Claim
Human nature is essentially bad.
Explanation: The claim itself is
simple enough to understand, but the important part is the word, “essentially”.
Human nature is removed from our individual thoughts and is a universal
definition for what we are. This word is meant to drive out any specific
examples and only focus on the bigger picture.
Reasons for My Claim
(1) World Wars
World wars, the bane of each
generation, are the ultimate reason for the claim of nature being bad. It is a
species-wide decision to kill each other over ideological differences. Whether
the “righteous” side is actually righteous or not is beside the point. On both
sides, there are atrocities that are being committed for the sake of winning
the war. Often we see war as a way to bind us together in the face of an
unspeakable evil (US against Hitler). But our nature is such that we will stoop
to the level of the evil demagogues we hope to fight (US dropping the atom bombs
in Japan). We rationalize mass killing and try to attach a moral standard to it
by way of the “end justifying the means.” This can never be any more correct.
War, as evil as it is, is unavoidable because of our nature. Our need to
retaliate and dominate is insatiable, especially when provoked.
(2) Poverty
The existence of, not individual,
but systemic poverty is another purveyor of the claim that human nature is bad.
The fact that entire cultures are born and bred in this constant state of
denial speaks to the increasing disparity of those who have too much and those who
have too little. Now, this is not to say that those who earn their money, or
are rich, are inherently bad people; it is that we are all bad people. The
inherent “badness” that we see in rich people is present in the poorest person;
the reason that the rich person is seen and criticized is because they are rich. The fact of the matter is that when one is
rich, it is because their ideas or talents coincided with the instincts of
their nature to dominate the space they are aiming for. Every successful company
has left a thousand unsuccessful ones in its wake and every rich person leaves
a million poor people wishing that they were the ones on the throne. Why else
would gangs be such a huge problem? The need to be on top and be in charge of
their poverty is what drives these young and women in to high-risk lifestyles.
Our competitive, and damaging, nature forces us to make these decisions (i.e.
joining gangs, dealing drugs) that attempt to rationalize our shortcomings.
(3) Genocide
Possible the most heinous, and
obvious, reason is the blatant denial that some humans have toward other human
life. Because human nature is bad, does not mean that we forfeit the right to
our lives. One of the most famous examples of genocide was the Holocaust.
Despite targeting Jews, Hitler’s regime also targeted anyone who was perceived
to be different and a threat to the established order of Nazi Germany. The
genocide was rationalized that the removal of “these people” was a matter of
purification; almost as if Germany was the spirit and the removal of these
minorities was cathartic. Our nature is to paint ourselves in a better light
than the people around us. We never want to believe that we are the bad guys in
our story. The scary part of the Holocaust was not the killings, but the
realization that the people of Germany were not some factory-bred freaks that
were pre-determined killers, but rather family men and women that shared the
view that Germany should be pure. We see this type of thinking even now with
people that are against immigration, and when inevitably they lose their fight,
their job losses and other financial dilemmas are blamed on the incoming
foreigners. People fear what they see to be a threat to their own personal
happiness – immigrant or native – and the actions that come out of this
irrational fear is due to our innate nature.
(4) Evolution/Natural Selection
While the previous reason
supporting my claim draw inspiration from real life events, this reason – the
most important of the four – is the basis by which we can calculate what
exactly is our nature. The reason
that I am here at this very moment typing this sentence is due to my genes
being favorable and beating the other competing characteristics. Humanity’s
struggle has been uphill since our first branch that separated us from monkeys.
The toughest were meant to survive while the weakest were meant to deteriorate
in to extinction. Now, in our world where social problems have become an issue
that we can fix, along with advances in medical care, the struggle that our
long lost forefathers faced on a daily basis is irrelevant to us now. Of
course, this is not to discount the war-torn countries that still face to life
and death situations every day, but for the average American we live in a
relative state of comfort. It is important to understand then, that this
comfort and stat of being content can only come about through the vile actions
of our human nature. Because our human nature is bad, we are able to survive
the plague; our tenacity to keep moving is what defines the human race, and in
an objective sense, it is bad. It is a thoroughly selfish desire through which
we have survived and although it is bad, it is our nature.
Reasons Against My Claim
(I) Technological Revolution
There has been, at least in the
last century, nothing as pure in though and reason as the technological
revolution. This was a movement that wasn’t started to satiate our hunger for
domination or control, but to satisfy our curiosity. Kids growing up who wanted
to go to space became the next aeronautical engineers in pursuit of their life
long ambition. At the heart of every innovator and creator is the soul of
child, trying to make sense of his or her surroundings. This feeling of
curiosity that drove this revolution is the purest form of human intervention;
it was not because of our need to show that we are the best, that Steve Jobs
started Apple. Eventually, it became a competition – as everything does in the
economy – but the original inspiration behind his company was to simplify and
understand human existence. Whatever we use the technology for (warfare,
sabotage, surveillance, etc.) does not correspond with the human nature that
created the product or idea. The original makes proves that human nature is
good, as it creates to answer and does not create to win.
