The question: What does it mean to be human, is a centuries-old debate that is still relevant today. In A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau argues that inequality has no connection with the true state of human nature because humans are essentially animals with the ability to act by freedom. Similarly, in The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, Darwin states that humans are biologically animals but with moral and social qualities, hence proving his claim that species are not created but rather they evolve gradually with the help of natural selection. In The Communist Manifesto and The Economics and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx believes that human nature is a function of labour and in an unstable capitalist society, …show more content…
Rousseau describes humans as free-agents because unlike animals, who act on instinct alone, natural man has the ability to choose. Lives of humans in the state of nature are quite simple; they have basic desires such as eating, sleeping, and reproducing (Rousseau 2010). Natural man is ignorant, in the sense that he has no idea of existence as a thing and he has very little communication with other humans (Rousseau 2010). Humans in the state of nature are free because “the savage lives within himself” (Rousseau 2010:37). They are not concerned about anything else except for themselves and their basic needs which is why the state of nature is peaceful. Marx also claims that humans are free because “man is a part of nature” (Marx 2000:31). Since humans are a part of nature, they have the right to use nature freely and have the right to their own labour and hence the product that was produced by that labour (Marx 2000). For Darwin, free will exists in humans and other higher order species. However, Darwin believes that the moral sense and sociality of humans is what differentiates humans from other species and not free will. For Rousseau and Marx, to be human is to be free but for Darwin, to be human is to be moral and …show more content…
Rousseau believes that humans are not sociable by nature because social relations did not exist in the state of nature. Nature did not bring humans together in this state because natural man was robust, physically strong, and independent (Rousseau 2010). But in the state of society, humans start to become dependent on one another and this introduces sociability in humans. The division of labour, the division of classes, and comparison among humans, are the consequences of social relations in the state of society. People are miserable in this state because “social man lives constantly outside himself” (Rousseau 2001: 37). In other words, humans live their life through the eyes of others in this state (Rousseau 2001). On the other hand, both Darwin and Marx show social relations or the sociality of humans as a necessary part of human nature. Darwin sees the sociality of humans as a method of survival; humans need one another in order to survive. Marx, also presents humans as being dependent on one another. For example, the bourgeoisie would not be able to continue to live their lifestyle without the proletariat (Marx 2008). Unlike Darwin, Marx is concerned about the condition of social relations in capitalist society. The bourgeoisie have reduced social relations, such as the family, to economic relations (Marx 2008). He claims that the loss of power in social
“The need of a constantly expanding market for its products (.) chases the bourgeois over the whole surface of the globe” (Marx, 212) and creates a world that cannot exist without the separation of workers and owners and competition for the lowest price. The struggle between the bourgeois and the proletariat begins when the labor of the worker becomes worth less than the product itself. Marx proposes that our social environment changes our human nature. For example, capitalism separates us from the bourgeois and proletariat because it alienates us from our true human nature, our species being, and other men.
...e society to maintain peace and social order. Such influences may come from the government or from the society itself. Locke believes that there is a state of nature but there is a need for the government in order to maintain order. Marx believes that the social groups in a society exist in order for man to exist and actively produce. Machiavelli strongly believes in the influence of the government to ensure stability in the society of human nature. Such conclusions from these the authors lead to their thoughts regarding human nature and human behavior. Locke and Marx believe that humans have reason and can attain a moral state of being while Machiavelli does not believe that humans can rule and have power, thus must have a ruler in order to achieve order. Ultimately, such formations and separate notions of human nature lead to each of the author’s conclusions.
To get a sense of what it is to be human, at least in the evolutionary world, we need only to compare our modern selves to our ancestors such as the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals were our closest hominin relative and died out thousands of years ago. Like us, they walked on two legs, hunted , made fire and tools, and lived in shelters (caves). They were more advanced than many of us imagine they were thanks to the way they are portrayed in the media. They had brains similar in size to ours, they stood fully upright (not hunched over), and had a surprisingly complex culture. When asked what it means to be human, you can compare many different aspects of our lives, such as biology, culture, and even religious beliefs. We obviously have no way of comparing our relgious beliefs to those of the Neanderthals, so in this essay, I will compare modern humans to Neanderthals on a biological, behavioral and cultural basis.
Echoing the structural strain theory is the differential opportunity theory, which states that learning environments and opportunities are not equally distributed in the social system and gender, class and ethnicity affects conformity and deviance (Deutschmann, 2007). Taking both theories into account, those susceptible to joining gangs would be people that are deprived of opportunities and resources to succeed, mainly people of the lower class and racial minorities as exemplified by the high volume of emergence of racially exclusive gangs in the past. In the 1970’s, the United States of America lifted its quota on immigration based on nationality and this saw the influx of immigrants from Asia and the West Indies coming into the USA in hopes of getting rich or simply to flee from their war torn native lands. Instead of assimilating into the American culture, these immigrants brought along their own cultural practices and religions, which were rejected by the Americans and resulted in resentment between both parties. Racial discrimination was rampant and these once hopeful immigrants soon found themselves being isolated in the outskirts, jobless and helpless. Members of racial minority groups like the majority aspire to possess material success in life but are void of the means to achieve those (McNulty & Bellair, 2003). The same can be said of the lower class, whose low socio-economic status limit their opportunities for tertiary education which could potentially be imperative in securing lucrative jobs (Curry & Spergel, 1988). Therefore, to satisfy their appetite for success, these people adapt to strain by treading the path of innovators- using illegitimate means to actualise their positively valued goals. Moreover, with global...
