Response 4

            To me the role of human self-interest in social contracts is a negative entity that is holding back the true potential of humanity.  The reasoning for this that it is human nature for an individual to try to better there life before they better the lives of others.  While in a society this wanting to better there own life my lead to conflicts between people.  This is why government to so important; because if there were no government that keep people in check they would be in a constant battle with each other to do better then the person next to them.

            Like when Thomas Hobbes says “that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in the condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man”.  This shows that with out a government, men will not be able to coexist, because of this nature to do better then every one else.  By having a government men will be able to live together in relative peace, and much more will be able to be accomplished.

            This is also prevalent in Machiavelli’s text, were he is talking about his home of Italy and how there was no central government, but many city-states that were is constant conflict.  This is similar to Hobbes views, because the city-states are individuals that are looking out for there best interest.  The only way for the city-states to agree on any thing would be to unite them under the same “flag” or government.  This once again shows the value of having a centralized government to control the individuals so that common goals can be accomplished.             

Response #4

Mary Alice Dewees

English 121

Response 4

 

Human self-interest is inescapable!

            Whether people realize or not, human self-interest is impossible to escape. Every person acts in a way to achieve personal gain. People work to have money to buy goods, they have hobbies to add excitement or joy to their lives, so it can also be said self-interest also plays a role in the way our social contracts/governments work.

            Machiavelli expresses this opinion when he writes about the role a prince should play. Besides being hated, the prince should do anything to keep his power. He states, “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor to avoid hatred, as is noted” (135). A wise prince is one who acts in a way that he sees as best not relying on other people to guide him in his decisions. Machiavelli confidently justifies selfish actions in order to gain power.

            Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan, goes further to explain that because people only care for themselves any form of government is preferred. “Hobbes therefore opposed revolution in any form, not because he thought kings ruled by divine right but because he believed that authoritarian governments were necessary to keep human beings’ worst impulses under control.”(37) Hobbes is implying that because of this deep seeded need for self satisfaction social contracts must exist.

            In conclusion, it is shown that human self-interest plays not only a role in how leaders rule but also why people must be ruled. While both may be a bit extreme in their views, they do have some validity. People inherently commit acts that will hopefully benefit their lives, sometimes at the expense of others. It is a part of human nature.

Response #4

Mary Alice Dewees

English 121

Response 4

Human self-interest is inescapable!

Whether people realize or not, human self-interest is impossible to escape. Every person acts in a way to achieve personal gain. People work to have money to buy goods, they have hobbies to add excitement or joy to their lives, so it can also be said self-interest also plays a role in the way our social contracts/governments work.

Machiavelli expresses this opinion when he writes about the role a prince should play. Besides being hated, the prince should do anything to keep his power. He states, “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor to avoid hatred, as is noted” (135). A wise prince is one who acts in a way that he sees as best not relying on other people to guide him in his decisions. Machiavelli confidently justifies selfish actions in order to gain power.

Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan, goes further to explain that because people only care for themselves any form of government is preferred. “Hobbes therefore opposed revolution in any form, not because he thought kings ruled by divine right but because he believed that authoritarian governments were necessary to keep human beings’ worst impulses under control.”(37) Hobbes is implying that because of this deep seeded need for self satisfaction social contracts must exist.

In conclusion, it is shown that human self-interest plays not only a role in how leaders rule but also why people must be ruled. While both may be a bit extreme in their views, they do have some validity. People inherently commit acts that will hopefully benefit their lives, sometimes at the expense of others. It is a part of human nature.

Human Self Interest

Benjamin Burns

Araina Paliobagis

English 121

3/3/08

Response 4

 

 

What is the role of human self interest? Honestly, to have a sound and “perfect” government, there should be no role for human self interest. I believe that the purpose of government is to run the country the way that they feel best, while simultaneously looking out for the needs of the people. The put it simply, the government should work for the people; not the other way around. We as American citizens elect a leader because we believe that the viewpoints that the candidate has will strengthen the quality of life for us individually, not as a whole. When one American citizen goes to the voting booth, he/she thinks about which candidate, if elected, will make his/her life easier. This leads me to believe and better understand what Thomas Hobbes was discussing in his novel The Leviathan. Hobbes states that “The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them (41). Man is only concerned about the well being of himself and not the well being of Mankind.

