The Nature of the Law of Nature
Humans are complex beings. They adapt, learn, have intelligence and free will, can reason, feel emotions, and have a conscience. Although such qualities and attributes raise humans above the rest of other life forms, it is questionable as to where the idea of a conscience and emotions come from. What exactly is it that stimulates our responses to certain situations and problems? The answer lies in human nature. What we as humans feel is right or wrong is somehow dictated by something beyond merely the individual. The underlying question, therefore, becomes what that outside influence is: nature, our inherent human qualities themselves, or some man-made composite of other people and experiences? In more specific terms, the question is whether or not our morality and our adherence to a moral code is something fixed and constant throughout humanity itself. Francis Bacon stated that nature must first be obeyed before it can be put to use, and the same concept applies to humans. Before any judgment can be made about people, groups, ideas, or beliefs, one must first have a standard to compare this behavior to. If there is no real Law of Nature, then no standard is set, and one thing cannot be compared to another because the standard is only set by opinion, not by fact. In reality, the Law of Nature is a reality which is independent of man-made ideas, although the way in which humans think is definitely influenced by the environment.
Let us first address the issue of the impact of the environment on a person’s moral development. In Bonfire of the Vanities, author Tom Wolfe quotes physiologist José Delgado, saying that “each person is a transitory composite of materials borrowed from the environment” (Wolfe 512). This concept is significant because it demonstrates that people take from the environment certain aspects which eventually come to mold their characters. The idea of a composite also shows that we are not merely independent individuals, but, as O’Malley describes, we are social beings (O’Malley 104). However, this does not mean that our inherent human nature is dictated by the environment; remember, Delgado says that the composite is transitory. If each person is not constant, then that person’s instincts do not change, merely his own rationale. C.S. Lewis described the scenario of a man who sees a drowning person and has two instincts: to help him or to go on, and usually the instinct which is more self-protective is stronger (Lewis Ch.
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.
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.
For as long as I can remember, my childhood dream has always been wanting to become a veterinarian. While other kids were outside having fun at the playground, I was at the library reading books and learning about the different animals. However, as I matured, I realized that being a veterinarian isn’t just about caring for and assisting injured animals. Being a veterinarian means having the ability to make quick decisions in stressful situations, showing complete dedication and passion to this profession, and being able to effectively communicate to pet owners.
One of the most persistently asked and perpetually unanswered questions in psychology is the question of morality. What is it, how does it develop, and where does it come from? A basic definition of morality is “beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior” (Merriam-Webster). Based on the definition, the question then becomes even more complicated; How do people decide what is right and what is wrong? Research has examined this from many different angles, and two distinct schools of thought have emerged. One centers on the Lockian idea of children as blank slates who must be taught the difference between right and wrong and what it means to be moral, while the other espouses a more Chomskian perspective of a preset system of basic rules and guidelines that needs only to be activated. So what does this mean for humans and humanity? Are we born tabula rasa or are we born with an innate sense of good and evil? For those researching this topic, the question then becomes how to most effectively theorize, experiment and interpret human morality.
In a survey conducted by the National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center on high school students it was found that more than one in five teens contemplated suicide, almost one in six had arranged plans for suicide, and about one in 12 had followed through with their plans, in the previous year.
Some people believe what is morally right is liked by people because it is morally right, and others believe morality is determined by what society likes. In order to say which option is correct, it is necessary to distinguish them from each other. The first possibility suggests that moral values are universal and, that actions are unarguably either righteous or unrighteous. Additionally, it implies that humans don 't choose what is moral or immoral. Accordingly, morality is a predetermined law that humans follow simply because it is innately right. On the other hand, the second possibility suggests that people decide what is morally right or wrong. This means morality only exists within the constrains of society and the mind. In other words, the only reason something is right or wrong is because a person or group thinks it is
Depression in teenagers is a very serious condition. Many are thought to be attention seekers, moody or just going through a phase typical of the age, yet, each year the amount of teenagers committing suicide is alarming. Suicide is actually the third leading cause of death in people between the ages of 10 and 24 years old at a rate of approximately 4,600 deaths a year (Pappas, 2016). More teenagers die from committing suicide than from car accidents, cancer, heart disease, stroke, pneumonia, AIDS and influenza combined.
