Hsun Tzu, Chinese philosopher, argued Man’s nature is evil; goodness is the result of conscious activity. As Tzu writes, “Man is born with the desires of the eyes and ears, with a fondness for beautiful sights and sounds”(100-101). Through life though, one is able to decide what path to take; continue to be evil or become a better person. In a Ted Talk, Stephen Pinker discussed ‘Human Nature and the Blank Slate.’ Pinker made several strong reasons why one should doubt “Blank Slate”: one being children and another being people being born with certain instincts. Pinker claimed that children were born innocently evil; as the kid grows older the parents teach him/her what is right and what is not right. People are born with different instincts …show more content…
Humans “goodness derives from conscious activity,” (101). Tzu compared conscious activity to a teacher that is helping their student become a better person. For example, when I started swimming lessons I could not swim to save my life. As I continued to keep on practicing and attending swim lessons, I became a better swimmer and now I have mastered swimming. I was not naturally good at swimming but I was nurtured and now I can swim on my own. Tzu talks about a warped piece of wood that “must wait until it has been laid against the straightening board, steamed and forced into shape before it can become straight” (101). He then compares the piece of board to man’s nature, evil. Because man’s nature is evil, “it must wait for the instructions of a teacher before it can become upright” (101). One could question, If human nature is evil then where does ritual and rightness come from? Ritual and Rightness come from the conscious activity of human beings. Because humans are naturally evil, they seek goodness and order that comes from ritual and rightness activities. The existing of kings and leaders also gives prove that man’s nature is evil. If humans were naturally good then the need for government would not be needed, but because humans lack order, the establishment of a ruler given all authority to set laws to maintain order has forever
Hsun Tzu, a follower of Confucius, believed that human nature was to be fundamentally evil. Tzu, in “Encouraging Learning, wrote to Confucians questioning why should they be educated and what human nature really was. Since Confucius never stated his thought on human nature, some people suspect that humans needed to be educated not because they were evil, but because it was moral, and that way they could become into the person Confucius taught them to be. Tzu disagrees with this because of his belief, that humans, in fact, were born with wrong ideals. Tzu considers human nature to take its course on people, and that is why some people are inferior to others. But, with proper training and education, Tzu agrees Confucians can become a better person, and not just that they are becoming into the people that they are meant to be. It could be that Tzu wrote this to straighten out the mystery of what human nature was and how to fix humans evil nature.
Tzu also states that, “ (man’s) goodness is the result of his activity” (198). This means that a man’s actions are what determine the goodness of such a man’s nature. However, Tzu explains that in reality man acts apparently good but only because his actions of goodness are born from selfish reasons. According to Tzu, because man’s nature is evil and his focus is on personal gain, man seeks the gain that comes from doing good. This idea continues to be argued today. One can find people in either side of this debate almost anywhere and anyplace. It is interesting to learn how his views on this matter originated from so long ago.
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
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.
“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.
The question “What makes us who we are?” has perplexed many scholars, scientists, and theorists over the years. This is a question that we still may have not found an answer to. There are theories that people are born “good”, “evil”, and as “blank slates”, but it is hard to prove any of these theories consistently. There have been countless cases of people who have grown up in “good” homes with loving parents, yet their destiny was to inflict destruction on others. On the other hand, there have been just as many cases of people who grew up on the streets without the guidance of a parental figure, but they chose to make a bad situation into a good one by growing up to do something worthwhile for mankind. For this reason, it is nearly impossible to determine what makes a human being choose the way he/she behaves. Mary Shelley (1797-1851) published a novel in 1818 to voice her opinions about determining personality and the consequences and repercussions of alienation. Shelley uses the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau to make her point. Rousseau proposed the idea that man is essentially "good" in the beginning of life, but civilization and education can corrupt and warp a human mind and soul. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (hereafter referred to as Frankenstein), Victor Frankenstein’s creature with human characteristics shows us that people are born with loving, caring, and moral feelings, but the creature demonstrates how the influence of society can change one’s outlook of others and life itself by his reactions to adversity at “birth”, and his actions after being alienated and rejected by humans several times.
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.
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
Is human nature fundamentally good or bad? Mengzi argues for the instinctive goodness of human nature; however, admits our inherent goodness must be encouraged through propriety.
Human nature is the most debated topic to date. Many people think that mankind is programmed to be evil; on the other hand people argue that it is naturally good. Nathaniel Hawthorne gave his argument with the novel, The Scarlet Letter. The Scarlet Letter showed that mankind is innately good by Chillingworth’s measures, Hester’s capitulates and Dimmesdale’s noble qualities.
Confucius is known for stressing that human nature is intrinsically good. He stresses that human beings are born with the ability for differentiating between wrong and right. A person may not be aware from infancy which acts are tolerable and which acts are not, but all offspring feel shame, and once the children learn which deeds are bad or good, they have a normal tendency to consent of the former and criticize of the latter (Van and Bryan 27).
Although there has been extensive devastation created by some modern dictators of our world, man’s nature is inherently good. According to Mencius, a great Chinese philosopher (circa 371 – circa 289 BCE), man’s nature is good. Mencius’ thought was that man is born good-hearted, but due to any number of external influences, can become evil. This past century has brought us a few dictators that can be described by this ancient idea of human nature.
The ‘Nature versus Nurture’ argument can be traced back several millenniums ago. In 350 B.C., philosophers were asking the same question on human behaviour. Plato and Aristotle were two philosophers who each had diverse views on the matter. On the one hand, Plato believed that knowledge and behaviour were due to inherent factors, but environmental factors still played a role in the equation. Conversely, Aristotle had different views. He believed in the idea of “Tabula Rasa”- the Blank Slate theory supported the nurture side of the argument and put forward the view that everyone was born with a ‘Tabula Rasa’, Latin for ‘Blank Slate’. He proposed that “people learn and acquire ideas from external forces or the environment”. Was he right when he proposed that the mind is a blank slate and it is our experiences that write on these slates? This theory concluded that as humans, we are born with minds empty of ideas and at birth we have no knowledge or awareness of how we should behav...
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.
Convention and nature are different from one another. When someone is speaking in the conventional sense, then this can also be interpreted in the natural meaning. The same goes with someone speaking in the natural sense. This can be understood in the conventional meaning. An example of this is when Polus was conventionally speaking about baser and Socrates took this meaning as the natural meaning. In the natural sense, the meaning is that greater evil means baser, which is suffering wrongdoing. Doing wrong is baser in conventional meaning. The majority of mankind is made up of weaklings. These weaklings establish conventions to help themselves and to scare those who are stronger than them. Since these people are inferior, they are content to be equal to the stronger by use of these established conventions. It is said to be wrong when any one to try to get an advantage over the majority. In nature and natural law, it is survival of the strongest and fittest. This is not so in conventional law, which is the law of the majority. Being wiser and more intelligent than others means being better and stronger. Better and stronger are the people with courage and intelligence that know how to take care of political matters. Men should use their courage and intelligence to satisfy all of their wishes. Happiness and virtue consist of having excess, luxury and licence and everything else is worthless. People are already dead, their body is the tomb and their soul carries in contrary directions. A temperate life is better than an intemperate life and a person’s life is temperate and is satisfied with what he has. Pleasure and pain can be experienced at the same time. Wise men, heroes, and fools feel pain and joy in the same degree. Where cowards feel pain and joy more than brave men. The good man is as good and bad as the bad man and the bad man is possibly better. These are the interpretations of Callicles by Socrates.