In the Niccolo Machiavelli text, it explains and discusses how a ruler should behave and be kind, but not too kind. Machiavelli say’s, “every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel” (133).  I believe that this statement is a wish, and not ever going to be a reality. It is human nature, as Hobbes clearly explained, to look out for ones self and only ones self.  There are very few people in this world that would honestly give up happiness so someone else could have it, and when that kind of feeling toward someone is created, it is a very special thing.

I can do anything better than you….

                        Chelsey Colbert

Response 4

 

            Human self-interest plays a huge role in government and social contracts, as it should.  I think that everyone should look out for numero uno first and then lend a helping hand; and yes, a helping hand should always be offered. Most people will say that a person should look out for others first and then himself or herself last; but do you think humans evolved to the place we are right now by looking out for everyone first? No! It is part of human’s natural instinct to look out for themselves first and others last; after all, humans are animals and is that not what all animals do? The authors John Rawls and Thomas Hobbes both agree that humans are inherently selfish; however, for the betterment of human kind, selfishness should be put aside.

            Hobbes claims that all men think the most of themselves and they all think themselves wiser than their neighbor. Consequently, they think themselves in the highest regard and will look after themselves only. However, Hobbes also states that, for the betterment of the people, there should be a law governing the citizens. He recognizes that humans are constantly in a time of war because they do not have a law of government governing the greater body. I think that Hobbes is comparing humans to animals and is saying that humans are clearly a more intelligent species but humans will not make any progress if they don’t have law in their life.

            Rawls states something similar in his piece. Rawls says that there should be two laws used to govern a society. These two laws apply to the basic structure of society and must be follow at all times. The first law pertains to basic liberties and the second law deals with income and wealth distribution. He says that for a society to work there must be economic differences and people must accept their place on the economic scale. Basically, if a poor man is complaining that he only gets a certain amount of money, he should really in fact be happy that he gets any money at all. Rawls is saying that selfishness is present, because everyone wants the most, but in order for anyone to have anything there must be an unequal distribution in income for there to be benefits for the whole.

A Little Self-Interest Is Ok. Selfishness Is Not.

  

Bethany Van Dyke

English 121-31

Response Paper 4

March 3, 2008

                Self-interest is needed in order to maintain one’s own rights, but the problem begins when selfishness dominates a person’s every decision.  In John Rawls Two Principles of Justice, he speaks about how “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty” (354).  He continues by saying that beyond these basic rights if there are “social or economic inequalities they need to be to everyone’s advantage” (354).  This is where the issue of self-interest comes in and where one needs to be careful to not become too selfish.

Society is slowly adopting an attitude that is more directed toward helping others, but self-interest is still very apparent.  It’s ok to do what’s necessary to get through life and be successful, but to only focus on one’s own interests is not ok. Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, speaks of people’s self-interest and how those interests usually conflict with other people’s.  In turn this results in war—either physical war or more common internal war (internal conflict) (38-39).  This self-interest shows up all over the place, even in our own communities and families. 

By just looking at my own family I can see what happens when self-interest directs one’s lifestyle compared to generosity and concern for others.  One specific set of my relatives are nice people, but at the same time they are selfish and only make decisions based on whether they directly benefit from it.  In addition, they don’t have a concern for those who are less fortunate.  They feel that those people are responsible for their position in life and that they (as in my relatives) don’t need to help the less fortunate.  This same attitude toward others also makes its way into their voting decisions.  Once again, they just look out for themselves and vote for those leaders/laws that benefit them—not even thinking if these leaders/laws will be beneficial to everyone. 

                The problem with this type of living is that my relatives have taken their self-interest too far.  They are well off and have everything they need (including money and freedom).  If a person has all that they need, shouldn’t they begin to focus on the needs of others?  Helping others, whether that means community service or making decisions with others in mind, is the only way to help everyone gain their basic rights.  Government starts out small with community involvement and builds from there. Once we have satisfied our basic needs, we need to help others and make decisions that benefit as many other people as possible.

