State of nature

Back in the day when the Political philosophers were hacking at each other verbally trying to justify different forms of Government, one of them, a Mr THomas Hobbes came up with the idea of "The State of Nature"

What this was basically broke down like this.

The state of nature was an imaginery world where humans were wild, in their natural state without any influence from society and rules. Like cavemen, to put it simply. He reasoned that if we could figure out what humans were naturally like, as a species in this state of nature, then we could use that as a justification for any type of government to control and influence us from the harmful effects of our natural instincts.

Hobbes took a very dim view of humanity in the state of nature. He saw us as animalistic, violence and untrustworthy. Because of this he advocated a strong government with harsh rules and severe penalties to keep our base desires and habits in check.

He was not the only person to use this theory to justify the best kind of government.

John Locke believe we came into this world as blank canvasses, and it was our learning and environment that made us either good or bad, and so we as a people needed a government that would focus on education and social equality with minimal intrusion. For you Americans, John Locke, an englishman wrote alot of the famous words that ended up in your constitution, most notably;

"we hold it to be true that we are entitled to live, liberty and the persuit of freedom" (I think I got that right)

Anyway, if any of you are still awake, I'd like to know what you think we humans are like, or would be like in a state of nature, and from that what kind of governmental influence we should have to control us.

^think you must be talking about modern times as you mentioned "... then the cockroaches will rule with the brain capacity of a split pea ..." and if I am correct, that was our good friend Obama you were talking about.^

Actually he is literally talking about cockroaches. They would survive nukes you know.......

One of the interesting things about this theory is that it reflects very strongly on the person giving their idea, their views on humanity.

So, for Thomas Hobbes, who was a very fearful person who had been in England during the spanish Armanda attacks, war was all around him..violence and vile habits just around the corner.

His state of nature was very much like Sluvious's, a nasty place which justified a hard boiled government.

What is particularly tricky for us now, as people is to imagine, socialized as we are how we'd really be without years of school and peeps pressure etc, plus the threat of punishment from the authorities.

I personally agree with Locke about us all being blank canvasses when we come into this world.

If we are taught civility, and shown it in return, it becomes natural to us and the kinds of rules Thomas Hobbes was in favour of aren't needed. Of course this has to be mixed with a balanced and fair economic system which doesn't put people under the pressure of desperate need.

I don't think, over and above sexual urges and the will to survive, that we have any natural drive towards good or evil. We do what is necessary and what become habit for us.

For that reason I think the kind of goverment we need should be totally focussed on education, social equality..and more education!!..

make it so we don't need laws for decency.

Don't you get it Rikki that's why we have advanced so far as a species

Free will is an important component of the human existence. Through free will and conceptual intelligence humans have the ability of overcoming our instincts. Humans can and often do behave against natural laws by choice or by ignorance. Within the limits of an innate impulse, when pleasure meets necessity in accordance with universal laws of nature we have the perfect expression of a human instinct. Unfortuantely, there are many ignorant and selfish people. People who feel no remorse or compassion, people who are just plain bad. Therefore, a minimal form of government is a necessary evil. However, all government is like a malignancy and spreads from its roots, to an all-encompassing cancer, devouring the wealth of the people and enslaving them. Where is the happy medium?

Governments or governance has been with us throughout history in one form or other, within that governance we have laws depending on the government of the day and the power they exert, be it for personal gain, greed, power or for the good of the people. Some within that natural order have the right to stand up against it, some don't. any society needs rules or laws to survive and interact, without we have chaos and the society collapses, how many examples do you need. Yes we do have ignorance greed suffering but under good governance they are kept to a minimum

What characteristics or traits are passed from one generation to the next is a thing of debate, other than to say it is surmised that somebody with higher intellect and better survival instincts will pass these on to the insueing generation that will give them a better chance than there competitor, that's natural selection. After all we are designed to give the next generation the same if not better chance of survival. So are we such a blank canvass?

In the societies most of us live in we can't blame the next man for standing up higher than us. We all have to take responsibility.

Kev, after all this time, seeing you post on the main forums without a little red moderator brand below your name stiiiiiiiillll cracks me up! Will never get less weird, I tell ya.
Now let me read what you've posted...
Alright, first off, it's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," but that was a nice try.
State of nature... how humans would be if raised in the wild. Placed in a "natural state." What a funny idea. Well, our brains have evolved since being cavemen and women so if a few babies from the present were tossed into a cave, they'd probably develop some form of chipped communication and with luck, some cool tools would be thought of. *Ding* -little light bulb-
I think a pecking order would arise, and not to crap on my own gender, but a male would likely end up on top.
I actually tend to believe in nature more than nurture when referring to our base characteristics. Two children could be raised in very similar, if not exact environments, and turn out quite different. One experiment group might get in a silly argument that turns into a blood bath and bam, everyone is dead, while another group might turn out to be some prehistoric example of peace-loving hippies that share and work together. Bonobos are our closest relatives, you know, and they're quite *ahem* loving, sociable, tolerant creatures that resort to verbal arguments rather than violence. Actually, they just bang each other throughout the day--literally a branch of ape that makes love, and not war. Intriguing.
I disagree with both social scientists you mentioned. Although nurture has plenty to do with general differences (the clean slate theory) as we can see when comparing various cultures, there are always individuals from cultures that do not fit into expectations based on nurture. Nature can override, and depending on the leniency of the culture, it will perhaps override more often than not.
I left a lot of loose ends there, eh.
That's all for now, folks!