If you had to choose between whether humans are born inherently good or inherently evil, which one would you choose? Although there is no clear-cut distinction between what is good or what is evil, most people would pick a side either it being humans are good or humans are evil; however, the answer I would give is that humans are neither inherently good or evil. Humans are just humans, they are malleable beings that adapt to the situations around them and in doing so they can be shaped into either what is considered good or evil. Whether humans are inherently moral or immoral has been a long-standing debate since the time of Plato. Although there is no one true answer as every person has a different view on this issue, I believe that humans are neither inherently moral nor immoral, but are shaped by their environment and the circumstances …show more content…
A prime example of this is the differences in the actions of the boys in Lord of the Flies by William Golding and The Coral Island by R. M. Ballantyne. In the Lord of the Flies the harsh conditions that the schoolboys lived through on the island molded Jack and even Ralph to become savages and perform foul deeds such as the murder of Simon; however, in The Coral Island the idyllic setting of the island shaped the boys to be virtuous and made them amicable to other people on the island. The differences between the actions of the two groups of boys are the direct result of the circumstances that the two groups of kids had to go through. The harsh conditions seen in the Lord of the Flies shaped Jack and to some extent Ralph to become savages while the serene setting of The Coral Island allowed the boys to be compassionate and to be cordial toward other people. Another excellent example of circumstances shaping whether a person is righteous or wicked is in the obituary of “Josh Bishop” by Sarah Gerwig-Moore. In his early childhood, Josh was primarily shaped by the living conditions in his
Are humans naturally good or evil? This age-old question dates back to as early as the Chinese Dynasty and is still being argued to this day. Thomas Hobbes believed that all humans were born cruel, that they began cheating others to benefit themselves. Whereas, John Locke believes that humans are born good and pure, but become evil based on experiences and obstacles in life. In my opinion, all humans are born good and become cruel based on their experiences. I feel this way because when you look at a new born baby, they are seeing the world for the first time, and although they are screaming and crying, they are pure. They do not want to do anyone any harm, and you do not wish to cause them any harm. The same goes for young, growing children
Throughout the past centuries, the concept of instinctive morality has been debated back and forth. One philosophy with a strong viewpoint on this subject is Puritanism, because they believe that since the beginning of the world, people have been born sinners. Puritans felt that Adam and Eve’s temptation by Satan had cursed all of humanity to be born evil. A few decades later, Deists shifted their ideas away from religion and believed that every person could choose whether they were good or bad. Then, Transcendental ideas began the thought that humans were born innately good, and that God and Satan had nothing to do with people’s morality. Throughout the major literary philosophies in the United States, one can see how the innate character of a human progresses from being evil to being innately good.
There has been a huge debate throughout the years of whether humans are ethical by nature or not. Despite Christian Keyser’s research evidence that humans are ethical by nature, the evidence from the Milgram experiment shows that we are not ethical by nature. Humans learn to be ethical through genetic disposition as well as environmental factors such as culture, socialization, and parenting. In order to understand if we are ethical or not, we need to understand the difference between being moral or ethical. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are a bit different. “Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning” (Philosopher, web). Morality is more
A timeless question that continues to stump psychologists. Are humans born good? Do we learn evil traits or are they imprinted into mind as we come into the world. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, written in the early 1800’s, this same question comes into play. Shelley presents two completely different beings, one brought up with a family in a happy setting, the other in solitude hated by everyone. Both human in nature brought up completely different. Frankenstein and the Monster show traits of both good and evil, however, they are both born good.
The nature of human: are humans born good or evil? These two opposing views on human nature are two topics that Rousseau and Golding have both touched upon. While Golding believes that humans are born inherently evil, Rousseau believes the opposite: that humans are inherently good. Golding wrote the novel Lord of the Flies as a response of the novel, The Coral Island by R.M. Ballantyne because he believed that it was farfetched. In this novel Ballantyne’s main characters are able to enjoy their time on the deserted island. My opinion on this matter leans to Rousseau’s side. I believe that people are born naturally good.
