? After the shock in Haiti, news has been arriving about the mysterious disappearance of the government, which leaves the country in complete chaos. Or not? Both heroic and violent actions have been done in the devastated area, but violence is sort of understandable. The citizens of Haiti are suffering much confusion, anger, and desperation and right now they are trying to find out ways to survive. Statistics show that Haiti is the poorest country in North America. And to have a country in that much poverty suffer such a huge loss, most of who are homeless, it is not their fault for acting this desperate in this type of action. And why look only at the bad side? Heroism has been widely appreciated in the country recently. Those people rescue and touch those people's lives in such a way that one can not deny the innocence of humans. This leads me to conclude that Locke's belief of our benevolence is true.
My view on this particular subject is that of hobbes. The hatians have nothing to hold them back from doing whatever they want. The crime rates are soaring, and all over, looters are taking anything and everything. The natural instinct of anyone in this situation, which is mankind at its most primitive, in desperste situations, is that of self preservation. this includes harming, killing or many other violet crimes in order to survive. this is clearly not good. Are there any Haitians working in a way that isnt in their best interest, like sharing food or water? These are common reactions of someone who is fundamentally "bad".
without the threat of severe governmental punishment these people have resorted to violent measures of getting whatever they want. those few left who cannot defend themselves are stolen from and taken advantage of. this is definitely not a good side of human nature, and though it is "to be expected" this only furthers my point. if this is human nature unaltered, you can see on your television what human nature is. helpful privileged people from other countries help, but those who are truly desperate fend only for themselves.
I have to agree with the Locke view which I perceive to be the most accurate of the two views. In the Case of Haiti after this devastating Earthquake that has destroyed the already week economic stands of this country many of the peoples reactions support Locke's view.
In the Article it says that there have been looters and people that are at this point looking out for number one, that would support Hobbes theory; but it also states that there have been stories of Heroism. This supports Locke's theory because it shows that how people act is subject to the surroundings and what is happening around them. I also believe that since many places are sending help and there for Haiti also proves that not everybody is out for themselves or you'd find a more "survival of the fittest" attitude. Also the news has always seemed to focus more on the bad and depressing parts of how people have been, whereas other people have been all about helping others. So I believe that Locke's theory that you are a result of your surroundings and influences is more correct in this case.
I believe that Locke's view is the most logical. People are born completely "clean" and have not done anything to label them good or evil yet. Although i do believe there are some bad people in the world there are still more good caring people in the world.
Haiti is going through some tough times right now, and being one of the poorest countries in the world isn't helping them. To me the people that are in Locke's view point are the ones rushing down there to help out and the ones at home donating money or starting there own charities. while on the other hand the hobbs view is shown in haiti through the different kind of crimes their. Even then these crimes were done for survival not evil. Haiti is EXTREMELY poor right now, so people don't have the money to repair there broken belongings or feed themselves or a family. So in my opinion Locke makes more logical sense.
I believe that human nature is structured around the good side of things, and I agree with John Locke in that people are born with innocence. In Haiti, there is chaos. Those who can or try to overcome their emotions I believe are the ones saving the lives. These are all good people, but with the state that Haiti is in, people are scared and unsure of what to do, and some turn to theft and violence as a way to possibly relieve anger or try and deal with their losses and emotions. Deep down; however, they have a good nature and are really just good people going through a hard time.
This is just one of many examples of why human nature is good, and that no one is born evil or selfish, like Hobbes believed. John Locke was right when he said that everyone is born innocent. The people of Haiti are going through a disaster, but despite the hard times, everyone is truly good. This is proven by the citizens saving lives and being heroes. Human nature is good and no disaster could change that.
What is happening in Haiti right now is a very horrible tragedy. With people being violent against each other, looting for food, and trying to get to anywhere else but where they are, Haiti is not in the best situation it has been in right now. Although all of this is happening my opinion is that Locke's view on humans and what they naturally do is correct.
The government has been destroyed and has abandoned Haiti, leaving them to survive on their own. People are looting and stealing from stores and houses, but even though this uncivil act is seen as violent and hurtful, the people of Haiti are doing this to obtain food, water, and the necessities for their families and them to survive this disaster.
Also, their are many nations around the world trying to help the people effected by Haiti. This shows that Locke's idea that people are born innocent and good-natured is true. These leaders and countries are helping Haiti by sending money, rescue teams, and supplies. If people were born evil and corrupt as Hobbs says then people would not be stealing and taking to save their families, they would be trying to save themselves.
Even though Haiti is going through a nasty disaster, it shows how kind and friendly people are.