Self Interest

           

The role of self-interests in government can be broken into two parts; politicians and citizens self-interests. In a representative form of government self interest should never be considered because it is the politicians job to represent the ideas of the people not their own. Similarly I think when it comes time to vote less emphasis needs to be put on self interest and more on what needs to be done to progress the groups as a whole. I am not suggesting complete abandonment of self interests but believe that the self interests of one individual should not have a negative impact on another. John Rawls first statement of his two principles states that “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.” He would agree that people have a right to pursue self interests as long as it isn’t damaging to others. Thomas Hobbes would agree that the natural urge of humans is to want to pursue self interests and would also say that in this natural state the pursuit would lead to the demise and probable death of many. Hobbes views government as the force that prevents unlawful and unjustifiable pursuits of self-interest. I see less of a role that self interest has in government, but the role that government has in controlling self-interest.

Self-Preservation

Keely BoultonResponse 4March 3, 2008            No matter where one looks, self-interest can be seen ever presently in America.  Be it in sports teams, school grades, or something as large as the United States government.  Because man is sinful by nature, his greed comes out in everything he does.  Man is willing to get ahead no matter what it may mean to the greater population.  The human race is a sinful one and so each man’s self-interest is seen in all he does.  Most prevalently seen in our current reading is man’s self-interest in government.

            Machiavelli hits on several points that show man’s selfishness.  The text we read, The Prince, talks about the reasons a prince or ruler should take certain actions when in office.  It struck me in particular that the author seemed to say that a ruler should take these actions not because it will benefit the people, but because it will benefit himself.  Machiavelli argues, “A prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred” (134).  Here Machiavelli is saying that a prince must have almost a fake love for his subjects only for his own self preservation.  Later in the text the author says, “For that reason, let a prince have the credit of conquering and holding his state, the means will always be considered honest, and he will be praised by everybody” (137).   The real reason a king rules justly or unjustly is the means of being praised by all who are under him.  Granted, not all rulers are in that position solely for praise and adoration, but it is sure to have entered each ruler’s mind.

            Thomas Hobbes talks about a “war” that exists between mortal men.  This war comes because of a competition of self-preservation.  Each man wars against each other, not always in violence, because they are trying to survive and to get ahead of all others.  Hobbes argues, “So that in the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (39).  Hobbes is saying that each man always has self-interest in mind because he is competitive and hungry for glory and honor.  This is present in every man because we are sinful beings, but this does not mean it is especially right.    

Michael Piccone

March 3, 2008

Leviathan

English 121

 

 

 

 

Response 4

            One of our strongest drives as humans is our survival instinct. We have, programmed into our brains, the idea that individual survival comes above all other things. This causes us to always be looking out for our own self-interests. Without government in our society, this basic instinct would run away with itself, and that society would fall into violence. This violence is not caused by hatred for our fellow man, but by the fact that we see a difference in opinion as a threat to our survival.

            Hobbs’ ideas allow far too much room for human nature to come into the mix. He believed in an anarchy, which he thought would become a utopia. I don’t believe that such a system would work. Humans have always been used to a hierarchy of some sort, as are most species. If you look back to our early ancestors, there was a leader/head male in a troop of early humans, just like with primates today. Moving to a little more recent time, Native Americans, even though they lived in quite small groups, had a chief that would take the needs of all the people in that tribe and make the best decisions on what to do. Without a central leader, societies would fall into a warring state over their difference of opinions on what is best.

            Machiavelli’s ideas are much better suited towards human nature. He believes in a leader that uses his own ideas in his leadership position. I feel that this is a better system, because in order to become a leader, an individual must be elected by the people. This means that the people feel that this leader, and the opinions he has, is what will be best for their interests.

Government and How We All Benefit Form It

 

Felix J Grobler

Ariana Paliobagis

English 121

Response 4

3^rd of March 2008

Government and How We All Benefit Form It

Most people would argue that humans are always looking out for themselves first. There is definite role for human self-interest in the formation of the structure of our social contract. The existence of government is in everybody’s best interest, because it helps protect their lives and their livelihoods. Without government chaos would ensue, in which most people would be worse off, crime would be rampant and life even harder. Life would become as simple and brutal as survival of the fittest.