All humans are capable for evil just as all humans are capable of good. The capacity for evil does not make a person bad just as the capacity for good does not necessarily make a person good. We all are capable of evil but that does not mean we do evil things. It would be ludicrous to assume that there is a person who is not capable of evil because we are capable of evil through just by existing. Anyone could pull the trigger of a gun and kill someone but not many people would. It is going against inclinations and choosing to not use that capacity for evil that determines whether we are good or
Whether or not humans are instinctively good or evil has been a much talked about debate for many years and is known as an unanswerable question. Determinists, such as Thomas Hobbs, have come to the conclusion that humans are naturally evil and it is within our basic instincts to be greedy, selfish and otherwise drawn to chaos. Hobbs states that “our true nature arises in times of strife and it is within us, when threatened, to self preserve.” I on the other hand disagree with this famous philosophers take on human nature. In this short essay, I will argue that human beings are born with the instinct to be good and to love one another, as well as to be loved.
In the novel, Not My Fathers Son by Alan Cumming, the brothers were raise by a strict and abusive father. In Alan’s memoirs, his father would discipline him and made him work harder than he should; however, this action contributed to his character of being a person who works hard and puts his efforts towards his passion (Alan 50). Furthermore, he was robbed of his childhood which made his adult life trying to regain what he had lost (Alan 78). This made Alan develop more of a child life personality. This just shows that a person’s environment can greatly influences his or her
The lines that define good and evil are not written in black and white; these lines tend to blur into many shades of grey allowing good and evil to intermingle with each another in a single human being. Man is not inherently good or evil but they are born innocent without any values or sense of morality until people impart their philosophies of life to them. In the words of John Locke:
How exactly does the human brain work? Are humans evil by nature or are they good samaritans most, if not all, the time? As studies throughout history have shown, this is not the case. Humans are inherently evil because they are always seeking as much power as they can, revert to challenging authority and selfishness in times of peril, and become intimidated easily by “authority” figures egging them on, which is reflected in The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, as well as The Zimbardo Experiment conducted by Psychologist Phillip Zimbardo.
...elop morals as a result of practical material situations and experience as described in The Grapes of Wrath and confirmed by the ideas of Plato. We humans evolved from creatures of pure instinct into something that craved a sense of order; the concept of morality is likely a byproduct of this. Ultimately it is more likely that we born morally neutral as opposed to good or evil. We were born creatures of instinct, but we have the capacity to distinguish right and wrong. This is entirely due to cultural upbringing as well as experience and practical material situations.
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is a novel about a man named Henry Jekyll who
“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.” (Eleanor Roosevelt). This is just one of the infinite examples of how human nature has been explored by so many different people. Each and every human is born with the capability of making their own choices. The decisions that they will make in the future will determine how evil they are viewed by others. Although one’s nature and nurture do affect their life, it is their own free will that determines whether or not they are evil.
Are human beings born to be good? Or are we naturally born to be evil? A person’s nature or essence is a trait that is inherent and lasting in an individual. To be a good person is someone who thinks of others before themselves, shows kindness to one another, and makes good choices in life that can lead to a path of becoming a good moral person. To be a bad person rebels against something or someone thinking only of them and not caring about the consequences of their actions. Rousseau assumed, “that man is good by nature (as it is bequeathed to him), but good in a negative way: that is, he is not evil of his own accord and on purpose, but only in danger of being contaminated and corrupted by evil or inept guides and examples (Immanuel Kant 123).” In other words, the human is exposed to the depraved society by incompetent guardians or influences that is not of one’s free will in the view of the fact that it is passed on. My position is humans are not by nature evil. Instead, they are good but influenced by the environment and societies to act in evil ways to either harm others or themself.
In conclusion, human nature is self- preservation and reproduction, which is neither good nor evil. We are later developed by nurture and diverged to behave good or evil. The essence of all human behavior is the desire to survive and pass genes. Self- preservation can also be applied to people around us. As a result, we learn to cooperate and sometimes we sacrifice ourselves to fulfill survival of the species. On the other hand, to survive is not necessarily harming or getting larger share of resources than others. Self- preservation and reproduction as human nature are neutral, without biasing to good or evil.