I disagree with both Locke and Hobbs, I believe that people are neither bad nor good when they are born. I think that humans are able to choose how good or evil they are based off of the events that happen throughout their lifetime. However, if I had to choose I would say that I agree more with Locke because I think that all people have a heart, even if it is buried beneath layers and layers of distortions.
In Haiti, there has been so much chaos and destruction, that many peoples only option for survival is to steal. This is to be expected in a country that is so poor and un-educated that they don't know how to act during a time of disaster. Being that the government is almost completely depleted, the Haitians don't know who to look to. They need their government to step up and take control of a very quickly diminishing society, not that their society was very intact to begin with. There are also people who have been doing heroic things to help out their fellow citizens. Just because those people are much more calm and able to help out doesn't make the looters any worse of people. Maybe the heroic people have experienced disasters in life before that have given them a sense of reassurance through tough times. Haiti does not have that stability that the US has. They need all the help they can get, and its times like this that reminds us that "Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart."-Anne Frank. I believe that all people are born neutral, but they have more good in them than bad.
I still stand by the fact that Locke's theory is right. That people are born innocent. Right now in Haiti, you cannot blame people for stealing or looting stores just for food. they are probably doing it to stay alive or just feed their families.
Now I know that people are still thinking. They are doung it for their own good. but put it this way, they are doing it just to stay alive, under these circumstances you cannot accuse them of being bad. they are just trying to live. I think that it is under these types of circumstances where a person would still be innocent but will commit some actions that would be considered."bad"
Kevin L Chen
I believe that Locke's point of view is more correct than the views of Hobbes'. I believe that people were born benevolent and innocent. Moreover, I believe that people turn bad, or "evil," by being influenced by their surroundings.
Based on these views, I believe that that stealing and looting in Haiti is not a direct cause of bad people. Of course the disaster in Haiti is horrible, but most people are not stealing for the fun of it. A lot of them steal and loot stores to protect their families. In my point of view, this should not be considered malevolent. Supporting your family is a good and necessary thing to do in a time of crisis. Besides people stealing, there are those people in Haiti who are considered valiente heroes because of their efforts to help their neighbors, friends, and other suffering people. If these people were born "evil," then why would they be trying to help others in need. This shows that Locke's point of view, that people were born innocent and benevolent, is correct.
I beleive that people are what they are made to be. So i.e. people are made by their enviroment and their own mind.
I think that psyhcology is a major factor in the way people act. Our brains are born hardwired with specific information. An enviroment can make some of those processes become more dominant than others. What we induce our selves with is what we make our selves. Young minds are easly re-hardwired. Our minds are like wet plaster that could be poured and formed into anything we want it to be. Many criminals have a psychological disorder; usally if it is serial.
I agree with Locke, I think all people were born neither good nor bad and that people become good or bad based on their surroundings. In Haiti, I think right now a majority of people in Haiti are just trying to build their life back up. There are going to be some people that think that they should rise and become the next ruler. Over all the people that are “robbing” ruined stores is because they are trying to help their family and friends survive. I think that since most people were raised by good people that most of Haiti will just be focusing on getting their families lives back to as normal as possible then they will help out their community. So while it is inevitable that some people will fight for food, water, or other basic necessities for their family, there will be a few others that will fight for leadership.
While there is no government to fund the rebuilding of roads, someone should and probably will create a group that is willing to slowly rebuild Haiti piece by piece. Also in a crisis like this, all the surrounding nations are chipping in to help out. With all their help some nation will probably send over some highly knowledgeable, high ranked person in their government to help direct Haiti in the right direction. I also think that with the UN leader being killed during the earth quake has an effect on how soon and how much help they are getting from the UN. If the leader was still alive he probably would have requested that all the nations chip in to help Haiti rebuild its self.
With mass disaster and disorder, the situation in Haiti is the biggest natural disaster since hurrican Katrina. During times of great distress like these natural disasters, people rely on their need to survive. If feeding themselves and their families requires taking the food from a destroyed market I beilive that such actions are not wrong. Because they need such items to SURVIVE I don't think such actions should be considered a crime. On the other hand, looters who are stealing goods such as jewlwery and items that are not essential to their survival should be stopped and be prosecuted to whatever level is possible at this point.
In regards to the Hobbes Locke debat, I belive people are born innocent and are affected by their environment not gentics. Referring to the situation in Haiti, people who are taking food and water from ruined buildings are not wrong in their actions because they are simpling trying to survive, humans most basic instinct. However the people who are looting for personal gain not survival are wrong in their actions.
