Response to Sarah Jones's Response

I am responding to Sarah Jones's post from last week's discussion regarding our consumption of non human animals.  She was responding to someone else's post- so virtually this is a response to a response of a response.   Sarah makes a valid point that may truly be in our human nature to be compelled to consume the meat of other species. Is that not how other species survive? Bears eat fish and lions eat antelope do they not? However, humans' inhumane manner of commercial slaughter and gross misuse of the species for our gluttonous sustenance is revolting.
   Both Sarah and I practice vegetarianism, so this enables us to see the debate from a different perspective. We are so assimilated culturally to consume meat- it is the focal point of numerous occasions (turkey at Thanksgiving, ham at Christmas, corned beef  St. Patricks Day etc.) I wonder if it is simply an expected social convention or a practice we are forced to endure. As with any personal decision there are social influences that work against our convictions.  Turn on the television and you will be inundated with images of hamburgers, steaks, seafood, chicken, and bacon.  We are continually stimulated to react with hunger and salivation from these images; all in a ploy to perpetuate a system of commercialism and the sale of livestock for financial gain.

State and society' s purpose in our lives.

I want to explore the state and society’s role in our lives, citing Hobbes and Rousseau for examples.  If we follow the optimistic view and resign that the government enacts what they feel is in the interest of the people, and the state exists as a “necessary evil” to determine what will be good for the masses (even if the people do not realize it themselves), does this take away or challenge the free will of the innately good?  If a doctrine is enforced that I do not agree with am I expected to sit idly by and allow it to exist? I understand that Rousseau recognized goodness can be corrupted by poor environmental factors, but would the initial opposition be the result of aggressive personality that my beliefs are above others?  If I am altruistic and believe that public assistance is beneficial to social stability, I do not see any negative result of people being financially supported by the government- does this not seem partially naïve? Wouldn’t it be “natural” for me to question the credence or validity of this lifestyle and the effect or contribution that it has on society as a whole? Furthermore, could I associate myself with abusers of a system generated to temporarily assist in times of need?  Am I in the wrong or are they? (Let me just mention that my opinions of the topic of welfare are neutral, I see the pros and cons. I know people who use it and people who abuse it. Nothing I say will ever change anything; so I might as well stay out of trouble by abstaining from offering my personal views on the issue)

Hobbes vs Rousseau

While Rousseau has important components to his argument, I find myself supporting Hobbes’s view of human nature.  I would truly like to believe that we are innately good and that nurturing and environmental factors determine our personalities; however I just cannot.  Was Hitler’s mother  anti-Semitic? (remove mother and insert ANY social influence; person, place, occurrences).  Was he exposed to any factors in his life that guided him in justifying murdering millions of innocent people for his personal beliefs? Did he read a manual that explained exterminating entire races and religions would be in the true interest of the people?  He certainly believed these things himself. If we discuss other brute or corrupt people such as Attila the Hun or Queen Elizabeth our case seems to be confined to particular people.  Now, take into consideration that all of the slaughter needed support.  Followers, sympathizers, executioners, etc. all possess the characteristic traits that Hobbes outlined. 

On an unrelated note, I came up with a couple questions regarding the two arguments.

 1. Is conservatism synonymous to determinism? In Hobbes’s argument he stated that free will does not exist- by elimination does this create an argument for the opposing side?

2.  If I am a supporter of Hobbes’s pessimistic view, is it possible for me to be optimistic about my personal suppression of my negative attributes?  Is this contradictory in fundamental nature, or is my use of the work “optimistic” signifying the varying capacity I recognize each human to possess?