Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts

Friday, January 13, 2017

Hobbes and Locke were both wrong

I have run into the discussions which could be labeled "Hobbes vs. Locke" a number of times.  Recently, however, I came to a new interpretation of morality in general.

Whether we claim a divine source or a priori knowledge or programming or simple logic, every adult I have ever met has a moral compass.  In short, we know what we ought to do.    Where we differ most is in what we are going to do.

If you'll allow me to interpret for a moment:
Hobbes presented mankind as naturally "self-interested".  Hobbes never claimed that such as state "ought to be", simply that it was.  There were two conclusions made based on this determination: that constant war would ensue and that the only way to prevent this was to have a "State" which enforced its will upon the populace.

Locke saw our "better angels".  But, he saw exactly that.  We are not our "better angels".  We are "self-interested".  I would love to live in the world Locke conceived, but I do not.

I think that Hobbes did a slightly better job of evaluating his fellow humans.  But, what we are and what we ought to be are dramatically different things.  Morality is not a compiled list of decisions made by all persons.  Morality is not game theory.  Morality, regardless of its perceived source, is based on principle.

I have also come to the conclusion that Hobbes "solution" is in no way tenable or desirable.  Fear of punishment is not a basis for morality.  Coercion is not a basis for morality.  As a basis for morality, it would fail quickly.  A State would either have to continue to find new ways to inspire fear or dedicate more and more resources to surveillance over time.

Fear of punishment and coercion are often part of the decision process, but the decision process is not morality.  Morality is part of the decision process and in many cases, it ought to be the argument which carries the most weight.

Although it can be argued otherwise (as nearly anything can), I put forward that morality is not nearly as subjective as we pretend.  I believe that most of the individuals in a given culture will agree on what they ought to do.  They often choose to do otherwise.  We are not our "better angels".  However, pretending that such a decision in moral is simply rationalization.  In a word, "You know better."