Disasters bring out the best, the worst, and instinctual in all persons affected. People have a choice to be heros, villians, or simply make it through. These decisions are affected by morals the person upholds. If one such person is looting for personal gain, some embedded thought seeded in that persons head by an environment they were brought up into must exist. Heros make a consicous decison to make a positive difference. Thus proving the point that Locke was correct in that humans are bon "a clean slate" and then from that point affected by what they are surrounded by.
I think that both Locke and Hobbes are correct in the Haiti case. Locke is right in that many Haitians are looting to help their family, and are trying to rescue people even though they may also be hurt. Hobbes is right in that stealing is wrong and you are stealing for yourself, while taking away from others. However, I agree most with Locke’s argument that people are born innocent rather than guilty and selfish.
Using the Haitians as an example and how they are trying to help each other thorugh the difficul times. The difficulty of losing one person is hard to accept, but losing hundreds of thousands is a different story. There are also thousands of Haitians that require immediate surgery or they will die or be paralyzed. And then there are other victims of the earthquake who do not require surgery, but were also injured. Still, they are combining their efforts with the rest of the world to help support the nation. Loyalty to the citizens vs. a natural disaster shows a more selfless human than the one that Hobbes's illustrated.
According to evolution, the goal in life is to pass on your genes to your children. Before civilization developed, life was all about surviving. In Haiti right now, there isn't a civized government. It is every person for themselves. In today's culture, I agree with Locke's point of view, but millions of years ago, and in Haiti right now, I agree with Hobbes.
In Haiti, there is no one looking out for individual people. That means that the people are looking after themselves. In this situation, the most important thing to any one person is staying alive.I agree with David S. when he says that just because people are helping each other doesn't mean they are "good" people. Let's say you were caught in the earthquake. I piece of cement falls and pins your leg. You aren't just going to ignore it and help other people get out. No, priority 1 is always saving yourself.People may help somebody get out, but that is just a)to make themselves feel good, or b) to get someone out so they can return a favor. In America, I agree with Locke's views, but in a desperate Haiti, human nature kicks in and that means people will be selfish.
I believe that no human can ever be born evil. In the absence of a government to help the people be good people, sometimes people can turn corrupt. For instance in Haiti, there have been some reported lootings, but those have been to save the people’s families. The rice bags and water would have not been used anyways, if the shops were abandoned. It is better to save the poor, but surviving people, than to deprive them of what they need to survive. Enough people have died already; no one else needs to die for causes that can be prevented, such as starvation and dehydration.
Like in Hurricane Katrina, rumors about theft went around, many of them untrue. Unrelated to this article, I have heard of neighborhoods joining together to create food distribution centers. I have also heard of a man who, once he assured that his family members were safe, he headed to the make- shift hospitals to give company to the patients there. Even in a time of disaster, people have been able to find it within themselves to rise to the occasion, and help where ever they find they can. Humans are naturally good on the inside, and can turn corrupt in a poor environment such as Haiti.
By: Grace-e Kerber
I think there is a balance of good and bad in each of us and that depending on which side is nurtured more in that person's life, that is what thay become. I however, disagree with Hobbs' view of evil because I dont think there is such thing as true "evil". I think that people are good in general; but can always become "evil" or ill natured if put in a desperate enouugh situation.
This is what I think is going on in Haiti. After the earth quake the people were left desperate, and with their absence of government even more panicked, and untrusting. People like to think that in a time of need their government will stand fast and protect them. This, their government was unable to do. Thus the Haitians are left with nothing but rubble.
This creates a perfect example of a situation where a a person would change from good to, as Hobbs would say, "evil". The Haitians actions are not wihout cause and although the rest of the "civilized" world look down on it, the people of Haiti are just trying to look out for themselves and their loved ones.
I think that the quote "That which does not kill us makes us stronger," said by Friedrich Nietzsche applies in this situation. I hope that when Haiti gets through this they will emerge stronger as a country. And that this strength will carry them into a better, more secure reality.
I think there is a balance of good and bad in each of us and that depending on which side is nurtured more in that person's life, that is what thay become. I however, disagree with Hobbs' view of evil because I dont think there is such thing as true "evil". I think that people are good in general; but can always become "evil" or ill natured if put in a desperate enouugh situation.
This is what I think is going on in Haiti. After the earth quake the people were left desperate, and with their absence of government even more panicked, and untrusting. People like to think that in a time of need their government will stand fast and protect them. This, their government was unable to do. Thus the Haitians are left with nothing but rubble.
This creates a perfect example of a situation where a a person would change from good to, as Hobbs would say, "evil". The Haitians actions are not wihout cause and although the rest of the "civilized" world look down on it, the people of Haiti are just trying to look out for themselves and their loved ones.
