Human Nature
Good or Bad?
Whether human beings are instinctually good or evil in an elementary natural state is a question that has been boggling the minds of even the greatest philosophers. There is a spectrum of theories that support both good and evil within the human race, each with valid points that explains the range of our interests, being either for ourselves or for others. However, my personal stance is the sensible theory of Altruism. Past experiences and observations allow me to take the stance, and support the argument that humans are caring and genuinely good individuals and have the will and desire to help those around them. Philosophers such as Mengzi (4th Century BCE) also known as Mencius in the West, explains
…show more content…
These ongoing debates continue into literature and are for example the two philosophical authors Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Joseph Butler (1692-1752). One philosopher fighting for the truth of the evil nature within humans, and the other rebutting for the good. Hobbes’ book the “Leviathan” expresses harsh outlines for the nature of human and describes the human life as, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” 1 He concluded that humans are antisocial, and that cooperation between individuals or groups is nothing but self-interest. Joseph Butler however, wanted to reestablish his belief and published the book “Fifteen Sermons Preached at Roll Chapel.” His goal was to prove that human nature included positive elements. Within his book, Butler states that humans have varying characteristics pertaining to their nature and this encompasses a measure of self-interest. This self-interest is a natural attribute that roots back to the human animalistic nature of “survival of the fittest.” This self-interest is also a human quality that does not conflict with benevolence. Butler arranged these human attributes into a hierarchy with the top being conscience. In regards to conscience, Hobbes maintained the opinion that acts of kindness
It is a very arguable subject on whether or not people are born with good intentions, and therefore taught by others the ‘evil’ side of their personality. Whether it is the absence of ethical conduct in human nature, or just the way one perceives a situation, evil seems to be prominent in our everyday lives. Humans seem to have a moral code that follows them with every decision they make, yet despite the laws of morality and society, people of this world still seem to behave inhumanely because of the act of self-preservation, human interest, and who exactly the authority figure is at the time.
Are human beings mostly good or mostly evil? Does the potential for evil exist in
I believe that human beings are basically good. When they are first born and grow up as babies and toddlers, humans are innocent. However, with the effects of outside experiences and social expectations, human beings can be prone to evil. Humans want to be recognized within society and this can be seen in the movie, “The Talented Mr. Ripley”. Due to the social environment that Tom Ripley lives in, he feels the need to fit in and be wealthy like the people around him. This causes him to seek for ways, whether the action is moral or immoral, to attain a higher social status.
Born during a period of medieval philosophy, Thomas Hobbes developed a new way of thinking. He perfected his moral and political theories in his controversial book Leviathan, written in 1651. In his introduction, Hobbes describes the state of nature as an organism analogous to a large person (p.42). He advises that people should look into themselves to see the nature of humanity. In his quote, “ The passions that incline men to peace, are fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them,” Hobbes view of the motivations for moral behavior becomes valid because of his use of examples to support his theories, which in turn, apply to Pojman’s five purposes for morality.
There are two questions I would like to elaborate on in terms of what the philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Joseph Butler thought human nature was.
From the moment they are born, humans have a naturally evil predisposition. Although the term ‘evil’ is difficult to define, there are various views on morality. The most commonly referenced one, Moral Objectivism, holds that moral standards are universally transcendent, and that certain acts are right or wrong independent of human subjectivity. It is by this unspoken moral code that humanity’s acts are judged. There is some debate whether a fundamental human nature exists, as social and environmental influences are present from the moment someone is born. But if we can define human nature, it is beyond doubt, naturally evil. The English philosopher Thomas
Thomas Hobbes in Chapter 13 of Leviathan, and David Hume in Section 3 of An Enquiry Concerning the Princples of Morals, give views of human nature. Hobbes’ view captures survivalism as significant in our nature but cannot account for altruism. We cover Hobbes’ theory with a theory of Varied Levels of Survivalism, explaining a larger body of behavior with the foundation Hobbes gives. Hume gives a scenario which does not directly prove fruitful, but he does capture selfless behavior.
The Federalist Papers provide priceless insight into the spirits of both human government and human nature. In fact, The Federalist Papers repeatedly acknowledge a basic truth of human existence: humans are naturally selfish, hostile, and full of such characteristics that hinder the continuation of peaceful, harmonious existence. The corruption of the human race permeates even the strongest governments, as history has shown time and again. Ironic as it is, governments must take precautions to guard themselves, even from their very own members, from the very thing that all governments are meant to remedy: the shortcomings of human nature. The means by which The Federalists
A famous philosopher Socrates once said, 'the unexamined life is not worth living.' With that idea, the question 'Are Human Beings Intrinsically Evil?' has been asked by philosophers for many years. It is known as one of the unanswerable questions. Determinists have come to the conclusion that we are governed by the laws of science, that there is nothing we can do about ourselves being evil because we naturally are. Evil is simply the act of causing pain. In this essay I will argue that human beings are born with a natural reaction to 'fear and chaos' to be instinctively evil.
Since the beginning of time there has been confusion about every aspect of life and with confusion comes a number of questions we cannot completely answer or forget. How did we transform from one creature to another? Why are people so violent? Are we inherently good or evil? These are questions that have been asked for centuries, and have taken ever longer to possibly answer. It might be numerous decades from now before they finally answer these questions but, nevertheless many people are trying by using evidence, theories, faith, and science to answer these questions as accurately as possible. Mainly the question about whether we are innately innocent or not. Most people, say humans are inherently evil, that there is evil in all of us. That could be the reason why kids enjoy watching ants succumb when they burn them with reflected rays of sunlight. However, many believe that we are born good with a clean slate and that it is society of whom changes that. I believe that we are born sinful/evil and that society influence us to be good. The facts have proven humans to be innately evil through genetics, control, and mistreatment.
For centuries many philosophers, as well as most individuals, have pondered on the question what is good and what is evil. More-so philosophers of all ages have also stumbled upon a more in depth question which is if the intuitive knowledge of man's nature is good, or if it is evil. Many have claimed to have an answer to these puzzling questions yet most of their answers were found to be incomplete and inadequate at a later date. Religion also tried to provide a solution but to my understanding only caused more of an entanglement if anything.
Whether or not humans are essentially evil or sympathetic is a question that has long left many philosophers in a state of conflict. Through the evaluation of natural human qualities, many different opinions have been formed. The so called “laws” of the world attempt to define a set of uncertain rules which are to govern society in its most raw form, dictate moral rights and wrongs, and create boundaries. Every single action can be separated into any of these three categories, depending upon the action. The Bible states that it is only through baptism that a sin may be removed from the carrier. Non-religious opinions may offer a similar opinion in a sense that humans possess the capability of committing evil acts. Human beings are in
Human beings are part of the animal kingdom, and therefore part of nature. If that is true, then everything they create or destroy is by default "natural". I agree with the statement.
What is human nature? It is very simple. Human nature refers to the patterns of behavior that are typical of our species or our kind. Human undergoes change as all humans grow up they nature seems to change; the environment someone grow up in effects that persons nature. To fully understand human nature Dr. Marvin Harris takes us on trip to time, which makes sense because if we better understand our past and our origin we will better understand our very existence and our nature. We will know more about who we are where we are from and such other questions that puzzle the human mind.
How do humans actually behave when faced with the decision to help others? The innate desire that compels humans to help is called altruism by psychologists. Through this feeling, humans transform from a selfish jerk to a more compassionate and caring person. Some psychologists believe that this feeling stems from nature itself. Despite the fact that some altruistic acts originate from the pressures of society, altruism predominantly comes from the survival of the fittest, the feeling of empathy, and the selfish desire to benefit your own kin.