A Difference In Morality


Morality is commonly known as a collection of principles that enable people to live together in communities. It is what civilizations deem as a “correct” and “acceptable” way of living. Acting morally sometimes necessitates putting one’s short-term interests aside to help society even if they receive no benefits for completing something such as a  task.


There are two main theories representing the way people’s morality helps them live their lives. For example, John Locke theorizes about the morality of ignorance where he believes people act out of fear of one another.


Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s theory is based on the idea that humans feel a societal need to belong. Rousseau’s ideology is incorrect because based on where you are in the world societal cultures differ therefore morals must not be a set standard because different cultures have different societal norms.


Thomas Hobbes on the other hand sees morality as a natural societal structure where people are drawn to follow rules instead of opposing sovereign laws. Morality should be considerate to the surroundings oneself rather than just one’s self-interest. John Locke’s theory is driven by fear and groups society as selfish and brutal and people should be acting defensively because everyone else is.


Thomas Hobbes’s moral theory is the proper way to live as it does more good for the greatest number of people. John Locke’s theory is an understandable approach to human morality, the issue is that if everyone lived in the interest of their fear the world would be chaotic and unjust. Jean-Jacque Rousseau’s ideology on morality is also a realistic approach but has flaws that lie within, such as humans having a societal need to belong, according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s theory. Because societal customs fluctuate depending on where you are in the globe, Rousseau’s worldview is erroneous.


Morals must not be a set standard because different cultures have distinct societal standards. Another flaw in Rousseau’s idea of morality is the idea that what sets humans and animals apart is the idea of perfectibility. However, it is considered his idea on the state of nature and not morality very much seems his perspective on morality influenced this decision. Thomas Hobbes’ approach is disheartening realistically. Realized that to keep chaos and turmoil to a minimum, adapting one’s actions respectfully is important because there are other attributes of society to consider other than oneself such as people and the environment.


Reading an article about the Levitation last year Hobbes was deemed misunderstood for this specific piece. He was not a philosopher who promoted individualism or free competition in a capitalist market, he was writing in a pre-industrial, albeit increasingly commercial, culture, and he valued honors over money. His ideology of morality is the proper way to live as it does more good for the greatest number of people.

Leave a Reply