December 2023

Jeanine A. DeFalco, PhD

Xunzi and Hobbes: Contrasting Views on Human Nature

Introduction

Hello, I’m Dr. DeFalco, and today I’m going to do a  comparative analysis of two seemingly disparate philosophers: Xunzi, an ancient Chinese thinker, and Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher from the 17th century. While separated by continents and millennia, both have provided profound insights into human nature that continue to resonate with and challenge modern views of human nature. Xunzi’s Confucian philosophy offers a stark contrast to the political realism of Hobbes, yet both grapple with the conditions of social order and the innate characteristics of humanity.

Xunzi’s Perspective on Human Nature:

Xunzi was a Chinese Confucian philosopher who lived during the Warring States period, 310 BC to 235 BC, a time of immense social upheaval and intellectual flourishing. In contrast to the more optimistic views of human nature held by other Confucian thinkers like Mencius, Xunzi presented a more pessimistic and pragmatic view known as “Xing E”, which translates roughly to “human nature is bad” or “human nature is evil.”

According to Xunzi, humans are born with an innate selfishness and a desire for sensory gratification that, if left unchecked, lead to conflict and chaos. He believed that people are inherently driven by their baser instincts, such as greed, envy, and aggression. These natural inclinations, without proper guidance and education, would result in societal disorder and moral decay.

However, Xunzi did not believe that this condition was unchangeable. He argued that through rigorous education and the cultivation of ritual, people could be taught to control their destructive impulses and to act in morally upright ways. Xunzi placed a strong emphasis on the power of cultural institutions, traditions, and learned behaviors to transform and improve individuals and, by extension, society as a whole.

In Xunzi’s view, human nature is like crooked wood that needs to be shaped, steamed, and straightened through the application of li. The rites and rituals serve as the tools for this transformation, embedding moral norms and social values into individuals. It’s important to note that for Xunzi, the term “evil” in “Xing E” does not necessarily carry the same connotation as in many Western philosophies; it is more about being predisposed to socially disruptive behaviors rather than being morally wicked in the religious sense.

Xunzi’s philosophy was influential, and his views on the need for strong moral and social structures continue to be discussed in the context of political philosophy, ethics, and education. His pragmatic approach offers a counterbalance to more idealistic views of human nature, emphasizing the importance of socialization and the role of learned behavior in human development.

Hobbes’ Perspective on Human Nature:

Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher, born in April 5, 1588 and died December 4, 1679, is perhaps best known for his work “Leviathan,” where he expounds on the nature of human beings and the necessity of a strong, centralized authority to maintain social order. His ideas were developed during a time of political turmoil in England, which significantly influenced his philosophy.

Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes (The War of All Against All)

Hobbes’s notion of “bellum omnium contra omnes,” or the war of all against all, is central to his view of human nature in the absence of political order. He posited that in the state of nature, a hypothetical life without government or laws, humans would act on their basic instincts and desires. Because resources are limited and human desires are naturally insatiable, people would inevitably come into conflict with one another as they compete for survival and power.

In this state of nature, without any overarching authority to enforce rules or mediate disputes, life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Everyone would have a natural right to all things, leading to perpetual fear, danger, and warfare, as each person would be judge, jury, and executioner of their own cause.

The Social Contract

To escape this grim prospect, Hobbes theorized that rational individuals would recognize the benefits of cooperation and mutually agree to a social contract—a kind of agreement, whether explicit or tacit, in which they consent to give up some of their freedoms and submit to an authority in exchange for security and order. By doing so, they transfer their individual rights to self-governance to a collective body politic that represents them.

The social contract is, therefore, a rational response to the untenable conditions of the state of nature. It is an agreement to establish a society governed by a common set of laws that are enforced by a sovereign power, which everyone must obey to ensure peace and stability.

The Role of the Leviathan

The Leviathan, a biblical sea monster that Hobbes uses as a metaphor for an all-powerful sovereign, represents this central authority. The Leviathan’s role is to maintain peace and prevent the return to the state of nature. It does this by exercising absolute power, for only an unchallengeable authority can command the obedience necessary to keep the peace. This sovereign—whether it be a monarch, an assembly, or some other form of government—must have the ultimate authority to decide all social and political issues to prevent internal conflict and protect the society from external threats.

The Leviathan’s power is not meant to be tyrannical but rather a representation of the collective will of the people who have entered into the social contract. The sovereign’s authority is justified only to the extent that it upholds the safety and well-being of the populace, the very purpose for which individuals have surrendered their natural rights.

Hobbes’s work laid the foundation for much of Western political philosophy, particularly concerning the justification of governmental authority and the rights of individuals. His views on the state of nature and the necessity of a strong, centralized government continue to influence political thought and debates on governance and human rights.

Comparison and Contrast

While Xunzi and Hobbes both view human nature as something that can lead to conflict, their solutions differ significantly. Xunzi sees moral education and cultural refinement as the path to harmony, while Hobbes advocates for a strong, centralized authority to keep humanity’s baser instincts at bay.

In conclusion, Xunzi and Hobbes offer us two profound yet divergent views on human nature and the foundations of social order. Their philosophies provoke us to question our assumptions about governance, ethics, and education. By examining their ideas, we gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of human behavior and the challenges of creating a just and stable society.