Philosophy Vessel Forum
For the discussion of philosophy-related topics, gathering students from around the world. Anyone can register to post forum content.
People are heavily influenced by their internal and external environment, developing distinct characteristics and beliefs that are often subject to continuous change. But are there any fixed characteristics of human nature shared by everyone at birth? Can one’s environment transform this nature later on in life, or is it fundamentally immutable?
Central to this question is the famous philosophical argument of whether or not humans are naturally evil. The roots of this argument stem from Ancient Greece, where it was tackled by many, including Socrates who believed that all evil committed by man is done as a result of ignorance, not by a true desire to commit evil deeds. I think Socrates provides insight into part of this question; however, this view is problematic in several areas. Firstly, it can be used to justify acts of evil and, secondly, it ignores free will. Concerning the latter, one can still do something harmful, even with full knowledge of its effects on others. I think that his assertion that humans act in their self-interest still holds up on its own, but I believe whether this supports the notion that humans are “good” is up to the individual. One is still able to do “good” in the world even if it’s really for their benefit.
Moving to the Enlightenment, this question is further developed within the arguments of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes held the view that humans are naturally “brutish,” therefore justifying the establishment of strong central governments to control the nature of humans and civilize them. Rousseau, on the other hand, believed that society is what corrupts humans into becoming evil, such as with the ownership of private property and wealth accumulation, playing off of Socrates’ belief in how “self-interest” drives humans. Thus, Rousseau argues that government should be more free and equitable to promote this natural human behavior. Similar to Socrates, the arguments that Hobbes and Rousseau present provide a solution, but still do not provide any “proof” of what they believe human nature to be. They merely provide logic for how institutions can cause humans to deviate from their nature.
I find a more satisfying resolution to this question in the field of psychology. Early psychologists believed in John Locke’s tabula rasa, meaning “blank slate” which suggests that all infants are completely influenced by their experience with their surroundings. However, many have disagreed with this assessment due to recent results from several research studies. For example, a 2013 research project led by Harvard psychologist Felix Warneken showed how babies demonstrate altruistic behavior independent of adult influence. Furthermore, in a 2010 study at Yale, babies showed prosocial behavior, preferring a “helper” over a “hinderer.” These studies point to the fact that humans may naturally be “good” and prefer positivity over negativity. However, these findings made me think about why humans have developed this innate mindset. From an evolutionary perspective, it is more advantageous for humans to be altruistic. Supporting one another leads to greater survival of the species. However, does this mean humans are naturally good? To me, it seems that altruism comes from a place of evolutionary selfishness or, going back to Socrates, self-interest for a greater chance at survival, not necessarily because humans are “good.”
That’s as far as I have gotten with this question, and I wonder if there is ever a way to “prove” whether humans are naturally evil or not, but it may be better not knowing the answer. Would it truly be beneficial for society if it were proven that humans are naturally evil? How would that affect our relationships with others and the trust that we put in our friends and family?
Sources:
Plato. The Collected Dialogues of Plato, edited by Cairns H. and Hamilton E. Princeton. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1961.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, edited by J. C. A. Gaskin. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Penguin Books, 2004.
Warneken, Felix, and Michael Tomasello. “The emergence of contingent reciprocity in young children.” Journal of experimental child psychologyvol. 116,2 (2013): 338-50. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.06.002
Hamlin, J Kiley et al. “Three-month-olds show a negativity bias in their social evaluations.” Developmental science vol. 13,6 (2010): 923-9. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00951.x
Love the brief review from ancient to contemporary philosophy! Evil and good are often what surrounds such a question on human nature. These two may seem to be the distinctive qualities of human nature, perhaps in part because of our enduring fascination with them and (in the form of) prolific literature on them. Perhaps this fixation is a reflection of our roles as social animals, perhaps it is a reflection on some other part of our human nature. But is there more to being human than being evil or good?
Digressing from the original question a bit, I’d like to examine what you said about goodness:
One is still able to do “good” in the world even if it’s really for their benefit.
I agree that people can do good in the world, even if their intent or priority is egocentric or for their own benefit. Take environmental degradation and climate change, which call for urgent action, save catastrophic effects to the lives of living creatures on Earth. But some, like William Baxter in “People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution,” argue that all our efforts for sustainability are (and should be) for optimal human satisfaction. I think that, whether in an anthropocentric view or not, sustainability initiatives cause a net good to our world. On a smaller scale, this is similar to somebody who donates to their local homeless shelter for the sake of their reputation or some self-serving interest. They are still doing good in that they are donating and doing good for someone else. In both cases, however, the mode of carrying out such “good” may be different from that of a moral saint. A moral saint may act in ways that benefit other people rather than themselves. If whether someone decides to do a good deed is contingent on what they think is self-serving, then they would be less inclined to do good things for the sake of other people, more so than themselves. They would be less willing to go that extra step, to sacrifice, to carry through that good deed as a moral saint would.
So I agree that people are able to do good, even if their good action was done for their own sake. I don’t think the egocentric intent necessarily takes away from the altruistic, beneficial impact of the act. But, the key difference is, if the motive behind a person’s good deeds is ultimately for their own advantage, such good deeds would not be genuinely or intrinsically good, or come to the wholehearted effect of being good. It may, instead, fall short.
