Category: Thomas Hobbes

In recent years a number of democratic movements have failed, leading to the study of political institutions. Yet, within these studies very little attention has been given to human nature, whereas throughout history the nature of politics has been discussed in regards to human nature. It is wise to consider human nature when studying politics since political acts or impulses can be understood as a consequence of the interaction between human nature and the environment. For the purposes of this essay, I will define human nature as ‘the state of human beings outside civil society….’ or ‘conceptions of human life which ‘clarify what is explained by nature as opposed to what is explained by convention, and what is justified in each way.’ The focus of this paper will be on Karl Marx’s and Thomas Hobbes’ views and perceptions on human nature. These are two philosophers who have contributed greatly to the theory of human society. Marx paved the way for a socialist revolution which eventually lead to communism while Hobbes introduced the concepts of the state of nature and social contracts. Although these philosophers differ in their conceptions of human nature it is possible to draw similarities and differences in their works. In this essay I will be comparing the views of Marx and Hobbes, particularly focusing on their understanding of human nature and how this impacts the way they believe society should be governed.

Hobbes was an English political philosopher who is one of the founders of modern political philosophy. Throughout his work, Hobbes highlights the idea that it is not in human nature to want to seek life among other individuals. Yet, the only way to live peacefully is if all men come together to create an absolute sovereign entity to govern over them. Hobbes developed his idea of the state of nature in the context of the English Civil War and equated the state of nature to a state of war. He describes this state of war such that “the life of man [is], solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. He argues that all men receive their rights from nature and have the right to live. In this state of nature, men are self-interested and are motivated by the pursuit of power, the right of nature. Hence, humans are motivated by appetites and aversions and have ends in mind that they aim to attain by any means necessary. Consequently, men will have the desire to meet similar or the same ends, such as food and shelter, eventually leading to a state of conflict and competition since there are finite resources. Hobbes argues that men are equal in their power and states that even the weakest has the strength to kill the strongest through secret machination or by confederacy (Hobbes, 1901). He also makes the point that men do not trust one another and gives the example that at night we lock our doors and carry arms while traveling in order to defend ourselves, showing that humans are distrustful by nature (Hobbes, 1901). Hence, the equality in the state of nature combined with finite resources and inherent distrust in other men will result in a perpetual state of conflict.

Hobbes’ state of nature is descriptive rather than normative, he does not believe that there is anything wrong with these desires that make us inclined to be at war with one another and it is simply the state of nature. However, he does indicate that without a common power to mediate and distribute resources, men will be in a constant state of war. He argues that what inclines man to desire peace is the fear of death. Hence, man is influenced by reason and able to come to an agreement on terms of peace, referred to as the laws of nature. According to Hobbes these laws of nature are to seek peace and follow it and to suppress our desire to meet ends by any means necessary, so long as others do the same. Men lay down their rights to nature in their second law of nature by either: renouncing it, indicating that they no longer have the right to do whatever it takes to preserve themselves, or by transferring it, placing this right into someone else’s hands. Through transferring this right to a common power that is agreed upon by all (through contract), both laws of nature are followed. Through mutually covenanting to surrender to sovereign power, the authority will also direct us to keep our word on the covenant that established authority. Hobbes argued that the best way to ensure utility was through instilling a monarchy and by exercising absolute power with a sovereign that does not have a responsibility to answer to the law and will act in accordance with society’s best interests. However, by examining world history throughout the 20th century it is very evident that this utopian conception of a kind and good-willed leader is quite unlikely and rather optimistic, in contrast to Hobbes’s view on human nature.

However, although the laws of nature necessitate that men seek peace, and the most ideal way to do this is through contracts, the fact that men are power-hungry will always threaten the validity of these contracts. Therefore, a covenant is only valid if there is a common power enforcing the terms of it. The contract is between men rather than between men and the sovereign. This is why men give up their freedom in order to maintain peace and also gain protection, given by the sovereign. Overall, Hobbes believes that men are unable to act in a just way under complete freedom, and therefore it is necessary to have a common power that will ensure the following of the natural laws, providing a peaceful and secure life for the people.

