+1 8108305898 essaysprings@gmail.com

Can you write me a 1200 word paper? Please find the attachment below for the guideline for the paper. If it is needed, I will provide lecture notes after I hire you.

Can you write me a 1200 word paper? Please find the attachment below for the assignment questions. I will provide you with lecture notes and sources.
I m porta nt: T his d ocu m ent o utlin es th e b asic r e quir e m ents fo r th e fin al p aper, s o m ake s u re to r e ad th is d ocu m ent c a re fu lly . T o pic : H obbes a nd R ousse au h ave v e ry d if f e re nt v is io ns o f th e s ta te o f n atu re , a nd th ey h ave v e ry d if f e re nt i d eas a bout h um an n atu re . E xp la in w hat th ese d if f e re nce s a re , a nd th en fo rm a n a rg um ent a bout w hic h p ers p ectiv e y o u fin d m ore c o nvin cin g. Y ou m ay u se r e al w orld e xa m ple s, p ast o r p re se nt, to d efe nd y o ur p oin t o f v ie w . D eta ils : D ue D ate : J a n. 1 8th ( 2 022) a t 1 0:0 0 A M ( N o la te p apers – s o tr y to s u bm it e arly !) L ength : 1 ,2 50 to 1 ,5 00 w ord s C it a tio n S ty le : C hic a go o r A PA R ese arc h : M in im um o f 3 E nglis h -la ngua ge a ca dem ic s o urc e s A ddit io nal N ote : A ll p apers w ill b e s e nt to T urn it in .c o m * *A n e xp la natio n o n h ow to s u bm it th e fin al p aper w ill b e p ro vid ed in a la te r a nnounce m ent th at w ill b e p oste d o n e -c la ss.* * G ra din g: W eekly w rit in g/r e adin g a ssig nm ents h ave th u s fa r b een tr e ate d in t h e s a m e w ay a s p artic ip atio n is o rd in arily tr e ate d fo r in -p ers o n c la sse s: tu rn in g in t h e a ssig nm ent a nd m akin g a g ood e ff o rt to a nsw er th e q uestio ns h as ty p ic a lly r e su lt e d in a n “ A ” g ra d e fo r th e a ssig nm ent. F or th is f in al p aper, h ow eve r, g ra des w ill b e d ete rm in ed p rim arily o n th e b asis o f: 1 ) q ualit y o f y o ur a rg um ent, 2 ) q ualit y o f y o ur p aper’s s tr u ctu re , a nd 3 ) q ualit y o f r e se arc h m ate ria ls u se d. It is t h ere fo re im porta nt th at y o u ta ke th is a ssig nm ent s e rio usly . * T he fin al p aper fo r th is c o urs e is w orth 6 0% o f y o ur fin al g ra de. * * P la gia ris m o n th is fin al p aper w ill r e su lt in a n “ F ” fo r th e c o urs e , a nd m ay le ad t o a ca dem ic d is cip lin ary a ctio n. * ** P apers th at d o n ot fo cu s o n th e a ssig ned to pic w ill g et a s co re o f z e ro , w hic h w ill r e su lt in a n “ F ” fo r t h e c o urs e .
Can you write me a 1200 word paper? Please find the attachment below for the assignment questions. I will provide you with lecture notes and sources.
Lee 6 The State of Nature Introduction Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have nearly identical, yet different perspectives about the state of nature and human nature. Rousseau conceived his theories on the state of nature while living in a relatively peaceful era. In contrast, Hobbes developed his masterpiece, Leviathan, in a period marked with the English Civil War. Therefore, this could have potentially affected his theories and in turn, his writings. Furthermore, while Rousseau argued that human beings are prone to becoming evil and thus engaging in unethical behaviors when they are in a community that corrupts their behavior, Hobbes believed that human nature is selfish and aggressive. Both perspectives have been challenged for either being too naive or, in Hobbes’s case, cynical, pessimistic, and hostile. This paper will highlight the differences between the two theories to examine which position is more convincing. The Differences Between the Two Theorists First, Hobbes based his theories on the concept of individualism and insinuated that society could be defined based on the people that compose-up. He believed that human beings are selfish beings that are only concerned with themselves and their own satisfaction even if they must achieve it at the cost of other people (Sheikh et al. 2019). Such actions would lead to conflict and ultimately, put people into conflict with others. Sheikh et al. (2019) state, “People only try to destroy people outside their own self in order to be able to protect their own assets […] This selfishness of the people ultimately drags it into a chaotic atmosphere” (pp. 44). More specifically, interest for oneself was encapsulated in the concept of psychological egoism, which established that the motive behind every human being’s action is gaining an advantage for him or herself even if others would be put at a disadvantage. Even altruistic actions could also be defined this way since Hobbes’ theory states that the critical desire of individuals is in other people’s misfortune where the plight of an individual is foreseen and in self-preservation (Rumeili 2020). Thus, this is a motivating factor in behaving selfishly. Second, Hobbes’s materialist view on human nature conflicted with Platonic philosophy, which argued for an inevitable conflict between desires and reason while making decisions. However, Hobbes looks at materialistic desire as the motivating factor for every action, whereas reason offers the best option available to satisfy these desires. Ideally, he has a cynical perspective concerning human nature. Without absolute sovereignty to manage our desires, human beings will always exist in a relentless situation of conflict that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Edward & Remigius 2019). In contrast, Rousseau’s theory argues that human