A Comparative Analysis of Natural Inclinations Essay

A Comparative Analysis of Natural Inclinations - Essay Example A philosopher like Hobbes would disagree. He would argue that our natural inclinations are competitive, and that we are naturally destined for destruction. In between these two extremes is the notion of rationality. Kant, for instance, argues that we can overcome our natural inclinations, whatever they may be, by using reason.This question is significant because the answer has important implications. How we choose to govern ourselves depends, in large part, on how we answer the question of natural inclinations. How constitutions and legislation treat notions of liberty and freedom of expression, for example, depend on the extant to which the drafters perceive human beings to be capable of moderating their behavior. In short, how we choose to form laws to govern ourselves is dependent on our assumptions regarding our natural inclinations.These are a few of the questions posed and addressed in the works of John Stuart Mill, Thomas Hobbes, and Immanuel Kant. This essay will identify eac h thinker's analysis of the human being's natural inclinations, the implications of each thinker's analysis, and then offer a brief comparative analysis.As an initial matter, John Stuart Mill, in Utilitarianism, argues that natural inclinations are not innate. Human beings are not born with a natural predisposition to compete (Mill, 1863). Satisfaction of our basest needs, such as food, shelter, or a mate, does not compel us to satisfy our needs at all costs. We do not begin hunting for food until we are taught how to hunt. We do not steal the food of others until we are aware of the possibility of stealing. Nor do we believe in monogamy or polygamy at birth. These are not natural drives. They are not genetic predispositions. Who we are is the product of our environment. Our inclinations, as they develop throughout our lives, are taught and learned. In Mill's view, therefore, an innate compulsion or natural inclination is absent in the very beginning. On this basis, he reasons that the formation of laws should be used to condition people. More specifically, he believes that the creation of a fair and just society will create fair and just citizens. We should discourage authoritarian forms of government, for instance, because they are unnecessary and because they will teach us destructive habits. To this end, he advocates personal liberties and freedom of expression. The government does not need to dominate its people because its people are conditioned by these broader concepts of justice, moderation, and restraint. They will follow the examples set forth in just and reasonable laws. More specifically, he advocates the formation of laws which emphasize the satisfaction of the people rather than the domination of the people. Mill states that, "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (Mill, 1863). His notion of happiness is twofold. First, happiness is physical pleasure. Laws should encourage and allow people to pursue interests of importance to the individual. Second, happiness is mental pleasure. Freedom of expression and diversity of opinion are to be valued rather than prohibited. Proper laws can, in the final analysis, teach us how to be happy and thereafter operate to sustain our happiness. The significant point is that human beings are not naturally inclined to commit bad or destructive acts; on the contrary, we are capable of forming laws and principles which can result in moderate political and social structures. Mill employs a balancing test. The goal is to promote maximum happiness while minimizing unhappiness. This tends toward

In the Introduction to Democracy in America, Tocqueville claims that a Essay

In the Introduction to Democracy in America, Tocqueville claims that a great democratic revolution is taking place and tha - Essay Example He believed the creation of America, a land of equality and liberty, where all workers are valued with high esteem is a prominent step in world history. Hence he defined it as the â€Å"most continuous, the oldest, and the most permanent fact known in history†. Why Marx Won’t Agree? Karl Marx saw American Democracy as a mere power shift from monarchies to capitalistic companies he referred as â€Å"bourgeoisie†. Karl Marx differed with Tocqueville because of several reasons. The communists were very clear no social equality would prevail in a country whose economy is driven by capitalism. So, who was actually right? In a sense both of them were right. Both these scholars interpreted the happenings of their time with the wisdom they gained from the circumstances they were born, bought up and lived. Tocqueville was a born in a family regarded with high esteem in France. His family was equivalent to that of nobles. He studied politics and pursued a career in the sam e. Born on 1805, the most prominent occurrences of his time revolved around the American Independence and the French Revolution. Tocqueville was bought up as an aristocrat, but his compassion and humanity made him think revolutionarily. He wanted to do something to improve the pathetic life of the peasants. His mindset did not allow him to see them as the equals of the nobles. He viewed the American democracy which provided great labour freedom, high wages and the ability for everyone to become rich as the best way to improve the lives of the struggling men. His view of helping the workers was quite capitalistic. It was seen from the prospective of a noble or a company head. It was similar to a parental love expressed to children. The parents do what they think is best for the children. It is up to the child to make use of the facilities and prosper in life. A Practical and Foresighted View Karl Marx was born on 1818 in Germany. He belonged to a modest middle-cast family. He got mor e chance to mix with the less deprived people in the society directly. He was one amongst them, who rose to great fame, not because of high class education or family background, but just through his self-acquired intellectuality. His view about American capitalism and democracy is similar to that of a friends approach to a fellow’s problem. Friends understand better than parents as they are in a similar situation to the child. A child can grow without parents, but not without friends. Hence, Marx theories gain more importance than Tocqueville principles. Marx’s view of democracy means keeping everything common for everybody, converting every labour into an owner and every owner into a worker. Abraham Lincoln expressed the same view in a different way in his Gettysburg Address. He said â€Å"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.† He strongly believed anything different from this would only damage democracy. Two Different Poles Tocqueville thought wealth distribution was unnecessary. He simply felt the steps taken by the American government to bridge the gap between the poor and the rich are enough. He strongly felt, division of property will only increase poor’s hatred towards the rich (De Tocqueville, 192). He had no second thoughts about presenting enough opportunities for everyone though. This is where Marx and Tocqueville differ like opposite poles of a magnet. Marx argues there should be no such opportunity present to anyone, as it will pave for another dominant class. The communists