Immanuel Kant: Are Humans Naturally Good Or Evil

A question that has plagued philosophers is whether humans are naturally good or evil. Various historical circumstances have show that there is no definitive answer and there is no consensus answer amongst philosophers. Some philosophers, like Immanuel Kant, contend that human nature is indeed good. Kant is believes that an understanding of the human rational is essential to proving that humans are naturally good. Kant explains that humans are the only creature on earth that have reason and that our rational separates us from the other creatures of Earth. This reason enables us to distinguish what is moral and what immoral. Our reason means that we have a duty to follow what is morally correct. Kant elucidates, “to be beneficent where one

Hobbs view towards human nature is the opposite of Kant’s view. Hobbs explains that humans naturally, or in a state of nature, act without beneficence, or evilly. The state of nature is a way for Hobbs to describe how humans would act naturally if there were no society. For Hobbs, humans who inhabited this state of nature would be characterized as very irrational. Hobbs explains, “So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (Hobbs). Men in this state of nature would constantly be competing, in what Hobbs describes as “a perpetuating state of war” (Hobbs). This state of war is brought on by men’s natural diffidence towards each other, or their overall lack of trust for fellow man. This competition and diffidence both correlate with Hobbs sentiments explaining how men are irrational, in how they lack trust for each other and compete against each other. The competition and diffidence lead to glory, which in a state of nature is achieved usually through death of men. The competition arises from diffidence and the wants of men. When a man wants something, he will do anything to achieve it. Hobbs reveals, “And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end endeavor to destroy or subdue one another” (Hobbs). Hobbs clarifies

At first I did not fell guilt, but as time went on, and my reason came back to me, I did feel the pangs of regret. It is not one specific event, but rather a large compilation of misdoings. I call it my high school career. I was a poor student and I put very little effort into my work. Assignment by assignment, I gradually fell behind, but I never felt bad. Because of my work ethic, frankly, I go to Hofstra. I never realized how dormant my reason was until one night, at a party, I asked a girl where she would be attending college. She said Harvard and I replied Hofstra. “At least they sound the same” she remarked. I had never felt so embarrassed in my life. Hofstra is a decent university, but it’s only decent. Since that night I have felt endlessly guilty, as my reason returned and I realized I should have worked harder in high school. For a time I was doing morally wrong, by not working, without ever knowing it; but like Kant explained, I was out of “the loop”, as my reason had deserted me. But now, it has returned I now know my duty is to work hard to achieve