nature is generally reasonable. He stated that the only corrupting force that changes an individual’s nature into a selfish person is the society in which they grow up or live (Edward & Remigius 2019). Even though his theory differs from Hobbes, he agreed that the latter was correct, only that he failed to accurately explain the State of Nature. Rousseau defined the State of Nature as being beyond the removal of the government. He stated that it comprises of the eradication of “cultural clothes,” such as language, our beliefs, and to some extent, how we understand ourselves. In this stage of developing his theories, Rousseau believed that pity and self-love are the only ideas that are constant in a human being’s nature (Masters 2019). This means that people are solitary and do not possess the craving for power since there would not be anybody to exercise authority over. Thus, Rousseau’s arguments on human nature are more optimistic than Hobbes’s arguments since society is the critical factor behind people’s behaviors. Arguments on the Most Convincing Theorist The shortcoming with the views of Hobbes lies in the foundation of his arguments. Are human beings never influenced by the societies in which they live? Sociology, theology, and post-modern philosophy have highlighted that our existence, social roles, and relationships with other people are fundamental in how individuals perceive themselves. Ideally, if having relationships with other people is essential, then human beings will not harm these people for their benefit. Therefore, this brings the theories of Hobbes into challenge since it is based on the idea that people are inherently aggressive and self-interested (Sheikh 2019). Additionally, the limitation of individualism as the main reason behind the critique of Hobbes’s arguments could also be connected to Rousseau, who undermined the former’s theories at an even deeper level. Therefore, if human beings possess the natural predisposition to belong in a community, Rousseau’s augments that people would have stayed away from many problems that are influenced by society if people adhere to the solitary, invariable, and simple way of life that has been designed to us by nature becomes implausible. Besides, the notion that the civilized man is worse than a natural man is even more illogical. Furthermore, Rousseau’s concepts become less valid than Hobbes’ in his assessment of the natural man. Essentially, if cultural clothes did not exist, would there be human nature? For instance, language is one of the critical traits that separates humanity from animals. So, if people lived based on Rousseau’s perspectives had no speech, would they be seen as humans? However, in Hobbes’ arguments, this issue is avoided since he eradicates justice and government from society (Edward & Remigius 2019). Therefore, this is logical reasoning that has also been utilized in international relations to a certain degree. On the other hand, if the creatures indicated in the definition of State of Nature by Rousseau are not human beings, it would be challenging to construct a plausible theory. Besides, there would have to be a starting point to compare human beings’ corrupt state if society corrupted them. Additionally, if human beings were inherently good, then there would not be so much evil in the world. Rousseau asserted that human understanding had been improved through development based on human history even though some individuals have become worse and more evil by interacting with society. This presents a limitation in his arguments because they fail to address the positive effects of interaction and cooperation on people in society. Nonetheless, these factors have been brought forth by Hobbes, who laments over the absence of arts, navigation, industry, building, farming, and knowledge in the State of Nature since people lack trust (Rivard 2018). This theory is more convincing than the other, which asserts that society has a negative effect on people because it instills the concept of vice and virtue in human beings, which ultimately enslaves and corrupts their behavior. Lastly, Rousseau’s views have been calumniated as armchair anthropology because he presented insufficient evidence to back them up. Besides, his reasoning has been doubted, and he arrived at his conclusions. This would mean that if the natural man were compared to animals since the former does not demonstrate the possession of beliefs, understanding of themselves, and language, animals would live in harmony because they do not interact with society. Nevertheless, there is evidence that this is not the case because animals tend to be an aggressive and territorial-a situation that aligns with Hobbes’s arguments. Thus, it would be incredibly naïve to believe that people would live in harmony because human nature is concerned with self-satisfaction even if it involves harming others in the process. Therefore, Hobbes’ perspective is more convincing. Conclusion Both theorists have conflicting views on the State of Nature. The preceding paragraphs have highlighted the cynical view of Hobbes and the naïve view of Rousseau. While both philosophers’ arguments have their limitations, it is obvious that Rousseau developed an idealistic perspective on human nature and the State of Nature that is impractical in its application and unfounded. In contrast, Hobbes’s somewhat pessimistic and vehement view on human nature and the State of Nature is more realistic. This is evident in the problems present in the societies we live in.