"The relevance of one’s theory of human nature to one’s views in ethics and politics has been apparent to me ever since I read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes as an undergraduate. Hobbes begins with the idea that people are essentially self-interested and ends up with a view that a government, any government, is better than what he calls “the war of all against all” or the “state of nature” in which people pursue their own interests to the detriment of everyone else’s.
 |
| Cover page for Leviathan |
These days Hobbes is likely to sound like an apologist for authoritarian government overreach. We’ve generally rejected his conclusion, but his premise is stronger than ever. What I call the atomic theory of human nature is alive and well.
This theory says that human beings are atomic, isolated, free, and self-interestedly rational individuals. We may care about others, but it is, strictly speaking, irrational to do so unless it somehow serves our own interests. The atomic theory of human nature is the basis of most of the discipline of economics. It’s assumed by many ethicists and political philosophers. The atomic theory is essentially egoist, both in the psychological and the ethical sense. In politics, it’s especially prevalent among fans of Ayn Rand and more generally among American libertarians and conservatives (although there are exceptions, perhaps among some “bleeding heart libertarians” and authoritarian conservatives). I suspect the prevalence of the atomic theory of human nature explains the popularity of dystopian science fiction, since such stories typically pit rugged individuals against hegemonic hordes.
The atomic theory of human nature is so prevalent these days that it’s almost odd to even point it out. One might call it an invisible dogma.
But do we have any good reason to believe it? I don’t think so. I think the atomic theory of human nature is fundamentally flawed, both empirically and morally. It’s not an accurate description of typical human values and behavior, and it causes suffering insofar as it stunts the cultivation of virtues conducive to human flourishing.
Caring is Human
Many feminist philosophers, such as Virginia Held, have criticized Hobbes in particular and early modern European philosophers in general for overlooking obvious facts about human beings. Hobbes seems to imagine that human beings come into the world as fully formed atomic agents who voluntarily form associations.
One of the most valuable insights from care ethics is that we come into this world as a part of a network of caring human beings. After being wholly dependent upon our mothers, we are born helpless and would quickly die without at least one older human to care for us. People already care about us, and we soon come to care about others; we don’t choose to enter these networks of care from some mythical Archimedean point of voluntary and rational self-interest. These relationships of care continue throughout our lives and expand beyond our families to include friends, neighbors, and strangers. The question, “Why do you care about your family and friends?” is about as hard to answer as the question, “Why do you want to be happy?” Aristotle thought that the fact that it’s almost nonsensical to demand an answer to the second question tells us something important about human nature. The same should be said for the first question.
 |
| Hobbesian babies forging the social contract Ethan |
Nothing like the atomic theory would make any sense unless you could think of yourself as untethered to others and fully responsible, both causally and morally, for your own identity. This is an illusion. It is often fostered by privilege, especially if one is in a position of relative social and economic independence. This may be, for instance, why most American libertarians today are relatively privileged white men, as were early modern European political theorists like Hobbes''
No comments:
Post a Comment