On the other hand, Marx can be recognized not only as a German philosopher, sociologist, economist, historian, and journalist but also as a revolutionary since his work created the foundation for a number of communist regimes in the twentieth century (Wolff, 2017). His theories on capitalist society, class struggles and exploitation have also touched upon the idea of human nature, or lack thereof. According to Marx, there is no concept of human nature, but rather human nature is a product of the nature of the economic system. He argues that there is a way humans behave under a capitalist society. A change in the economic system would consequently result in a change in human nature. The idea that human nature is based on societal rather than biological factors is key in understanding Marx. He distinguished between animals and humans by stating that animals are driven by instinct whereas humans are driven by conscious life activity or work (Fetscher, 1973). Marx argues that humans are suffering from alienated labor, in the sense that humans do not produce in accordance with true abilities but rather blindly (Wolff, 2017). Proletariats are forced to sell their labor and are stuck in a continuous circulation in which they are selling their commodities (labor) for lower than the value of the commodities they produce. Marx also notes that humans are not purely concerned with desire and need but are actually active and creative (Sayers, 2005).

In contrast to Hobbes, Marx does not believe that the need to produce/reach desired ends is based on reason but instead related to operating in the material field. He describes the material creative activity as our species activity and man’s spiritual activity (Sayers, 2005). Marx again compares humans to animals and makes the distinction that animals are driven by their direct instincts and are able to satisfy these needs immediately whereas in work, humans are detached from the product, and therefore, the link to nature is broken. Hence, cooperation among individuals can transform nature. However, so long as there is a strict division of labor and the bourgeoisie (anyone with the capability to take control over production) maintains their power over means of production and continues exploiting the proletariat (the producer and exploited member of capitalism), causing class division, individuals will not be able to fully form their identity and will continue to be alienated from society (Fetscher, 1973). Proletarian is essentially stuck in this circulation and they must continue to contribute to it in order to survive, as it is their only means to commodities. Marx also points out that in a society based on class, nature is used to pin individuals against each other rather than create a bond (Fetscher, 1973). Although it appears that the proletariat is working to benefit themselves, in reality, they are selling their labor to capitalists (Zwolinski & Wertheimer, 2017).

As previously mentioned, human nature is malleable according to Marx. Therefore, a change in the economic system could reunite individuals with their ability and capabilities of being creative beings. He states that the human urge to go beyond the current system of oppression will eventually lead to Communism (Wolff, 2017). He views capitalist society, characterized by class struggle, as a highly necessary step to eventually result in communism (Wolff, 2017). Essentially, much like Hobbes, Marx believed that by having greater power, in this case, the government, in which goods are publicly owned and distributed for the greater good this sense of alienation can be eliminated (Marx & Engels, 1974). Although Marx does not explain clearly how communism would be executed it can be inferred that common power, such as the government, would be necessary for its functioning, as Hobbes also suggests when explaining his ideal form of governing.

Hobbes and Marx were alive during very different periods of time and both were heavily influenced by the climate of the time. Not only did both philosophers contribute to society, but they also touched on the idea that mankind continues to evolve in an advantageous way. Hobbes was alive during a time of war and hence was deprived of the basic need for security. Similarly, Marx was exposed to the exploitation present in capitalist societies, and therefore developed great criticism towards the system. Nonetheless, Marx held a somewhat positive view in the sense that although such exploitation was occurring, it would not continue forever and would eventually lead to the fall of capitalism, making capitalist society an essential step in the process.

The difference between Hobbes and Marx lies in their conception of the social contract among individuals. Hobbes assumed men would willingly give up their right to freedom to a common power, in order for the sovereign to protect and facilitate a peaceful society. Whereas Marx promotes a communal society proposing communist ideals since he has experienced the isolating nature of having a ruler. Hobbes emphasizes the idea that men are constantly in competition for resources and are willing to do whatever is necessary to obtain said resources. In Leviathan, Hobbes explains that appointing a common power is needed to govern and create regulations in order to produce a civilized society (Hobbes, 1901). Although Marx also agreed that a common power is necessary, in his definition the power was more vested in the people rather than a sovereign, nonetheless a sovereign would be necessary as well. That being said, Hobbes also saw the importance of communal action over individuality, but in a different way than Marx. The most major difference between Hobbes and Marx is how they define human nature altogether. Marx believed that human nature is a product of societal conditions, while Hobbes views human nature as something inherent. It is clear they had differing views on how society should ideally be structured as well as human nature, nonetheless, they both aimed to establish more civil society and ultimately improve it.