(II) Progressive Movement
The progressive movement, at first,
can be seen as a reason that human nature is bad. The very reason that women
had to march against the government or why African Americans were not even
considered people should be why human nature is bad, but it is not. See, with
the progressive movement, it was not about exposing human nature as evil, but
it was about information. When information about the treatment of fellow
Americans is spread widely throughout the land, people naturally have the
inclination to say something about it. They might live in ignorance for a
while, but once the veil is lifted, the human race will go to the ends of the
Earth to defend their own people. The whole reason that legislation was passed
was due to the successful efforts of the progressives to inform the people that
they need to act – and they did.
(III) Charities
Our desire to give back and make
amends, or just give back to give, is the most blatant indication that human
nature is not bad. If human nature were bad, then there would be no charities
or hospitals in war-torn areas. The fact of the matter, is that while the
decisions of the few in terms of causing strife and harm are the reason why human
nature is bad, how does that explain the sacrifice of millions of people and
their personal lives to go help people that could little matter to them in the
long run? This compulsion stems from a good human nature; if human nature were
bad, we would be completely self-centered and independent of each other.
Humans’ capacity to come together in the face of calamity is the biggest
physical indicator of human nature being a characteristic of good.
(IV) Moral Capacity vs. Instinct
When one says that human nature is
bad, they are not saying that we are bad, but they are defining our instinct as
bad. There is a difference between human instinct and human nature; human
instinct is a part of our nature but it does not solely describe what we are.
What truly defines what we are, is our moral capacity and our ability to deny
our instincts. The rest of the animal kingdom does not have this ability; they
do not have the ability to reason. We alone have this ability and because we
alone have it, it is inherent that it must be part of our nature. To deny that
our capacity to do good and triumph over our instincts has no base in fact;
this capacity, and the actions that stem from our reason, show more than
anything that human nature is more than just primal domination.
Decision
After examining both sides of the
issue, my final decision would be to still stick with my original claim. Human
nature has the potential for greatness. This is something that no one can deny.
Yet, this potential for greatness and great things is born out of our ability
to reason and come to a moral conclusion. This moral conclusion is not,
however, our nature. Our nature by itself is selfish, dominating, and
relentless. The only way to temper human nature and attempt to make it good is
by moral philosophy. So many of the philosophers that we have read have pointed
out first what makes men evil, and through their philosophies, attempt to see
what can alter our nature. It is through this eternal question of what can we
do to make ourselves better that philosophers derive their inspiration, and
thus we can conclude that if our soul is something needs to be improved, its
original state is one of defect.
Rebuttals
Counter-Argument: (1)
World wars are not a good example
of why human nature is bad because they are such isolated incidents. One common
theme after a world war is the shared repentance that all sides share. After
World War 2, Germany was forced to pay reparations and to this day, the
students in German classrooms are taught that the Hitler regime was the biggest
national disgrace. The individual’s capacity for his/her nature being good
outweighs that of selfish politicians and their schemes.
Counter-Argument: (2)
Poverty for most is just the way of
the world. There will always be those at the top of the food chain and those at
the bottom. Just because there exists such a system does not mean that human
nature is bad. Rather, the systemic poverty is a result of the good of human
nature, our triumphs, winning; imagine if the entire world were equal, our race
would have no desire to progress if there was forced wealth equality. We are
inbuilt with the competitive drive to succeed and saying that our need to
compete is “bad” is stretching the truth. Our need to compete does not make us
bad – it keeps us alive.
Counter-Argument: (3)
The reaction to genocide is the
biggest counter-argument against why it is an indicator of human nature. These
events and so isolated and so narrowly defined that when it happens, the rest
of the world has the same reaction. As seen in World War 2, other countries
will do everything in their power to make sure that those atrocities stop. This
collective hatred of humanity for subjugation of another people is an
indication that human nature wants the best for other humans.
Counter-Argument: (4)
Evolution can explain the way we
are but it cannot explain our choices. The new definition of our nature is such
that we are defined by our choices. People have the ability to deny their
natures. We see this everyday; a person with a predisposition to kill can stay
that urge by engaging in other practices. So, if it follows that we can deny
certain things that are inbuilt, and then we can deny that human nature is bad.
Because of its potential for good, saying evolution makes human nature bad, is
outdated.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment