I would like to disagree with a point we made in class on Tuesday the 22nd. We talked about how when we lock our doors at night, we are trying to protect ourselves from the unknown and how this is connected to the state of nature. While I agree that in the state of nature no one has any reason to trust anyone else, I don’t think that the only reason I trust someone is because I am in a commonwealth where I am bound by contracts. It is true that there are sick twisted people in the world. But I do not assume that everyone who I meet is a sick and twisted individual. In fact, I feel like I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. If I believed that every person I met was that sick and twisted person, I couldn’t ever have relationships, just like in the state of nature. I understand the idea that people are able to establish trust based on the contracts made with each other and with a sovereign, but I also think that people can trust each other even without these contracts. I have had many encounters with complete strangers who have helped me when I find some place I was looking for. In such a situation, a stranger has on obligation or contract binding him or her to help me. There is no law about helping people who are lost, and there is even no real penalty for leading someone astray. Yet whenever I get into a situation, people are generally helpful. Even though I have no contract to hold this other person to, I still trust them help me when I’m lost.
As for locking my front door at night, if I feel like I am in a safe environment, I don’t think it in necessary. I never lock my dorm room at night because there is little crime on the Rhodes campus. If I lived off campus, it would be different. Even just living in Midtown, the probability of having a thief attempt to steal your possessions is much larger. Even though there is still an element of the unknown in both situations, since one is more likely to be harmful, I take more precautions in one than the other. In any situation there is always the threat of the unknown, but sometimes the threat of the unknown is small enough that it is possible to make that leap of faith.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that our relative sense of security at any time will influence our degree of restriction to the unknown. Take for example the story "In Cold Blood" by Truman Capote. The family that got brutally slaughtered by a couple of ruthless robbers lived in a small town in the middle of nowhere. How did the criminals get in? Because there had never been a murder case in this town, and nobody locked their door ever, even at night. I'm sure after this crime that everybody in the town became extremely paranoid (for good reason) and bolted their doors all of the time. The point is that at any point our sense of security can change drastically, but the threat, while not completely unknown because it is based off of an example, is centered around what could happen to me?
ReplyDeleteI too feel that the word has more power than Hobbes grants. I believe that it would take somebody extremely antisocial (in that the person goes against societal norms) to say something and have absolutely no attachment to it.
I agree with your point that according to Hobbes we have no reason to trust men in the state of nature. Although, it seems that many people today feel the same way Hobbes does. Of course there are those that people generally trust like family members, friends, and friendly neighborers. People, today, still act in the state of nature when protecting against danger though. Even though he have the laws of the Commonwealth or the government against acts like robbery and murder, citizens still don't trust that the members of the Commonwealth will follow these laws. Like in the state of nature, we are naturally inclined to procect ourselves and our possessions from others. People place numerous locks on their doors and even alarms on their house. Some citizens are so untrustworthy of people that they carry weapons with them at all times. A good exmaple of this is Mace which a large number of people carry with them everyday. So I believe Hobbes was correct in saying that man has a nature to distrust others and takes step in self-preservation.
ReplyDeleteI agree that some people are unwilling to trust strangers and feel safer carrying around a can of mace. Some people will always be more or less afraid of the unknown. But I think that my example of trusting strangers when you are lost is a good counter example to this idea that we need contracts to trust one another. The stranger may be under a contract not to harm me, but he or she has no obligation to help me or not lead me astray. The fact that I trust this stranger regardless seems to me a problem for Hobbes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about how if you were to be living off campus you would lock your doors as opposed to on the Rhodes campus you don't feel the need to keep your room locked. I feel the same as well, however I don't think we've really taken into account the strength of the different common wealths.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is I seem to think of Rhodes as a closely connected commonwealth, when we first come here we're taught about the Honor Code, what's right and wrong, but most importantly that we can trust each other. I think just having that trust of fellow students gives the commonwealth of Rhodes it's strength. However when I was told about Memphis I was told the exact opposite - that it was dangerous, etc. Although I've never been a victim of anything either at Rhodes or in Memphis, just being told Memphis is more dangerous makes me feel distrustful of some people.
Also, I know a good amount of people, mostly girls, who carry mace with them, but I also have a friend who goes to UT in Knoxville whose dad got her a taser. Although I don't carry mace I feel that if it makes someone feel better to carry it around then out of precaution it's alright, but I feel like having a taser is just way overboard..
I believe that as human we possess a moral compass understand right from wrong (with the exception of crazy people or something of that sort). Because of this I do not agree that people in the state of nature are completely corrupt--there are just some flaws to it because of certain people disregarding what is right. Obviously stealing is not right but this is not just because of a law we have saying this. I trust people to do the right thing and help little old ladies to cross the street but not out of a sense of obligation to the common wealth but rather out of obligation of their own morals. The few people that disregard this moral compass are the reason laws of the commonwealth are a necessity. So, in short, I agree with Ben when we says that he does not trust people based on his "contract"
ReplyDelete