The true nature of man is one of today’s most controversial discussions worldwide. This discussion has produced some of the most in depth scientific experiments the world has seen. But, the question of whether man is born good or bad still stands. Arguments could be made either way, but the science of today and the mindset of many argue that when someone is born they are born without hate and are innocent of all foul thoughts. Therefore people are born good.
When faced with the questions of human nature, scientists were eager to put their theories to the test. To test pure human nature there was only one subject that fit their requirements: babies. Babies have the most innocent minds of anyone, therefore scientists came up with many different tests to figure out if their behaviors leaned good or bad. Psychology researcher, Felix Warneken produced many ways to test the capacity of altruism in children as young as 18 months. Altruism is the feelings and behaviors that show a desire to help other people and a lack of selfishness. In one of Warneken’s many tests he either struggled with a simple task or “accidently” messed it up to see how the baby would respond. He did this test with 24 kids and all of them offered to help him within seconds. Warneken was careful in these experiments not to ask for help or say “thank you” when he was offered help as not to condition the children to expect praise for their actions, demonstrating that the children’s actions were genuinely good.
The idea that people are born good is not new however. Jean-Jaccques Rousseau was born in 1712 and was on the most philosophical men of his time. He had a basic thesis that claimed, “Man is naturally good, and anything that is not natural has corrupted us ...
... middle of paper ...
... of one’s behavior. Therefore if everybody in the world has a conscience then everybody has a good part in them that intends to guide them on the right path.
Many people will argue that when someone is born they are a clean slate and therefore neutral in the discussion of good and evil. However, a clean slate is often referred to as something pure and new. If someone is a clean slate, then that means they contain no bad intentions or hate, ultimately making their nature good.
Human behavior is forever evolving and changing but one thing stays the same throughout this: human nature is a stagnant good in everybody. Humans are all different and all develop different behaviors based on their surroundings, but science and intuition have proven that each man possesses good and altruism is the core of what makes someone human. Without good, man can not exist, only beasts.
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.
The lines that define good and evil are not written in black and white; these lines tend to blur into many shades of grey allowing good and evil to intermingle with each another in a single human being. Man is not inherently good or evil but they are born innocent without any values or sense of morality until people impart their philosophies of life to them. In the words of John Locke:
Born to be Good? A timeless question that continues to stump psychologists. Are humans born good? Do we learn evil traits or are they imprinted into our minds as we come into the world? In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, written in the early 1800’s, this same question comes into play.
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 is where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be.
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.
In a Man 's Nature is Evil, men are depicted as evil since birth. Hsün Tzu declares that "Man 's nature is evil; goodness is the result of conscious activity" (Tzu 84). He speaks about how men are born with fondness for certain aspects of life such as profit, envy and beauty. Consequently, obtaining these aspects would lead to a life of violence, crime and recklessness. According to Tzu, men are born with a pleasure for profit. However, this need for riches will cause a man to have conflicts and altercations in his life. This is due to the fact that man will have such a great urge to obtain profit in life that he will go to all means necessary, including violence. Man is also born with envy and hate; it is not something he is taught. The internal struggle these two attributes have to offer will once
People perpetrate seemingly selfless acts almost daily. You see it all over the news; the man who saved that woman from a burning building, the mother who sacrificed herself to protect her children from the bomb blast. But how benevolent are these actions? Are these so-called “heroes” really sacrificing themselves to help others? Until recently, it was the common belief that altruism, or selfless and unconditional kindness, was limited primarily to the human race. However, within the last century, the works of several scientists, most prominently George Price, have provided substantial evidence concluding that altruism is nothing more than a survival technique, one that can be calculated with a simple equation.
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.
Some people are mostly good, some are mostly bad, but none are good or evil.
Is man naturally good or is he evil? This question has not only been pondered by countless philosophers, but also by religious leaders around the world. Most often a single religious faith believes in either one or the other, and often these beliefs tend to create a certain world-view which dictates much of the faith. However, in some cases such as the one I will be discussing, two religious dignitaries do not agree and the repercussions of this can be found throughout the religion. The two men are Mencius, an early pupil of Confucius and Hsun Tzu, a later follower of the same faith. Mencius believed that each man, born of woman, would be naturally good and Hsun Tzu believed almost the complete opposite. Through Mencius and Hsun Tzu’s differing beliefs on human nature a completely different world view was formed for each and it’s effect on their ideas and more importantly a young religion were apparent.
...there is good and bad in everyone. It is just the way the world works. In all cultures, there is the good, bad, and the ugly. Each person in each culture has their faults, but also at the same time, they have their nobility and heroic side.
Rushton, J. Philippe. “Is Altruism Innate?” Psychological Inquiry 2.2 (1991): 141-143. Web. 5 Feb. 2012.
In today’s society, one is constantly surrounded by individuals with different behaviors. Some will sacrifice his or her life for a complete stranger. However, there is some individuals who would take advantage of the weak and poor for his or her own personal gain. Now the question arises, what makes human beings behave the way they do? Being the topic of conflict of psychology for years, one usually turns to the nature verses nurture theory for the answer to that question. Some believes that a person is born with a certain personality, others believe it is an individual’s atmosphere that determines his or her attitude, and some even trusts the idea that it is a combination of genes and environment that dictates the conduct of an individual.
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.
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.