To conclude, according to Hobbes human nature is inherently selfish and the state of nature is essentially a state of war in which men will constantly be in a struggle for power and resources; the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 1901). He does not view this state of war as a negative but rather simply the way it is. On the other hand, Marx rejects this idea of an inherent or biological human nature and believes that society has created the nature of humans. He further contends that the uniquely human capacity for rational action is also a result of society. Marx was greatly opposed to capitalism as he believes that it brings out greed in men. Although Hobbes and Marx differ in a range of views they do agree on the idea of a common power to control or organize human beings. Nonetheless, they also have quite different views on how this common power should behave, what their duties are, and the role that they play in shaping or manipulating human nature. The differences in their understanding of human nature and the way that it is assumed or developed can be as a result of the different time periods in which they lived as well as their varying views on other relevant philosophical concepts. Nonetheless, both philosophers, despite their differences, had a very similar goal, which was to make improvements to the community by manipulating human nature that would facilitate a more peaceful and efficient society.

Introduction:

This essay talks about the Leviathan elements in the rule of Qaddafi of Libya, this essay divide into several parts first part talks about what is Libya country, and Qaddafi in power in 42 years, and third part talks about leviathan, Thomas Hobbes view on Libya, and in another part talks about the Arab spring in Libya when and how started and in other part talks about Libya after Qaddafi because after Qaddafi the civil war began in Libya, which dividing Libya into two government and in the last part talks about critical of Leviathan in Libya because Leviathan said the government and forces should protect the people and protesters.

Body:

1-Libya country:

For centuries, Libya had been under foreign rule until it gained independence in 1951 soon after the discovery of oil, the country gained enormous wealth, colonel Gaddafi seized power in 1969 and ruled for forty-two years (BBC, 2019). he adopted his own political system a combination of capitalism and Islam which he called the Third International Theory. To see himself as a member of the movement in 1970s for ten years, he used oil funds to spread his agenda beyond Libya, including helping subversives and extremists abroad to accelerate Communism and capitalism’s end after Libyan military adventures collapsed and Libyan support for terrorism deteriorated following the implementation of UN sanctions in 1992 in April 1999, these sanctions were suspended, ( One World Nations Online, n.d. ) until he was overthrown in 2011 after an armed rebellion backed by Western military action ( BBC, 2019).

2-Qaddafi’s 42 years in power:

Qaddafi’s first business order was to shut down Libya’s American and British military bases, he also demanded that Libya’s foreign oil companies share a larger share of the country’s revenue. Qaddafi replaced the Gregorian with the Islamic calendar and banned the sale of alcohol and power was shared by himself and a small group of associates, Qaddafi’s inner circle of trusted people became smaller and smaller and his intelligence agents were traveling around the world in order to intimidate and assassinate exiled Libyans, Qaddafi sought to orient Libya away from the West and toward the Middle East and Africa during these early days, in several foreign conflicts including in Egypt and Sudan, he involved the Libyan military, and the bloody civil war in Chad In the mid-1970s, Qaddafi released the first volume of the Green Book, an outline of his political philosophy, having appointed himself or his close family and friends to all positions of power, and their repression and crackdown on any kind of public activity meant that a large part of the population lived in poverty, also Qaddafi’s notoriety having ruling style was not only oppressive, it was eccentric, he had a frame of female bodyguards in his heels, considered himself the king of Africa, built a tent to stay when he was traveling abroad, and dressed in strange costume-like outfits, his bizarre antics often distracted him from his aggression, earning him the Middle East mad dog’s nickname. In contrast to his oppressive domestic rule, much of the international community hated Gaddafi, his government has been involved in funding numerous anti-Western groups around the world, including some plots of terror and This is alleged that the Irish Republican Army had ties with Gaddafi and the United Kingdom has cut off diplomatic relations with Libya for more than a decade because of the regime’s links to Irish terrorism (Biography, 2017).

3-Hobbes’s Leviathan:

Leviathan’s thinking about politics and society Hobbes suggested that one of anarchy is the natural basic state of humanity, with the strong dominating the weak. He said that life was lonely, poor, nasty, brutal and short for most people, our only natural right, therefore, is self-preservation. Hobbes suggested that people should ‘ contract ‘ with a guardian as their sovereign to eliminate the essential fear between individuals or groups, Individuals give up all rights under this social contract, while those of the protector are absolute. However, he did not believe in God’s right. The key point of Hobbes was that by specific agreement with their subjects there was any protector and he had already developed many of the ideas in Leviathan when Hobbes fled to Paris at the beginning of the conflict in 1642, reflections on a structured constitution raised questions about individual rights, originally, they concentrated on who was allowed to vote, but the People’s Agreement of 1649 also raised issues such as freedom of worship, fair trials, and law-abiding punishment and justice, also according to impact of Leviathan Hobbes concept of a social contract was taken up by others who established it in different directions And is now recognized as a cornerstone of Western political philosophy particularly in his ideas of a ruler and ruled’ social contract (Thomas Hobbes, 1651).

4-Libya’s Thomas Hobbes:

Libya descends into anarchy, once again the importance of the Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes comes to the fore, Hobbes portrays the state as a giant monster holding a sword and scepter a symbol of central government authority in his book, The Leviathan, This Leviathan representing the prestige of the state was Gen, and Gaddafi in the case of Libya, where he was made the de facto government and parliament respectively by his absolute authority, after the overthrow of Gaddafi, Libya gradually became an ungoverned country, an inevitable result of 42 years of authoritarian rule, also Due to the lack of strong institutions and the emergence of multiple armed non-state actors with intertwined interests, filling the vacuum would seem obvious after his death, nonetheless, for somewhat similar reasons, neither the local nor the foreign investors are able to resume such a major role, and NATO’s 2011 air campaign was a clear indication of the reluctance of the international community to intervene in Libya ( Berriwen, 2015).

5-Leviathan and Libya:

Just now, Thomas Hobbes would have liked to be in Libya, but for a while he’s been dead, indeed, since 1679, Hobbes published Leviathan in 1651, one of the most important and influential books in political philosophy ever published, almost everyone at least knows something about Leviathan’s central idea: the social contract through which individuals in a (state of nature) negotiate political establishment and governance for the individual, under unrest that have become effectively a civil war, the Libyan state and Muammar Gaddafi’s government are disintegrating, and the anti-Gaddafi rebels are trying to set up an alternative government in the areas they control and then, if they succeed in moving Gaddafi out, ultimately for the whole country, so the king was executed and the republic was established under the rule of Oliver Cromwell, the same Cromwell who made Jamaica an English colony by sending Admiral Penn and General Venables to conquer West Indies territory, and according to Hobbes, the hypothetical state of nature would be a state of continuous war hereby it is clear that during the time when men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in a condition called war; and a war like that of every man against every man (Henry and Writer, 2019).

6- Gaddafi’s legacy plagues chaotic Libya:

Exactly four years after the capture and killing of Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi in his hometown, his legacy of misrule continues in his unruly nation, only now, with apparently no political solution in sight, it is worse, as well as ignoring the exhortations, the parliament based in Tobruk, eastern Libya, refused to sign the treaty, adding that the UN had refused to exclude amendments proposed by the Tripoli-based Islamist authorities, The Islamist-led government in Libya’s capital issued a statement on the western side of Libya’s coastal highway stating that the deal (would lead to further complications), under the peculiar and quixotic form of governance of Gaddafi, the North African country was a Jamahiriya a decentralized state in which traditional governments were abolished and replaced by so-called local self-governance committees, in reality, however, all power rested with the autocrat of Libya, who declared himself the Guide to the Revolution (JACINTO, 2015).

7_Revolution in Libya 2011:

On 15 February 2011, demonstrators angry at the detention of a human rights lawyer, Fethi Tarbel, organized anti-government protests in Banghāzī. The people who participated in protests wanted to step down Qaddafi and freedom for political prisoners, Libyan security forces used water cannons against the protesters and rubber bullets, involved in an amount of injuries, a pro-government rally sponsored by the Libyan authorities was broadcast on state television to address the demonstrations, as the demonstrations escalated, with protesters taking control of Banghāzī and violence spreading to Tripoli, the Libyan government started to use lethal force against protesters, security forces and paramilitary teams fired live ammunition on protest crowds. Demonstrators were also targeted by tanks and artillery and warplanes and helicopter gunships from the air, the regime has limited communications, blocked the Internet, and disrupted telephone service across the country. One of Qaddafi’s sons, Sayf al-Islam, gave a defiant address on state television on February 21, blaming the unrest on outside agitators and warning that further protests could lead to the country’s civil war, he vowed to fight ‘to the last bullet’ by the military. Qaddafi provided a furious, rambling speech on state media on February 22, condemning the demonstrators as traitors and calling on his followers to fight against them (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2011).