Thomas Hobbes would agree with this notion. He argues that humans are incapable of governing. This quote supports my argument form above: “The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them (Hobbes p.41).” The fear of death for example is powerful enough for people to give up a few freedoms in order to be protected form it. There is no harm for you in outlawing murder, if you do not want to commit murder yourself. Therefore a law that makes murder illegal is in your best interest; since you did not give up a freedom that was worthwhile to you there are no negative repercussions from this law.

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince in order to lay out how governments should be governed to ensure stability and prosperity. Machiavelli was very aware of how humans behave, think and what their resulting actions would be: “Nevertheless a price ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women (Machiavelli p.134).” Machiavelli understands that fear can be used a lot easier to control people than love, but he is aware that hatred will only lead to complete rebellion and revolt. Machiavelli’s and Hobbes’s agree on this idea, which their quotes that are used in this text clearly show. Every human puts themselves first, but if they have something to loose they will strive to protect it; a social contract of sorts can be a great way to protect yourself, your family and your belongings. Many people are willing to give up some freedom for security. Both texts have reached a similar understanding of human psychology, that people will often accept some form of governance, because it serves in their best interest.

Human Self-Interest

Carley ButtelmanEnglish 121Response 4Mrs PHuman Self-Interest             It’s just human for people to worry about themselves over other people. So, this is also going to happen in our government system. I feel that so many things go “behind the scenes” in our government that we may never know about. Niccolo Machiavelli believed that at times, rulers must be cruel, dishonest, duplicitous, and manipulative (130). With a presidential election coming up, candidate bashing is continually happening and the word dishonesty comes up a lot. Having the hopes to get power can cause people to do many things they wouldn’t do in a ordinary setting. In the Prince, Machiavelli seems that rulers need to find ways to “kinda” manipulate people to maintain or finally get their power. This definitely seems to be the case with presidential candidates. They are trying to find ways to get power and maintain it. Machiavelli wants rulers to be effective and that may mean they are going to think a little bit about themselves over the concerns for the majority.             I do believe that people need government, but not to the extent of Thomas Hobbes. He believed that government was needed

to keep human being’s worst impulses under control (37).  He was adamant that everyone was each other’s enemies and only looked

out for themselves. I do believe that is the case sometimes, but I’m a hopeful person and I do try and see the good in people. Being

hopeful tends to be hard sometimes, but I don’t think that human nature is all just bad.

Does Our Government Really Care

Samantha Kujala

3/2/08

Response #4

             In the Niccolo Machiavelli reading, it talks about how a ruler should behave and be kind, but not too kind. Machiavelli say’s, “every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel” (133).            

           Most of the Machiavelli text focused on how important it is for a prince to act. This I think is a good example of human self-interest, because a ruler should not be so focused on how they behave, but rather how they meet the people’s needs and concerns. If our government only cared about themselves and how to become a ruler that the people somewhat feared, but was not cruel, would there really be a purpose for having a government? Everyone cares about themselves; it is not that hard of a job to think about how you are behaving. I think the main reason for having a government is so someone else can listen to our opinions and needs and put them into action. John Rawls, I feel tries to create a better economy where government and people can not be so self-interested.  Rawls implied that if his two principles were followed, “that everyone benefit from economic and social inequalities” (357).        

           Rawls tries to picture an economy where justice is always served. This would be a place where government was not self-interested, but the economy can be, because the government should be doing what is best for society and solves any inequalities. Although, I think this is a world that could never exist and is only a place Rawls can dream about. Life is not fair no matter what you do about it. Justice is not always served; sometimes a person who did not commit a crime gets thrown into jail for life even though they are innocent. I do believe that part of this, that there will always be inequalities, is because our government or judges can be too self-absorbed and do not really care about our problems and concerns. The president may try to do what he believes is in our best interest, but chances are he is always going to let someone down.

