The State of Human Nature - Essay Example

Hobbes identified and discussed two paths that human nature takes and, no matter the striving and effort put into one or another, the human being and its glory or fall resides in what he called ethical egoism. The purpose of this paper is to discuss this matter by looking at two examples: one given by Michel Montaigne and the other, more recent and representing a deeply disturbing moment in history, by Primo Levi. The ethics and moral values of humans seem to diminish, if not vanish, when it comes to two important processes that set into motion the dynamics of humanity; be it the natural condition that Hobbes discusses, that of the man dealing with no artificial political or religious bodies of governance, a man who has to create a cult for the Self in order to survive, or the condition in which the mechanisms of power punish or reward the individual, man proves to be fundamentally violent and able to start the metamorphosis of everything that once was considered moral value.

In 'De Cive' Hobbes concludes that: " I obtained two absolutely certain postulates of human nature: one, the postulate of human greed by which each man insists upon his own private use of common property; the other, the postulate of natural reason, by which each man strives to avoid violent death."1 The transformations do not completely erase the cognitive capacities of the individual, but reinforce in a very dangerous way for the society the Delphic principle 'nosce te ipsum', which can push the individual into a world of absurdity in which reasoning is as well transformed and all meaning becomes corrupt.

Michael Montaigne's aim in his essay 'On Cannibals' is a very complex one and it is that of proving that no matter the time or the social circumstances, human nature developed its fundamental values and constantly fought to adjust morality to whatever its interest was. The problem of the pain or pleasure generated by a government like mechanism, which in Hobbes opinion triggers the egotistic behavior, is seen by Montaigne as something which occurs in those of us who have a very strong desire to be better than others, desire that is destructive for the rest of the society, and, this sort of action loses touch with the original selfishness, degenerating thus; we all are barbarians, some are transformed by these inner happenings into more barbaric people.

For Montaigne both the cannibal who lives in a natural state of no law and reasoning, who and the cannibal who adhered to a moral barbarism as part of an artificial structure, if we are to put it in Hobbes terms, are guilty of seeing as barbarian, as a threat "whatever is not his own practice".2When it comes to the questions related to the similarities and differences between the cannibal and the barbarian withholding some moral values, the last one represents the society contemporary to Montaigne, mainly seen in terms of political dispute and greed for power just like in Hobbes case; both philosophers found their theories on the sort of violence generated by self conscious people who end up acting as violent beings who are in fact too weak and fall under the influence of their own edacity.

Montaigne's argument stands valid and is a confirmation of Hobbes's thesis that humans act only in their own advantage. Montaigne states that: "I conceive there is more barbarity in eating a man alive, than when he is dead; in tearing a body limb