8_ critical of Leviathan:

In Libya, as in Rwanda, Biafra and the Congo, as well as other examples outside Africa, the question of humanitarian intervention has been liked to civil wars almost always, The advocates for involvement and the responsibility to protect claim that it is the international community’s duty to protect minorities from the abuse of those who control the state and its military power in conflicts, is it appropriate to mobilize Libyan and Iraqi troops to protect them from police and military response? When we believe that the Lincoln and Cameron administrations had a common man-date to maintain the nation’s territorial integrity and the rule of law, then it is up to us to decide when there is a civil war in which a weaker party needs to be protected from warring states (Everill and Kaplan, 2013).

9_Libya after Gaddafi:

NATO and a number of Arab and other countries backed a rebel overthrow of Libya’s long-standing dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the intervening powers abruptly wrapped up military operations when Qaddafi was killed in October, responsibility for coordinating post-conflict stabilization support has been given to a small UN mission, the essential tasks of building security, building political and administrative institutions, and restarting the economy were left to Libya’s new leaders almost entirely, at best, the outcome of this very limited international approach was lackluster. Libya has fallen back on a number of critical post-conflict fronts, jihadist groups have made inroads, and there is still room for this newly liberated nation to collapse into a civil war once again, while Libya’s fate is largely in Libyans own hands, foreign players could have done more to help and could still take steps to prevent further degradation of Libya itself and the wider region (Chivvis and Martini, 2014)

Conclusion:

This essay talked about the Leviathan elements in the rule of Qaddafi of Libya, this essay divide into several parts first part talks about what is Libya country , Libya gained independence in 1951 soon after the discovery of oil, the country gained enormous wealth, colonel Gaddafi seized power in 1969, and Qaddafi in power in 42 years most people called dictator, and third part talks about leviathan Leviathan’s thinking about politics and society Hobbes suggested that one of anarchy is the natural basic state of humanity, Thomas Hobbes view on Libya gradually became an ungoverned country, an inevitable result of 42 years of authoritarian rule, and in another part talks about the Arab spring in Libya when and how started and in other part talks about Libya after Qaddafi because after Qaddafi the civil war began in Libya, which dividing Libya into two government and in the last part talks about critical of Leviathan in Libya because Leviathan said the government and forces should protect the people and protesters.

There are numerous theories that have been innovated since the beginning of time. From the Greeks, the Renaissance, and to Thomas Hobbes there has always been a new theory to human nature. Thomas Hobbes introduced the nature of egoism and the factors along with it. Egoism is the way humans are and how we are meant to be. According to Hobbes, egoism is someone, who only acts in their own interests. Even if that person claims that they did something for someone they are not telling the truth which is, they did it for their own benefit. There is the psychological theory of this and the rational theory of this. Both stating similar claims of human nature. Neither of them is a subjective viewpoint which means they do not depend on the feelings of others. Self desires and interests are what put this theory in full effect.

Psychological egoism is when a person acts to fulfill their self-interest all the time. If a person wants to do something then they will or they will not. No one else can interrupt one from doing what they want. A psychological egoist would suggest that anyone who claims to be doing good for someone else is only doing it for recognition or some other benefit. They would also suggest that at all times a person thinks of themselves and no one else. In the words of David Hume “On this interpretation, egoism says that ultimately all human actions must be explained in terms of the desires of the people whose actions they are.” Everyone says or acts in a certain manner because they need to. Everyone needs to express their desires and interests in some way to feel free or to feel human.

