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.
By looking at good and evil in human nature in “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell, one can see that both good and evil is in everyone which is important because what makes us more good or evil is created through experiences.
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
...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.
...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.
“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.
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
Inwardly examining his own nature, man would prefer to see himself as a virtuously courageous being designed in the image of a divine supernatural force. Not to say that the true nature of man is a complete beast, he does posses, like many other creatures admirable traits. As author Matt Ridley examines the nature of man in his work The Origins of Virtue, both the selfish and altruistic sides of man are explored. Upon making an honest and accurate assessment of his character, it seems evident that man is not such a creature divinely set apart from the trappings of selfishness and immorality. Rather than put man at either extreme it seems more accurate to describe man as a creature whose tendency is to look out for himself first, as a means of survival.
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...
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.
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.
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...
...ing, it is safe to say that humans are not by nature evil but instead, they are good but easily influenced by the environment and society to act in evil way and do such evil things. You choose the road you want to take; either it’s the bad road or the good road. We are all born to live a life where we will be faced with good and evil things. We were not born to be an evil or bad person, but as you get older you make that choice. What do you want to be remembered as: the good or the bad person? Choose to be good over being bad because the rewards to your family, your friend, and yourself will always outweigh the bad.