I think that the quote "That which does not kill us makes us stronger," said by Friedrich Nietzsche applies in this situation. I hope that when Haiti gets through this they will emerge stronger as a country. And that this strength will carry them into a better, more secure reality.
I think there is a balance of good and bad in each of us and that depending on which side is nurtured more in that person's life, that is what thay become. I however, disagree with Hobbs' view of evil because I dont think there is such thing as true "evil". I think that people are good in general; but can always become "evil" or ill natured if put in a desperate enouugh situation.
This is what I think is going on in Haiti. After the earth quake the people were left desperate, and with their absence of government even more panicked, and untrusting. People like to think that in a time of need their government will stand fast and protect them. This, their government was unable to do. Thus the Haitians are left with nothing but rubble.
This creates a perfect example of a situation where a a person would change from good to, as Hobbs would say, "evil". The Haitians actions are not wihout cause and although the rest of the "civilized" world look down on it, the people of Haiti are just trying to look out for themselves and their loved ones.
I think that the quote "That which does not kill us makes us stronger," said by Friedrich Nietzsche applies in this situation. I hope that when Haiti gets through this they will emerge stronger as a country. And that this strength will carry them into a better, more secure reality.
I think there is a balance of good and bad in each of us and that depending on which side is nurtured more in that person's life, that is what thay become. I however, disagree with Hobbs' view of evil because I dont think there is such thing as true "evil". I think that people are good in general; but can always become "evil" or ill natured if put in a desperate enouugh situation.
This is what I think is going on in Haiti. After the earth quake the people were left desperate, and with their absence of government even more panicked, and untrusting. People like to think that in a time of need their government will stand fast and protect them. This, their government was unable to do. Thus the Haitians are left with nothing but rubble.
This creates a perfect example of a situation where a a person would change from good to, as Hobbs would say, "evil". The Haitians actions are not wihout cause and although the rest of the "civilized" world look down on it, the people of Haiti are just trying to look out for themselves and their loved ones.
I think that the quote "That which does not kill us makes us stronger," said by Friedrich Nietzsche applies in this situation. I hope that when Haiti gets through this they will emerge stronger as a country. And that this strength will carry them into a better, more secure reality.
I think there is a balance of good and bad in each of us and that depending on which side is nurtured more in that person's life, that is what thay become. I however, disagree with Hobbs' view of evil because I dont think there is such thing as true "evil". I think that people are good in general; but can always become "evil" or ill natured if put in a desperate enouugh situation.
This is what I think is going on in Haiti. After the earth quake the people were left desperate, and with their absence of government even more panicked, and untrusting. People like to think that in a time of need their government will stand fast and protect them. This, their government was unable to do. Thus the Haitians are left with nothing but rubble.
This creates a perfect example of a situation where a a person would change from good to, as Hobbs would say, "evil". The Haitians actions are not wihout cause and although the rest of the "civilized" world look down on it, the people of Haiti are just trying to look out for themselves and their loved ones.
I think that the quote "That which does not kill us makes us stronger," said by Friedrich Nietzsche applies in this situation. I hope that when Haiti gets through this they will emerge stronger as a country. And that this strength will carry them into a better, more secure reality.
I think there is a balance of good and bad in each of us and that depending on which side is nurtured more in that person's life, that is what thay become. I however, disagree with Hobbs' view of evil because I dont think there is such thing as true "evil". I think that people are good in general; but can always become "evil" or ill natured if put in a desperate enouugh situation.
This is what I think is going on in Haiti. After the earth quake the people were left desperate, and with their absence of government even more panicked, and untrusting. People like to think that in a time of need their government will stand fast and protect them. This, their government was unable to do. Thus the Haitians are left with nothing but rubble.
This creates a perfect example of a situation where a a person would change from good to, as Hobbs would say, "evil". The Haitians actions are not wihout cause and although the rest of the "civilized" world look down on it, the people of Haiti are just trying to look out for themselves and their loved ones.
I think that the quote "That which does not kill us makes us stronger," said by Friedrich Nietzsche applies in this situation. I hope that when Haiti gets through this they will emerge stronger as a country. And that this strength will carry them into a better, more secure reality.
I think there is a balance of good and bad in each of us and that depending on which side is nurtured more in that person's life, that is what thay become. I however, disagree with Hobbs' view of evil because I dont think there is such thing as true "evil". I think that people are good in general; but can always become "evil" or ill natured if put in a desperate enouugh situation.
This is what I think is going on in Haiti. After the earth quake the people were left desperate, and with their absence of government even more panicked, and untrusting. People like to think that in a time of need their government will stand fast and protect them. This, their government was unable to do. Thus the Haitians are left with nothing but rubble.
