Politics: Conservatism - Human Nature

-In his most famous work, 'Leviathan' (1651), he took a profoundly sceptical view of human nature, arguing that it was needy and vulnerable and therefore likely to commit destructive acts.

-He also asserted that, prior to the emergence of a state, there was no cooperation or voluntary arrangements between individuals and therefore none of the 'natural rights' later cited by liberals.

-His 'state of nature' was a place of scarce resources where individuals would be governed by ruthless self-interest.

-Human nature was thus shaped by a restless desire for the acquisition of goods (one would be competitive and calculating), an immovable distrust of others and a constant fear of violent death.

-In his own words, life in this state of nature would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'.

-Such 'natural chaos' stemmed from the absence of any formal authority, which could enforce an unquestioned code of right and wrong.

-In its absence, he noted, mankind in the state of nature was left to form his own version of acceptable and unacceptable conduct.

-Yet, because each man's versions of right and wrong were likely to be different, this would lead only to uncertainty and war.

-Nevertheless, because he did not consider human nature wholly irrational (cold rationality), he believed that mankind would eventually realise that the state of nature was inimical to self-interest and thus agree to a 'contract', which would lead to the setting up of a formal state.

-By admitting the possibility of such rational calculations and the concept of mankind achieving satisfactory outcomes, he thereby placed himself closer to liberalism in terms of explaining human nature - which explains why he is usually seen as an example, rather than a critic, of Enlightenment thinking.

-In his most famous work, 'Anarchy, State and Utopia' (1974), he stated his belief in a minarchist state - one that mainly involved outsourcing public services to private companies.

-This minarchist prescription owed much to his optimistic view of human nature, which seems very different to that of Hobbes and Burke.

-Indeed, some have suggested his philosophy has less in common with conservatism than with strands of anarchism.

-For example, his claim that 'tax, for the most part, is theft' indicates an upbeat view that individuals have self-ownership - that they are the sole authors of their talents and abilities and should be left alone to realise them, without the intervention of government.

-However, his view of human nature was not wholeheartedly positive.

-He argued that while dishonesty, theft and violence were not the main characteristics of humanity, the preservation of life, liberty and property 'could not be taken for granted' without some formal authority enforcing laws: a vital concession to the legacy of Hobbes.

-In his own words, even the most enterprising individuals were still 'freedom-loving pack animals', who need the periodic restraint of formal authority and deeply rooted communities.

-His work, 'On Being Conservative' (1962), is renowned for its fresh interpretation of how conservatives regarded human imperfection, in particular, it is remembered for its argument that a 'philosophy of imperfection' need not be a 'philosophy of pessimism' or indeed unhappiness.

-He wished to qualify the negative view of human nature associated with Hobbes and, to a lesser extent, Burke.

-Most men and women, he argued, were 'fallible but not terrible' and 'imperfect but not immoral'.

-Though incapable of the 'perfect' societies linked to other ideologies, humanity was still able to secure 'both pleasure and improvement through the humdrum business of everyday life'.

-From this perspective, he tried to make conservatism seem more optimistic than ideologies such as liberalism and socialism.

-He argued that such ideologies - with their clear views of how society 'should' be - produced impatience, intolerance and frustration.

-He claimed that conservatives, who are reconciled to human imperfection, have a greater appreciation of the pleasures that already exist in life (from families and friends, for example).

-Conservatives, he claimed, 'prefer the familiar to the unknown, the actual to the possible, the convenient to the perfect...present laughter to utopian bliss'.

-Being dismissive of 'normative' politics, with its 'simplistic visions that overlook the complexity of reality', he also affirmed the merits of an empirical and pragmatic approach to both politics and life generally - what might be termed 'the art of the possible'.

-He argued that it was through experience, trial and error, rather than abstract philosophy, that wisdom was achieved.

-In a memorable aside, he remarked: 'In a kitchen, cook books are only useful after experience of preparing a meal'.

-He also stated that conservatism was 'more psychology than ideology', claiming it articulated 'an instinctive preference for what is known, an innate fear of the uncertain'.

-Unlike Hobbes, however, he believed that life without law would be 'not so much nasty, brutish and short...as noisy, foolish and flawed'.

-Human nature, he conceded, was 'fragile and fallible', yet it was also 'benign and benevolent' when framed by routine, familiarity and religious principles.

-Her defining work, the novel 'Atlas Shrugged' (1957), secured her status as one of America's most influential libertarians.

-Its theme was that talented individuals, rather than ambitious governments, lay at the heart of any successful society.

-The novel suggested that without the energy of such individuals, a society would quickly wither - no matter how much activity was expended by governments.

-The theme was restated in a non-fictional way through her works of philosophy - 'The Virtue of Selfishness' (1964) explained a philosophical system she described as 'objectivism', its core belief being that we should all be guided by self-interest and 'rational self-fulfilment'.

-For this reason, she became associated with the New Right's atomism, the term for a society defined by millions of autonomous individuals, each independently seeking self-fulfilment and self-realisation.

-In respect of human imperfection, in 'Reflections on the Revolution in France' (1790), he stressed mankind's fallibility and its tendency to fail more than succeed.

-He therefore denounced the idealistic society that the French Revolution represented, claiming it was based on a utopian - and thus unrealistic - view of human nature.

-He didn't just criticise the French Revolution itself, but the thrust of Enlightenment thinking - including the view of human nature that inspired it.

-He duly rejected the idea that human nature was guided mainly by reason and dismissed any notion that mankind could plan the near-perfect society.

-Drawing upon the biblical principle of original sin, he highlighted the 'chasm between our desire and our achievement' and thus stressed custom, habit and experience as signposts for how we should behave.

-He did not think that human beings were as brutally selfish as Hobbes alleged: fallible yes, terrible no.

-He also thought that human beings were capable of kindness and altruism, wisdom even, as long as their actions were rooted in history, tradition and the teachings of the Christian church - a possibility that Hobbes did not countenance.

-Finally, he did not share Hobbes' view that human nature was ruthlessly individualistic - instead, he argued that human nature was naturally communal, with individuals gaining comfort and support from the small communities around them (what he termed 'little platoons').