The purpose of this essay will be to discuss whether human nature is good, or evil, or both good and evil, or neither good nor evil. To facilitate the following discussion, human nature here would be defined as the distinguishing characteristics we born with, that we tend to have naturally without the influence of external factors. The definition agrees to Xunzi’s, that nature is what is given by Heaven: one cannot learn it; one cannot acquire it by effort. This essay will explain that the deepest essence of human nature is self-preservation and reproduction, which cannot be truly classified into good or evil. It is followed by how we are diverged to behave goodly or badly, argument against the “good nature theory” and different between self-preservation with greed and aggression.
It is the deepest essence and biology basis for any species to ensure survival, so called self-preservation, which also constitute human nature. Self-preservation is instinctive to keep ourselves both physically and psychologically alive. With this built into the psyche of human, we demand all elements from the external environment that raise our chances to survive. We need nutrient from food, cloth, shelter, sexual love and sense of security. And we would escape from elements reducing our chances to survive, like offence by predators, starving, dehydrating, and any circumstance that cause danger to our life. Reproduction is another human nature which we have to survive for enough periods to pass genes to offspring. However, these two parts of human nature are neither good nor evil.
We usually judge good or evil from one’s behavior. One’s behavior, personality and characteristic are neither innately good nor evil but developed by nurture. Without mor...
... middle of paper ...
...hieved by knock the fellows down, we become aggressive. If it has to be achieved by cooperating with the fellows, we will be cooperative. The nature of self- preservation is completely different concept with aggression and greed with no direct relationship.
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.
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
Every natural instinct of survival, for both animals and humans, is evil. According to the paradigm of our society, it is immoral to be selfish, to steal, to feel empathy only for your kin and apathy for everyone else, and to kill for personal gain. On the contrary, according to the natural instincts followed by all of the animal kingdom, you are to insure your own and your pack’s own survival, no matter the cost, disregarding all others; to steal, to feel apathy for other groups, and to kill for power and personal gain are all common practices that animals do in nature without the bat of an eye. These instincts do not only apply to lesser animals, but humans share them as well, for we are animals like all the others. There are no morals
across all of our written history have discovered the importance of knowing human nature. Human nature is responsible for our definitions of abstract concepts that are surprisingly universal across the western world like justice, equity, and law. Human nature must also be carefully studied in an effort to understand, obtain, or maintain power within society. Finally, human nature must also be carefully understood so as to protect it from being manipulated and to understand its place in society.
...reate stories and go beyond nature. These stories themselves are often the motivation for what we determine to be evil upon examining an alternate story, but we do not have a choice about whether or not we tell stories at all. That is in our nature. Alternately, without our stories we would not experience good and beautiful.
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.
...vivalist instinct that involves self-preservation. Hobbes, however, is unable to explain altruism, thus we developed the Varied Levels of Survivalism as a layer above his theory. This modification allows for varying motives based on circumstances, all based on survival. Hume takes note of this altruistic tendency but he gives a scenario that is either inapplicable or he does not filter survivalism from humanity. Utilizing Hobbes’ survivalism, Hume’s generosity when capable, and the Varied Levels of Survivalism, we arrive at a viable theory of human nature and explanation of human behavior.
The nature of humanity is a heavily debated topic. While many believe that humans are by nature evil, many others believe the opposite, which humans are by nature, good. Are people capable to do good deeds for the sake of being good, or are good deeds disguised under selfish motives. Kant stated the only thing that is unconditionally good, or as he termed it a categorical imperative, and the only categorical imperative, is good will. If good will, is unconditionally good, and is the only categorical imperative, then categorical imperatives are nonexistent, because there is no such thing as having a good will. Every action has an underlying reason for it. No action is done simply as a means for itself. No good willed action is done for it’s own sake, for the sake of obligation or for the sake of being good. It is impossible to act without being influenced by external influences.
Whether human nature is fundamentally selfish or altruistic is a question that challenge lots of researchers back in the time, and even today. Some people, such as Thomas Hobbes, claimed that man 's nature is basically evil and selfish. However, Joseph Butler, a philosopher, disagreed with this idea. For him, goodness consists in having what he calls the ‘principle of reflection’ govern and control our passions. People always want to know the true, but there is no answer for this question, so we have to find it out base on our knowledge and beliefs. It is important to know what is our true identity when we were born. In my mind, no one is perfect, everyone has the dark-side in themselves. People cannot deny that there is no mistake have
When people realize that good and evil are just points of view that are placed on other people and actions, it is possible to transcend these superficial roles. Since it is people who create the meaning of evil, it cannot be said that people are evil, or are born evil, because not only is that a perspective that is assumed onto others, which will change with different cultures, societies, and eras, but the very same acts may appear to be both good and evil, depending on the perspective in which the acts are seen. Ultimately, it is the individual’s responsibility to decide for himself the effects of his actions on himself and others.
The argument as to whether humans are born good or evil is one that been philosophized for hundreds of years by many of the world’s greatest minds. Are humans born with a particular set of qualities that define their character and how they are perceived in society? Are they born with the power to choose between good and evil? The idea of human nature relies on the theory that there is an engrained set of features which are shared by all humans—components that determine the way people reason and behave. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two opposing philosophers who have devoted many years to studying this subject. For Locke, the state of nature— the original condition of all humanity before civilization and order were established —is one where man is born free, equal and have rights that others should respect, such as the right to live and the right to liberty. These rights were essentially derived from natural law— an unwritten law in which every man must judge his/her own actions against. For Hobbes, however, the state of nature is one of constant war; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short ; it is, in Hobbes’ mind, civilization that separates humans from their primitive state. Hobbes believed that an individual’s only drive in life is to serve themselves above all else. In order to obtain this goal, humans must use conflict as a means of self-gain to take what they desire for their self-serving nature. Although Hobbes’ theory on human nature is…..…John Locke provides one of the best in depth accounts of true human nature, as he suggests that man is not born with any pre-conceived ideals, apart from being born free. Locke theorised that man was born with a clean slate, thus, they have the ability to make decisions that are e...
The concept of human nature has been theorized and debated repeatedly by philosophers throughout history; contrasting arguments regarding whether or not human beings are intrinsically competitive, or compassionate have been put forth by Thomas Hobbes and Peter Kropotkin. Understanding human nature is important in order to properly understand why human beings behave in the manner that they do, and whether or not all people instinctively are made to think similarly. Being equipped with this knowledge can allow for one to better understand events in history and different aspects of life, such as politics.
Confucius said that by personality, human beings are born with comparatively the same faculties and needs. Apparently there are exemptions at either tremendous and of the continuum, but in common human beings are all very comparable at birth. Based upon the actions of human beings, the feedback that humans receive in reaction and change in their behavior in response to the feedback, they each begin to undertake a different pathway. This deed feedback change process shapes the experiences of humans, creating their unique personal lives (Van and Bryan 11). In the illustration above, Confucius reveals that what humans have in common by personality is their potential for devel...
For the past five weeks we have studied three different but influential people in our perspective on human nature class. They are Freud, Plato and Tzu. The main discussion between all of them is nature versus nurture. I will discuss the difference between nature and nurture and then I’ll apply to each of these philosophers and how they react to it.
Law of nature is a general rule that is discovered through reason. According to Hobbes, humans’ basic instict is survive and protect his life so they should seek peace. Due to that, first law of nature is the most important one is, to seek peace and follow it. The second, giving up some rights, reciprocity to defend. By all means we can defend ourselves. This mutual transferring of rights is called social contract and its basis of the notion of moral obligation. F...
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.