This creates a perfect example of a situation where a a person would change from good to, as Hobbs would say, "evil". The Haitians actions are not wihout cause and although the rest of the "civilized" world look down on it, the people of Haiti are just trying to look out for themselves and their loved ones.
I think that the quote "That which does not kill us makes us stronger," said by Friedrich Nietzsche applies in this situation. I hope that when Haiti gets through this they will emerge stronger as a country. And that this strength will carry them into a better, more secure reality.
sorry I dident think it worked
I believe that Locke's perspective is a more accurate description of human nature. The recent events in Haiti have, as the article stated, provided an unprecedented environment in which to observe basic human nature. As hard as it is to take a purely objective view on this situation if one can be taken this scenario seems to promote the Locke argument more so than that of Hobbe.
The earthquake has effectively reset Haiti, destroying all of the little infrastructure that it had established. This has led to the complete absence of government and other regulatory agencies within its borders. Haiti is currently the only accurate example of a true anarchist state in existence in the world. Despite the lack of government there is a surprising lack of violence. Yes violent acts are taking place within Haiti but the country has not been consumed by it. If mankind was basically evil as Hobbe has suggested there would be no co-operation between survivors, there would be little to no rescue efforts, or even foreign aid, what does a country have to gain by giving to someone that will most likely return the favor? Haiti is providing us with a once in a life time insight into basic human nature and what it has to show is not that humans turn into savages given the slightest opportunity but that they, for the most part, attempt to aid each other and to help those that they can.
I think that Hobbes is more right than Locke, but not entirely. It's true that everything we do is selfish, but that is not necessarily bad. I mean, it's worked so far, hasn't it? Humans have evolved to look out for their best interests first. One might dispute this with examples of "generosity" such as gift giving or sacrificing one's life for another's. But these are all examples of someone judging the situation and choosing the option that makes them the happiest. You give a gift to someone because if they are happy, you are happy. It makes you happier than if you hadn't given the gift at all. Same with saving someone. You are happier with them alive and you dead then if you hadn't saved them. Ultimately, humans choose the choice that makes them happiest. The reason that this is not bad is because humans evolved to form functioning societies, that is, that the ancestors of humans who functioned better in society passed on more of their genes than those who didn't. To function in a society, one must WANT to help others. That is why we are empathetic, and why it makes us HAPPY to see others happy. So, while we are selfish in the sense that we will always do what makes us the happiest out of the available options, often that also benefits others, and is not viewed as "bad".
mmm... potatoes...
I believe in absents of government people tend to resort to bad or evil things so they can survive. Although most people may want to help people and to be helpful but in times of need you have to do everything you can to survive and that tends to be by looting.
In Haiti after the earthquake people had no food had no home had nothing and in order to survive they need to steal or maybe even murder. I think that more then half the crimes happening in Haiti are because people need to do a crime in order to survive and those people are still innocent and a blank slate and what ever happens in there life impacts if they are a good person or a bad person.
When someone is born they have a fresh start and i believe everything that happens in someone's life impacts whether you are a good person or a bad one. In Haiti when this earthquake happened it caused people to do bad things which impacts what type of person they are but doing one bad thing does not necessarily mean that those people are bad people or even criminals.
After reading this article, i have come to believe that Hobbes' views are more correct than Locke's are. The people of Haiti are in a time of need and desperation so they stop feeling bad for everyone else and try to save their own lives. Hobbes' wording seems a little harsh for the situation in Haiti but the people who were affected are focused on keeping them selves alive instead of the 3 million others misplaced from the earthquake.
If the government had not disappeared in this natural disaster, the aftermath of the earthquake would most likely have been handled better and more lives could have been saved. But since the government did disappear, the aftermath suddenly became a free-for-all struggle to keep ones selves alive. The people have to resort to crime and violence to save themselves. Over all I believe that Hobbes point of view better fits the role of the situation.
I believe in absents of government people tend to resort to bad or evil things so they can survive. Although most people may want to help people and to be helpful but in times of need you have to do everything you can to survive and that tends to be by looting.
In Haiti after the earthquake people had no food had no home had nothing and in order to survive they need to steal or maybe even murder. I think that more then half the crimes happening in Haiti are because people need to do a crime in order to survive and those people are still innocent and a blank slate and what ever happens in there life impacts if they are a good person or a bad person.
When someone is born they have a fresh start and i believe everything that happens in someone's life impacts whether you are a good person or a bad one. In Haiti when this earthquake happened it caused people to do bad things which impacts what type of person they are but doing one bad thing does not necessarily mean that those people are bad people or even criminals.
believe in absents of government people tend to resort to bad or evil things so they can survive. Although most people may want to help people and to be helpful but in times of need you have to do everything you can to survive and that tends to be by looting.