Further, rational egoism still keeps the idea of a person acting out of self-interest but also says that one can act out of pity for someone else. A person can do something for someone else but they are not doing it for rational motivations. For example, a person gives to the homeless out of pity, rational egoism says that the person is not thinking correctly. According to rational egoists, thinking conventional is wrong but it is a possibility. Psychological egoists say that there is no possibility for people to act out of pity in any type of circumstances. Both types of egoists try to set reasonable and emotions apart. The reason is usually associated with men and emotion is used towards women. Men are always known as rational or logical. As stated by Gordon Graham, “Rational egoists recommend that I should always do whatever I want.” Rational egoists follow the same belief as psychological egoists but also insults the thought of feeling pity for others.

Egoism can be mistaken for being selfish but they are actually distinct. Egoism is an identification of an ethical theory of criteria while being selfish is plainly a character trait. Egoism is the way humans live life and selfishness is one’s personality. Being selfish is what a person is acting like while being an egoist is what a person is. According to Graham “Selfish people are people who, for instance, always try to get the best seat, the finest steak, the one remaining strawberry, or the largest glass of wine for themselves.” “Egoism is a philosophical doctrine according to which practical reasons—reasons—for me to do things—have to be grounded in what matters to me.” Selfishness does not need to be logical like egoism does. Egoism does not prevent people from acting of interest in others nor does it force people to act of interest in others.

Also, there is a difference between egoism and altruism. Morality plays a part in defining the difference. As stated earlier morality is caring about others well being just as much as your own. Altruism ties in with morality because altruism is simply a practice of selfless acts for others. Egoism opposes this because egoists dominate others to benefit them. Gordon Graham best explains this, “You lead the best life when you get what you want, regardless of how this affects others.” “The egoist’s essential insight is that people don’t need to be given reasons to pursue personal advantage, but they do need to be given reasons not to pursue personal advantage.” If the reason for not gaining or benefiting from something is not valid, then it will be ignored.

In addition to Thomas Hobbes’s rational egoism theory, he has two types of motions; vital and voluntary. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains vital motions as “Passions stand between the involuntary “vital” motion characteristic of all living things, and animal.” Vital motion is a person’s involuntary motion. It is what your body does without consent or thought. For example, scratching your head because it itches is a vital motion. Or switching from side to side while you sleep is a vital motion because you have no real thought that made you switch sides. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also explains voluntary motion “By which animals move their bodies through the world, driven by appetites and aversions.” Voluntary motions are movements that you have to think about. For example, if you drop your phone, you will have to think to bend down and grab the phone. Or when you are hungry, you think to put food in your mouth.

Voluntary motions are usually broken down into either appetite and aversion. Appetite is when a person is attracted to something. It is having a desire or passion for something. When a person is hungry they have an appetite for food. Aversion is when a person is repelled by something. It is when a person is almost disgusted by something. For example, a person is disgusted with the smell of dirty laundry. Appetite and aversion are what Hobbes says are important to the nature of humans.

A moralist would oppose an egoist because they will tell an egoist to aid others first and focus on interests second. Moralists need reasons while egoists do not. Graham says, “This shows that the burden of proof is on the moralist.” The proof is important to Moralism, not egoism. “The burden of proof always falls on the moralist, and this confirms the idea that, in the absence of reasons to the contrary, by the very nature of the claim it makes, rational egoism is the default position.” Rational egoism does not need proof to fulfill self-interest.

However, Thomas Hobbes’s egoism theory does have some major flaws. First, limited resources become a problem. If everyone does everything for themselves then there would be an insufficient amount of supplies in the world. Greed will overtake the humanitarian side of society because everyone wants something for themselves. Hobbes’s theory suggests that we are always in a state of war being of glory and competition. He suggests that we are always preparing for a fight, fear of a fight, and getting in a fight. We are not always in a state of war. In war, there is never an actual winner because everyone loses something. Preparing for war all the time would be exhausting and terrifying. This leads to the next problem with this theory. Being anxious, distressed, and worried all the time for a war that is fed by greed is misery. If everyone followed this theory there would be no resolving conflict in our society. Also, in the state of war means no culture, no navigation, no industry, no new knowledge, and no well-structured buildings. War makes people less creative and more savage.

In the end, Thomas Hobbes’s state of nature theory is incorrect, terrifying, and obsolete. Egoism is not a theory that actually follows the nature of morality. It opposes what is morally right and wrong. Living in a society that is based on this theory would be horrendous because showing pity or helping others would be considered weak. People need to care for one another because it is morally right and it is how we evolve.