In the “natural state”, Rousseau suggests that we should strip man of all the “supernatural gifts” he may have been given over the course of time. He says we should “consider him, in a word, just as he must have come from the hands of nature, we behold in him an animal weaker than some, and less agile than others; but, taking him all around, the most advantageously organized of any.” He presumes that man’s needs would be easily satisfied. His food was easily gained, as wa...
What does it mean to be human? To most people it means being high on the food chain; or having the ability to make our own choices. People everywhere have a few things in common: We all must obey Natural laws, and we have preconceived ideas, stereotypes, and double standards. Being human is simply conveyed as human nature in “The Cold Equations”, by Tom Godwin, where the author shows the common ground that makes each and every one of us human.
Political philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx dreamt up and developed unique theories of total revolution. Although similar in their intention to dissolve dividing institutions such as religion and class structure, as well as their shared reluctance to accept the rather less hopeful conclusions of government and man that had been drawn by their predecessors Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, the blueprints Rousseau and Marx had printed were cited to two very different sources. Rousseau approached the problem of oppression from a political standpoint, focusing on the flawed foundation of liberal individualism that has been continually adopted by democracies. Marx, on the other hand, took an unconventional route of concentrating on economics. By completely eliminating the economic class system, Marx believed there could be a society of which would transcend the realm of politics.
In order to define personhood, one must first define a human. A Human can be thought about in two different senses, a moral human sense and a genetic human sense. In a moral sense, humans can be thought of as a person who is a member of the moral community. In a genetic sense, humans are merely any physical being categorized as a being in the human species. From this one can conclude that a person is a human in the moral sense. Furthermore, characteristics of a person must be defined in order to differentiate moral beings from genetic humans.
Humans are extremely complex and unique beings. We are animals however we often forget our origins and our place in the natural world and consider ourselves superior to nature. Humans are animals but what does it mean to be human? What are the defining characteristics that separate us from other animals? How are we different? Human origins begin with primates, however through evolution we developed unique characteristics such as larger brain sizes, the capacity for language, emotional complexity and habitual bipedalism which separated us from other animals and allowed us to further advance ourselves and survive in the natural world. Additionally, humans have been able to develop a culture, self-awareness, symbolic behavior, and emotional complexity. Human biological adaptations separated humans from our ancestors and facilitated learned behavior and cultural adaptations which widened that gap and truly made humans unlike any other animal.
Rousseau theorized that the “savage” in the state of nature was not selfish, like Hobbes idea, but rather it arose as a result of the person’s interaction with society. He argued that people naturally have compassion for others who are suffering and that the civil society encourages us to believe we are superior to others. Therefore, the thought of being more powerful will cause us to suppress our virtuous feelings of kindness and instead change us into selfish humans. Both philosophers agreed that humans are naturally self-interested, however, Rousseau fails to understand the concept that there are insufficient resources for every human and that brutal competition is part of survival. When discussing Rousseau’s theory on the corruption of society, an interesting question arises.
Several people have attempted to answer the above questions among them Rousseau, the writers of French Revolutionary documents, the authors of the United States Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and Hume in the context of morality. All persons seem to agree that man is born with some semblance of "natural rights" though they disagree on exactly what these rights are and their relevance. They also see the need for society and social contracts, yet they argue the point on exactly what should be included in such contracts and their conditions. ...
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
Karl Marx noted that society was highly stratified in that most of the individuals in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto where he described a new society, a more perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all property is held in common, that is a society in which one individual did not receive more than another, but in which all individuals shared in the benefits of collective labor (Marx #11, p. 262). In order to accomplish such a task Marx needed to find a relationship between the individual and society that accounted for social change. For Marx such relationship was from the historical mode of production, through the exploits of wage labor, and thus the individual’s relationship to the mode of production (Marx #11, p. 256).
Rousseau presumes that in the beginning, humans were living in a peaceful state of nature and lived in equality, but as civilization progressed it began to change man as challenges became more elaborate, lives became more complicated, development of the possession of property began, and habitually more comparisons were made amongst us. The first law of nature also contributed to our sense of ownership. The first law of nature recognized by Rousseau is self-preservation; we care about ourselves then society and this law is used to defend or prove our own independence. As a result or this change of civility, we shifted to a state of nature that was far from grace, where we desired the suffering of others, only cared about ourselves, and developed the meaning of inequalities. People realized that their natural rights could no longer coexist with their freedom in the state of nature and also that they would perish if they did not leave the state of nature. Therefore, the state of nature no longer became desirable and society restored that motive; in this new societal environment we develop morals to handle conflicts and help preserve ourselves. Locke believes that while in our natural state we all have morals, though Rousseau challenges that belief by claiming that society generates a moral character within us. Rousseau insists that everyone can be free and live
What does it mean to be human? Sure, one must have the usual physical features such as fingers, eyes, arms, hands, feet, etc., but what does it really mean? Must the human be able to speak? To take upon the actions of themselves? Whatever it means, it can be interpreted in any way from anyone. The physical attributes of any human can be compared to those of our evolutionary ancestors. However, it is possible to believe that there are many characteristics that make a human, but only six define the true, ideal human.