'Human nature is such that political authority is necessary'.

Evaluate this claim (50 marks)

The view that human nature is such that political authority is necessary is a view which can be
attributed to a number of differing political ideologies. However, it is most likely to be attributed to
conservatism, which out of all the major ideologies, hold the most pessimistic view of human nature.
Conservatives would argue that political authority is necessary for the benefit of individuals who are
incapable of governing themselves. They argue that humans are not rational beings, and need the
security of traditional institutions to maintain order. Throughout this essay, I will evaluate whether or
not conservatives are justified in believing that political authority is necessary, and will discuss
several counter arguments which indicate otherwise.
The political ideology of conservatism was formulated following the 'failure' of the French
Revolution, an event which conservatives believed to illustrate the true aspects of human nature; that
humans are violent, destructive and selfish. Edmund Burke, a conservative, argued that the French
revolution failed as it did not restrain the liberty of the people, and that abstract concepts such as
liberty and equality do not come naturally to us. This is an idea which has its origins in Thomas
Hobbes conception of the 'state of nature', or to put it more accurately, the 'state of war'. Hobbes
argued that self preservation is the most fundamental human desire, and as such, if there is no law or
authority to prevent us from acting upon this desire, we may do all sorts of things to stay alive, with
little regard for others. Therefore, we will live in a constant state of fear from attack, and as a result
of this, our lives will be 'solitary, nasty, brutish and short'. Thus, we must submit to a sovereign
authority to prevent us from harming each other. Following this, Burke argued that societies should
recognise the value of tried and tested traditions and institutions from the past, which provide
security an stability, which is important given the dangerous reality of human nature. For this reason,
people need security and order, which is best achieved by a strong state, strict laws, and stiff
penalties. He argued that humans are naturally unequal, and hierarchy is a natural part of society. He
compared he state to a living plant it respects the past, the authority, law, religions and customs that
are traditional in society. It is fragile and must be conserved, because a society that
lacks it will collapse into anarchy and tyranny. Innovation is bad, therefore, and
prejudice is good. Although the institutions can tolerate incremental reforms
around the edges, systematic questioning is a threat to social order. Moreover,
Burke argued that without past customs and traditions to use as a guide, we can never know how
liberty may be promoted and defended. Burke argued that the lack of stable political authority led to
the tyrannical rule of Napoleon, and this is the perfect example for the necessity of political authority.
However, I don't find this to be a particularly strong argument for assuming that political authority is
necessary. Firstly, Thomas Hobbes account of the 'state of war' is purely hypothetical it has never
been confirmed to actually exist, and is a mere conception based upon assumptions. Whilst it can
reasonably be asserted that humans have the capacity to act cruelly and selfishly towards one
another, there is also good reason to believe that this is not the case. For example, the evolution of
man was achieved through co-operation and forming social groups. Hobbes' account of human
nature seems to entirely disregard what is known about our evolutionary history. With this in mind, I
find it hard to take the conservative justification that political authority is necessary seriously.
However, even if one were to disregard to appeal to Hobbes, the conservative argument for
justifying political authority is still weak. This issue with conservatism is the motivation behind
asserting that political authority is necessary, as the true goal of conservatism is to establish an
aristocracy, and as such, their views on human nature reflect this goal. This is illustrated in Burke's
belief that hierarchies are natural, and that aristocracy is a natural phenomenon, but in
reality it is entirely artificial. The conservative ideological justifications for
political authority reflect class interests and class interests alone, and as a
result of this, cannot be deemed legitimate in establishing its necessity.
This leads to the Marxist critique on the view that political authority is
necessary. As highlighted above, a marxist would argue that 'human nature'

reflects the ideology of the ruling class, and it is in the ruling classes interests
to present human nature as negative in order to justify the exploitation of the
workers. To elaborate upon this, the upper classes profit from the workers
labour, keeping them in poverty whilst they increase their wealth. Under
capitalism, the worker (the proletariat) suffers from alienation, a kind of
estrangement resulting in a loss from: the products of his labour, which are
taken away by the capitalist; their work, as their work is meaningless and
repetitive; from their 'species being', which is their true human nature; and
finally from others, as capitalism forces us to work for production, rather than
satisfying our natural needs and desires. Marx argued that all history is a
history of 'class struggle', I.e the capitalist vs the workers (the proletariat vs
the bourgeoise). The oppressors own the means of production, and so control
the government and society. The struggle will eventually lead to a revolution,
and he argued that under a different system, the workers lives would be more
fulfilled. The new system would allow the worker to enjoy their work, express
their creative powers, and produce things that are satisfying to our mutual
needs. He coined the phrase 'from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need' to illustrate this. People would be contribute to society
according to their ability, and this would be distributed according to the needs
of individuals.
Therefore, marxism argues that human nature (in its current form) is reflective
of its social situation, and as such cannot be treated as a given from which
judgements regarding political authority may be inferred. Under the marxist
state, the removal of private property would render political authority
unnecessary, since all of humankind will have been returned to their 'speciesbeing', which is naturally peaceful and co-operative. I find this to be a fairly
strong counter argument for the conservative, and indeed for the claim that
political authority is necessary. This is because it does take into account that
our evolutionary success has depended upon co-operation, and that there are
certain organisations (I.e primitive societies) that do not submit to political
authority and function perfectly well. However, marxism is still subject to the
same criticism as the conservative, as it rests entirely upon the assumption
that it's idea of human nature is the 'true' human nature. In addition to this,
marxism has never been implemented in its truest form, and so whether or not
it establishes that political authority is unnecessary is yet to be proven the
integrity of the account exists entirely on paper and not in practice, which
leaves it vulnerable to criticism. Furthermore, the closest attempt of
implementing marxism (I.e, the USSR) failed, and so I find it difficult to believe
that it proves that political authority is unnecessary.
Asides from the ideological arguments for political authority, the inference
made from quotation in the question is not valid, since it moves from a
descriptive premise to a normative conclusion. Whereas we can reason from descriptive
premises to descriptive conclusions I.e P1: All men are mortal; P2: Socrates is a man; C: Socrates is
mortal, and we can also reason from normative premises to a normative conclusion I.e : P1: You
ought not to kill humans; P2: Bob is a human; C: You ought not to kill Bob. The following above
arguments follow sound logic and reasoning, however, it is not logically valid reason from
descriptive statements alone to a normative conclusion. Using the question as an example: P1:
Human nature is X; C: Political authority is necessary. This is not logically valid, since it draws a
conclusion on how the world ought to be (governed with political authority), from how the world
actually is. With this is mind, the inference made in the quotation is not valid, and as a result of this,

I do not consider it to be a logical suggestion to be making.

Having discussed several view points regarding the justification of political authority, I still remain
unconvinced that any of the arguments effectively prove that it is either necessary or unnecessary.
This is because I find it difficult to believe that there is such thing as a 'true' human nature, and as a
result of this, I do not think we can logically draw any inference about what is necessary for us and
what is not. The biggest issue here is the appeal to human nature, which I ultimately deem too
problematic as a means of argumentation, as highlighted above.