Hobbes Vs Mill

1. What evidence does Hobbes offer in favor of his claim that nature “renders men apt to invade and destroy one another”? [150 words]

Hobbes offers support to his claim that nature makes men apt to fight one another, by showing how people act in their own self-interest. When people act in their own self-interest they look to preserve their own life. Hobbes believes in his definition of nature that man must use their own virtues of protection to ultimately preserve themselves. The way Hobbes describes the motivation is quite simple. For instance, in modern society, one may still lock our homes regardless if it is a perfectly safe area – this is due to Hobbes’ concept of, “self-preservation.” Nevertheless, the root of these actions is actually
How does Mill think justice is distinguished from the rest of morality? What is Mill’s response to those who think our intuitions about justice show that the principle of utility is not the basic moral principle? [300 words] Conventional wisdom has it that justice and morality are two, separate entities. However, Mill argues that they can be different, but intertwined in utilitarianism. Morality has been illustrated as seeing the right path in which to embark on – integrity coming from honorable intentions. Specifically found in Mill’s explanation of the ultimate decency of principles that can be found in both morality itself, along with justice itself, are most expressed in a centralized government. Mill’s reasoning is rooted in his utilitarian belief that management is the driving factor in perfect harmony between justice and morality within society. There are multiple responses to Mill’s theory, especially on his claims of what is utility’s most effective relationship with
In contrast, Hobbes’ argument when examining the, “duties to victims of famine,” would lead us to believe that those who are most affected by poverty should not view themselves so much as, ‘victims of famine’ but victims of the capitalistic society. He reminds us that is it our capitalistic society that has framed our minds, what exactly is qualified as a, “victim.” Nevertheless, Singer shares his morality as he explains his illustration of the interests of society – the greed embedded within the utilitarian regime so-to-speak. In other words, Singer is consistent in his claims that it is a much grander impact to be selfless, through actions that would be considered minor to many, but immensely transforming to one without the simple satisfaction of a meal. For instance, Singer states, “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” Ultimately, Singer thoroughly demonstrates his morals to another, in this case Hobbes, that the utilitarian conceptualism that capitalism, or the never-ending cycle of work will, “benefit all worthy of reward,” when truly – it is to those who do not have the opportunities to fully partake in a gratifying