I am better than you

Chris Kurz
ENG 121
Response 4

Everyone has their own self-interest. Even within the structure of teams there are individuals that stand out. In government self-interest is what running for office is all about. The candidate may say that he or she is going make society better, but in truth every candidate is selfish.
As social contracts and government have evolved there has always been an individual element attached to their foundation. In earlier there were Greek gods, not a single god. Each god had his or her own specialty, and power over all aspects of their specialty. Undeniably the ego of a typical Greek god was matched only by their mythical proportions.
As time carried on many authors found occasion to write about how self-interest influences government. Niccolo Machiavelli explored many aspects of selfishness in The Prince. In his mind the true face of a government official is exactly what he or she wants you to see; however that face may hide the true self-interest of the individual. Specifically Machiavelli stated, “We have not seen great things done in our time except by those who have been considered mean; the rest have failed” (132). Hence one cannot succeed in government without fulfilling certain egoistic drives.
Thomas Hobbes concurred with Machiavelli’s viewpoint saying “For such is the nature of men that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be ore witty, or more eloquent, or more learned, yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves” (38). In short, Hobbes believed that every individual thinks that they are smarter than the next guy. This is self-interest.
If in fact self-interest rules us all, then our government and social contracts cannot help but be swayed by self-interest. Even if a social contract is drawn up with the best intentions for public well being, eventually the egos of those in the power positions will corrupt the system. How else can you explain the ever-expanding race for the largest campaign budget in political every political race? Every candidate wants to show that they can raise more money than their opponent.

Only Together

 Antonette Lininger

Response 4

02/03/08

 

 

Some things cannot exist without others. Regardless of the results, the way things are thought out and put into practice. They are formed in each other. An example of this kind of relationship is in the way a government and its’ society interact and the creation that is made by this combination. The government, needed and desired for a sense of structure and security for the people. One of the traits of almost every government, successful or not, is dominance. Weather the government is successful in the long run is dependent upon the way that it makes the people feel. This is the relationship that Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes describe, and how they believe the achievement and sustainment of prosperity is possible.

In essence, government is the encouragement of prosperity. It is the governments responsibility to be smart about the way it practices,(…has not to rob his subjects, that he can defend himself, that he does not become poor and abject that he is not forced to become rapacious..”(132) Machiavelli expresses this point throughout his piece. It is a factor in prolonging a productive strategy into the relationship between the government and its’ society. It is necessary to “to avoid hatred” and keep a certain peace.

Government has its role in the organization of the structure in the society. While society is the demands and desires of the community. Thomas Hobbes laid them out as, (The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them”(41). When the “industry” which in this case pertains to the government or ruling powers, if it does not fulfill these hopes and needs of the society, there is upheaval. Which leads to hatred and dissent. As the fall of the government progresses because of the unhappiness and relevant unsatisfied condition of the people.  A realization is evident; that as far as a successful government and a prosperous social relationship goes you can not have one with out the other.

 

 

Human Self-Interest

        I think that human self-interest plays a large role in government.  In America, people tend to work for the greater good in government, trying to improve the conditions for everyone, but when it comes down to the very basic things, those same people will only be concerned for themselves.  Hobbes says in his last paragraph that the passions that incline men to peace are fear of death…  I think that this makes a good point in regards to the fact that a person’s motivation isn’t always noble.  They just want to take care of themselves.  However, once those people know that they are safe and will not be in any danger, they aren’t concerned as much for themselves and will once again begin to take into consideration greater matters than just personal problems and desires.

            Machiavelli’s overall concern is stability of government to ensure that society flows smoothly.  However, I think that he wrote The Prince towards people whose self-interest in government is very important to them.  Machiavelli would say that even though government is in place to maintain the proper rules and regulations for the people, but it is up to the leader, or prince, to make sure that they stay in that position of power for as long as possible.  This is where that prince goes beyond ensuring that he is there just to serve the people to making his best effort to make sure he retains his office.  Machiavelli’s excerpt that we read contains many ways to make it look like a leader is acting in the best interest of the people, but that leader’s actual underlying intention is to retain his office.  He does this by acting like he is the nicest guy on the block but can actually be cruel if the situation requires it.  This way, they’re determined to keep their office while acting as a good leader.  In the end, it appears that they are more concerned for themselves and their interests than being a good leader for everyone.