In Haiti after the earthquake people had no food had no home had nothing and in order to survive they need to steal or maybe even murder. I think that more then half the crimes happening in Haiti are because people need to do a crime in order to survive and those people are still innocent and a blank slate and what ever happens in there life impacts if they are a good person or a bad person.
When someone is born they have a fresh start and i believe everything that happens in someone's life impacts whether you are a good person or a bad one. In Haiti when this earthquake happened it caused people to do bad things which impacts what type of person they are but doing one bad thing does not necessarily mean that those people are bad people or even criminals.
Originally, I wasn't sure which view of human nature I agreed with, because I definitely don't think that everybody is good. However, I also don't think everybody is evil. But thinking about it more, I realized I really do agree with Locke's views of human nature it terms of being born with a clean slate. At that point, it's up to you what you do with that slate. I don't think that all people even tend to do good, but they're not born evil. Usually some other circumstance in their life makes them want to lash out somehow.
Relating this to Haiti, I would definitely not go as far as to say that human nature is naturally benevolent. In fact I think more along the lines of many people being naturally greedy. A situation like this brings out either the best, or worst in people, and I think it's just a reflection of how they have always been. There are both good and bad people. And this isn't meant to sound negative, it's just that way I think nature is. I also think that certain crimes can be forgiven more easily if you consider the situation they take place in, and if the crime was committed so that somebody can feed their family it's less "evil". If it's just done for personal gain, or just because there's no one to say no, that's when it's less understandable.
Overall, I guess I would say that I lean more towards the Locke view, but I'm really in the middle. They both had some ideas that were good, though Hobbes may have been a little extreme with his negativity.
I agree more with Lock's veiws more than Hobbes'. My opinion is that every person is born with a 'clean slate' and it is the child's upringing and experiences that shape what they are to become. For example, if a child is teased and bullied, I feel like they would more likely grow up and become insecure and distant verses another child that wasn't bullied. However, I do think that the hereditary genes of a person does play a small amount in a person's personality.
The article was discussing how people in Haiti have been stealing and looting, but I think that this is not because these people are 'evil'. This is a horrible time in Haiti, where the government can not aide the people in trouble. This then leaves the responsibility to the people to save them and thier families. These people who are stealing are robbinh are doing it becuase they have no choice, which is not an act of evilness, but instead of desperation. THis leads me to believe and confirm that people are born good, as Locke said.
People of the world aren't completely innocent or benevolent, but i would say that it leans towards the benevolent side. Most everything that we do there is a reward in it for us. Some people try to argue that this is not true. they say that people do good things every day. This may be true but are the people not getting anything out of it for themselves. If you give someone a present you feel good and they have a good opinion of you which is something every human being likes. Everybody wants to be liked by their peers.
The recent destruction in Haiti has brought out the good in people recently. People have been contributing money and trying to help as much as possible. This is a good deed but it is not necessarily thinking of themselves. NBA players are donating money to help the people of Haiti but that is boosting their image and increasing their fan base. If they have a larger fan base then more of their products are bought and they make more money, so the money put into helping Haiti they will get back and it will be like an investment for them. No matter what we do we it is making us feel good in one way or another. All humans are trying to do is survive and if you don't think about yourself you can't survive
-Joris Van Zeghbroeck
Locke said that all people are, by nature, innocent, and that it is the situations surrounding people that corrupt them. The situation in Haiti strongly illustrates his point. The soaring crime rates in Haiti probably have very little to do with the absence of government. The people of Haiti are in a desperate situation. When so many people are dying, people will do whatever they can to keep themselves and their loved ones alive. For some people, it means looting stores. For others, it includes truly heroic acts of helping others. The earthquake in Haiti has strongly affected the people, but not by bringing out their true nature due to lack of government. Such a huge disaster is a situation fully capable of corrupting people.
More than anything else, human nature includes the basic instinct to stay alive. Both humans and animals have the instinct to, whatever it takes, keep themselves alive. The situation in Haiti has brought out the unavoidable violence such a tragedy causes. This is not because of the people, but of the situation they are put in. At the same time, it has brought out the good side of human nature, the one that would be expected to show up less in such a brutal situation, proving not only that humans shaped by their situations, but that situations can be overcome.
um sorry i forgot to put a space between the paragraphs... there was suposed to be one in between these two sentances: Such a huge disaster is a situation fully capable of corrupting people.
More than anything else, human nature includes the basic instinct to stay alive.