Today, teenage suicide is considered a big issue in America. Many factors contribute to this action whether it is overdosing on alcohol and drugs, cutting ones wrist with a sharp object, or pulling the trigger of a gun to put an end to their existence. Suicide is on the rise due to many factors such as family issues, social issues, and psychological issues. Increased education and awareness for the victims and their families could drastically reduce the number of suicide attempts yearly.
Whether put simply or scrutinized, morality cannot be defined simply by looking at it from one or two perspectives. One must acknowledge the fact that there are several different factors that affect judgment between “right” and “wrong”. Only after taking into account everything that could possibly change the definition of righteousness can one begin to define morality. Harriet Baber, a professor at San Diego State University, defines morality as “the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct”. Baber refers to morality as a process or method when she calls it a “system”. In saying “we” she then means to say that this concept does not only apply to her but also to everyone else. Through morality, according to her, one can look at an action, idea, or situation and determine its righteousness and its consequences.
Why are teens trying to kill themselves? Why are these statistics present? These are the big questions. Some teens try to commit suicide to escape bad situations that seem impossible; some try to escape feelings of rejection, hurt or loss.
Freud’s conception of the mind is characterized by primarily by dynamism, seen in the distribution of psychic energy, the interplay between the different levels of consciousness, and the interaction between the various functions of the mind. The single function of the mind, which brings together these various aspects, is repression, the maintenance of what is and what isn’t appropriately retained in the conscious mind.
Throughout the history of human existence, there have always been questions that have plagued man for centuries. Some of these questions are “what is the meaning of life” and “which came first, the chicken or the egg”. Within the past 400 years a new question has surfaced which takes our minds to much further levels. The question asked is whether nature or nurture has more of an impact on the growing development of people. It is a fact that a combination of nature and nurture play important roles in how humans behave socially. However, I believe that nature has a more domineering role in the development of how people behave in society with regards to sexual orientation, crimes and violence and mental disorders.
The most obvious reason that the environment has moral significance is that damage to it affects humans. Supporters of a completely human-centered ethic claim that we should be concerned for the environment only as far as our actions would have a negative effect on other people. Nature has no intrinsic value; it is not good and desirable apart from its interaction with human beings. Destruction and pollution of the environment cannot be wrong unless it results in harm to other humans. This view has its roots in Western tradition, which declares that “human beings are the only morally important members of this world” (Singer p.268).
For years, the matter of morality has been a widespread topic of discussion, debating whether it is a product of our chemical composition or our free will. Before I get started, I will provide you with what I believe morality exactly is. Ethics is a “code of conduct,” much like a University’s student handbook, but applied to the expected morality of a larger group or society. Morals are how individuals choose to interpret and follow such code. Just as a student may not always act in complete obedience with the student handbook, humans also deviate from their ethical codes of conduct. Therefore, morals are the set of a person’s specific values and opinions formed by their interpretation of their society’s code of ethics. With this version of the meaning of morality, I believe that individual free-will and the neurological hardwiring in which we are born with both significantly influence the development of our mature human morality due to a variety of factors including: human brain development, differences in our upbringing and education, which give rise to disparities in matters such as what is considered right or wrong, decision-making processes, and our ultimate behavioral choices, and lastly, because morality cannot exist if based solely on human nature, it must also involve our own self-determination. My position that morality is not the product of one side of the debate or the other, but rather arises through the integration of both components, allows for a complete demonstration of morality in its entirety. In this system, the ambiguities present in the one-sided arguments are removed, making it easy to link any individual’s action to their personal moral accountability.
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, 25 suicides are attempted for each one completed. (Hogarty 1) Suicide is becoming a problem. You can tell when someone is contemplating suicide by a change in their behavior. Students who are bullied might become antisocial. Students who have relationship problems at school and at home might become depressed. It is seen daily on social media and the news. Suicide doesn’t belong to just a certain age of students. Students who mention to their peers that they have thoughts of suicide often speak with a counselor or therapist regarding their thoughts. However, many students do not have the correct training or classes to discuss suicide with their fellow classmates. According to the New York Daily News, “Nearly 1 in 6 high school students has