I disagree with Hobbes point of view on human nature. Locke stated that everyone is born with a "clean slate", this view makes the most sense because you can't tell how a person will act in his/her life based on how they act as a child. Yes, babies are greedy and selfish but just as the old cliché states "They don't know any better." If you teach a person to hate and be greedy or expose them to a negative environment they will most likely behave badly in certain situations. It all depends on the upbringing that the child receives.
On the matter of how people react in a time of terror and an absence of government I stongly believe that in a time of desperation and need, people will do almost anything to stay alive and protect their families. If there is an absence of food, water and other necessities you will do anything to aquire them. After the disasterous earthquake in Haiti, people did what most people do in a time of terror; loot and engage in acts of violence that they would never dream of doing otherwise.
I think Locke's view on humans is more accurate. People are born innocent, because when you're born you're not thinking about anything. Your mind is probably completely blank when you're born. You don't start doing bad or good until you're influenced by your environment.
In the article, there was a man who went into a store to steal rice and water for his family. I think that is a pretty selfless act, because that man is putting himself in danger to feed his family. I think he was also affected by his environment, if that applies here, because even if you're normally a good person, if you're family is starving and thirsty, and you're just fighting to stay alive, you're going to do whatever, which is steal some food and water maybe.
But then, there are also the people who started looting stores and everything, that kind of fit into Hobbes view of humans just being evil and greedy. But again, fighting for survival, maybe they could've traded the stuff for food or water.
There are 2 types of people on this world...
I believe that humans are born innocent. That when a human comes out of the womb it is completely innocent, but not necessarily benvolent. A new born baby has no thoughts of helping others, but that's because it doesn't have the capability to do so. I do honestly believe that a human's perversity and maliciousness is based on their upbringing, and their surroundings.
In Haiti I think that people aren't in a state where they can react sensibly because of the intense shock all around them. They don't purposefully act violently or heroically I believe, its' just whatever falls into their paths. It has been shown though that whenever major disasters have occured, humanity has bonded together and helped one another. (Hurricane Katrina, when the towers were hit in NYC, etc...) That is because most people have had a decent or good upbringing with at least some sort of good example in their lives, it doesn't take much. The few who do commit crimes and acts of violence and doing so because they have either been treated that way themselves, or have been taught that way.
i dont believe in either Locke or Hobbes. Everyone has innocence and evil in the them. I agree that the environment you live in plays a big part on which side (good or evil) you will act on. However, people have invented what is right and what is wrong. So if we had invented that stealing is right, then people are not evil if they steal. I think it depends on the person themselves to decide if what they are doing is right or wrong. Just because a person does one thing that is "evil", it doesn't make them an "evil" person. Same with "good". Just because someone does something "good" or "innocent", that doesn't make that person good and innocent.
To tie this into the Haiti disaster, people have to decide for themselves if stealing to survive is the right or wrong thing to do. The people of Haiti may be doing things that we consider wrong but that doesn't mean they're evil. Also the great things people have been doing doesn't prove people are born innocent either. There is evil and there is innocent in everyone and certain situations may make one or the other show more obviously.
I disagree with Hobbes perspective in regards to the issue of someone's state of nature. People are born with a "clean slate," and are legitimately affected by their surroundings as they grow up. A classic case of a person's surroundings being influential to someone's overall character is child abuse. Child abuse certainly can easily change a youthful mind about the nature of their life, and is a critical reason in causing kids to adapt and behave outside of the home horribly due to the harsh environment.
This harsh environment for a kid can be related to the harsh environment of people in Haiti who have been devastated by the huge earthquake that struck their already disrupted country. The people in Haiti are not looting the stores in the capital because they are born to be evil, they are doing that through the necessity of survival. This was John Locke's point about people's benevolent state of nature and can be supported due to the absence of government in Haiti.
My opinion is that Locke was more accurate than Hobbes. I believe that people are born innocent and benevolent. The natural disaster in Haiti is a perfect example of how an environment affects a person and their personality. In a time of depression and struggle one might do things that they weren’t brought up or raised to do. For instance, they might steal but to feed their family. After the earthquake it was reported that crime rates went up and that it was more violent with people looting everywhere, this looks bad but perhaps it is because of the need to survive. When put into a tough situation like that, how far would you go to live? Just because people commit crimes and act out does not mean that they are “evil” or born that way. Desperate times call for desperate measures I would say. Not that I agree with their tactics of violence. People are born with a clean slate I would say, and where, who, and when their raised affects them. Who raises them affects them. And the experiences and events in life they go through all affects them and make people who they are. With very little living material, families I Haiti were left without water, homes, and food. Families were tore apart and loved ones were lost. Through this devastating time people got scared and became irrational. Though our actions maybe not be the best at times, I do believe we are all born innocent.
I feel that Locke is correct and that humans are born with a "blank slate". But when we are pushed to the limit like in haiti right now we can become sinister, violent, and primitive in an attempt to survive. Haiti is a perfect example of the last sentence because of the looting of stores and other public buildings because people are trying there hardest to survive day by day, but the Haitian people have dealt with these crircumstances before because these things happen often in Haiti just on a much more smaller
scale.
I also feel that we can start off as a mix between Hobbes and Locke's ideas because when we start out we take and take selfishly but we are not aware of this because we don't have the capacity to think this deep. As we progress through life it becomes obvious that we are selfish and take a lot of things and become materialistic and violent. I think Hobbes is right in the way that we are evil throughout our lives but I like locke's idea of starting out with a blank slate.
I do not think that either of these views, Hobbes or Locke, is correct mainly because of how they are worded. Hobbes view makes people sound like people are evil and bad, and completely self centered. Locke's view on the other hand makes humans sound like they would never even kill a fly because it was annoying. I think all normal humans fit somewhere in the middle of this spectrum, perhaps a little closer to Hobbes side than Locke though. Human instinct is to survive and ensure survival of the species. This instinct does not mean that humans are evil, it just means that if an individuals survival depends on doing something that would be considered wrong, chances are they will do what it takes to survive. There are boundaries to how far this survival instinct will take a person. Certain other survival instincts may cause our interpretation of human nature to fall back more toward the Locke side. Parents are a good example of this because when a families survival is endangered parents will almost always put their children and loved ones before themselves.
The situation in Haiti is an example of human nature when not influenced by law or government. Looting is normal in a situation where there is no consequence for the action and a persons survival could depend on breaking into a store to get food and water. Even looters who are taking advantage of the situation are fighting for survival by helping themselves gain an advantage which may in the long term help ensure their survival, or the survival of the group or network they are connected to. Looting in the modern world is the same as it was when we did not have organized societies. Obtaining honey for example is breaking into a bee hive and "stealing" the honey from the nest to help the survival of your social unit. We do not usually consider that as an evil act but it is exactly the same as what looters do yet some people tag looters as evil and wrong doers.
I think that the question asked here (basically "Is human nature innocent or evil?") is missleading. I think what we really should be asking is "Does human instinct to survive cause us to do good or bad things?" and I believe the answer to this question ultimately depends on the situation, but also our interpretation of what good and bad mean. Most people who loot for survival do not think about if it is right, wrong, good or bad. They think about how they will survive into the future.
I believe that Lockes views are more accurate than Hobbes because humans are born with the will to survive because of the fragile state we are in. We don't know better that sharing is helpful.
In Haiti after the earthquake crime rates have increased. This is not a surprise to me because of the people being so poor there they need food. So if I see people robbing food and supplies from stores that makes complete sense. They already don't have much money so then supplies and food are short and with the hurricane it virtually wiped their jobs if they had them. Also they want to provide for their family and the ones they care about so they will do what it takes to provide for their family and other loved ones.
In my opinion when your born it's like going into a new semester in school because everything is wiped clean and it's a fresh start and until you make choices it is neither good or bad. When a baby is born it is to young to do anything good or evil so thats why I am on Locke's side.
After the terrible earthquake and the governments absence Haiti has it's hands full. Since the government's absence there has been more violence and looting and other crimes. However I think it is bringing the people of Haiti together and if they get out of this pickle they are in they will come out a much stronger country then they were before. People are helping Haiti in every way they can and donating but it's still a long road ahead.
Of course this situation in Haiti is devastating beyond belief. The amount of grief and hardship that exists in this one country is horrible. However in this case, I definitely do not believe that humans are born generally evil as Hobbes believed. In this predicament, I believe that Locke's belief is more accurate.
It is all survival of the fittest at this point. The government has disappeared, all enforcement is now nonexistent, and a functioning society has become almost impossible. In order to survive, the people of Haiti must do whatever is needed to stay alive and keep others alive. For some people that means stealing to not die from hunger. For others that means climbing into a collapsing house to save a group of small children about to be killed. The absence of government does not reveal that everyone is born a certain way. They are forced to do things by the lack of help due to a natural cause.
I do not actually know what is happening in Haiti. All my information I take from small moments in time described through a reporter's eyes. However, from what I have seen in the media, I agree with Locke's point of view. All humans are forced to be who they are and do certain actions by their situation and environment. No one is born to be evil or benevolent.
Post a Comment