Still, in real life, we don’t necessarily measure the life spans or degrees or amounts or intents of a good deed. If it benefits somebody else, we take it as a good. Would a world of people who do good for the sake of themselves be “more good” than a world with moral saints, people whose every action is as morally good as possible?
Finally, to return to human nature, I think it’s appealing to believe that each person is born with a tabula rasa. Nature, our surroundings, nurture our own nature. But perhaps it can be scary, too, for babies born in apocalyptic or dystopian realities. We often say that babies are born pure, full of innocence, an innate “goodness.” Perhaps that is simply relative to us. Perhaps the tectonic forces of influences around us are what change or soil this slate of goodness.
On a fun, nostalgic note, you made me think of this childhood book I read. The story centered around an evil teacher, who would torture her students to the point of misery. At the end, when she was given a baby, she even almost threw the baby out of the window. But, thankfully, she didn’t and her reign of terror ended, as the baby’s pure goodness dispelled all her hatred and evilness. Are we all born with an innate goodness then? Or is it that the empty, innocent slate of a baby seems appealing and good relative to us?
You hit exactly what I was thinking! I really like your question about whether a world of moral saints would be “more good” than a world where good is driven by self-interest.
I don’t think this is necessarily the case, yet I still think it’s something we should strive for as a society (although utopian). Let’s take donating to the impoverished as an example. In a society driven by self-interest, one may donate because it grants them satisfaction. However, in a society of moral saints, one would still choose to donate due to the good morality of it. In both worlds, donating was done, so one could argue that society would not necessarily be better off; however, I think the case could be made that in a world of moral saints, the number of good deeds performed would be greater than that of a society driven by self-interest. If the satisfaction received from donating is less than the cost, then in a society driven by self-interest, the deed will not be done.
However, can we fault people for not choosing to conduct themselves as moral saints? No, definitely not. In a society dominated by the pressures of capitalism, being a moral saint simply isn’t possible. I do believe, though, that this isn’t an excuse to not act morally. One should strive to be as moral as is reasonably possible for their own sake and the benefit of society. Take recycling as an example. The moral action when throwing away a plastic bottle is to put it in the correct bin for recycling, yet people don’t do this. However, if everyone acted as morally as is reasonably possible, putting the plastic bottle in the right bin generates no negative consequences for that person and generates a positive externality concerning combatting pollution. In theory, this situation should be driven by an innate desire to be moral and to have a clear conscience, yet in a lot of people, this is absent. Why?
This brings me to your last question: “Or is it that the empty, innocent slate of a baby seems appealing and good relative to us?” I think this is the case because of the innate human desire for perfection. I think that we see infants in the context of the potential for good that they can do and the good that we feel as though we have lost by being members of society. I think it might even be motivated by an unconscious jealousy of their lack of responsibility in making decisions that determine their morality. This may also be motivated by the fact that they have the potential of being more moral than us which is appealing.
Where does this leave us, though? I think it shows us the importance of raising the next generation and providing them with the right mental framework for them to be driven to make moral decisions like recycling. I think this should motivate us to be involved and to care about raising the next generation to be more moral. However, some people don’t feel this motivation. Why? Can we fault them for not thinking this way? Finally, to what extent may someone with low morality perpetuate that level of morality in their children?
I do agree a world of moral saints would be better. Society being driven by self-interest, though, is natural I think — anthropomorphism or egocentrism is a characteristic of being human. No matter who we are, we have the instincts of humans and think and act in our own, self-centered perspectives. But behaving morally or thinking with a moral dimension pulls our perspective outwards, drawing attention away from our usual, “selfish” considerations and inward thinking. What we think is right and wrong is shaped by our external surroundings and culture. So if morality arose from the nature of human society, should it be something done for the sake of the self?
I think egocentrism mainly overwhelms people’s (arguably) innate desire to be moral. People prioritize their own livelihoods over something they see as more trivial and less relevant to their day-to-day lives. This applies to the case of pollution. Many people believe that pollution is not a serious issue, as it is a broad, global issue, and they themselves don’t seem affected by it. And to combat pollution, people often need to change or sacrifice their habits and are reluctant to do so (even if it’s something as simple as recycling). This doesn’t cover all the bases of why someone wouldn’t want to combat pollution, but I think the key is prioritization of oneself and their belief that acting morally in this way is a threat to their familiar way of life.
Ironically, we return full circle to the original question. Perhaps one of the innate characteristics of being human is egocentrism? But I think people like moral saints would probably be good counterexamples of the immutability of this characteristic.
I do think there are many reasons why we (generally) like babies a lot. But I’m missing the link between our liking for babies and our “innate human desire for perfection.” Do you mean that babies are perfect, and how so? Why do you think there is such a human desire, is it really innate?
This may also be motivated by the fact that they have the potential of being more moral than us which is appealing.
That may be true, but babies have the potential of being more of anything, really. They also have the potential of being more immoral than us. This made me think of the funny reality in which morality was genetic. I don’t think that, on the individual scale, a parent’s “low morality” determines that of their child’s, as directly as genes. Although parents certainly play a large role in shaping their children’s behavior and beliefs, including their sense of morality, I think morality is learned from the broad cultural and social influences, which extend past the home. That’s why parents are so worried about the uncontrollable nature of the internet and how it exposes their children to a variety of influences, possibly dangerous or immoral. So I definitely agree with you, that we should look out and care for future generations. Parents and similar figures can help direct their moral compasses to somewhat ensure they don’t point southward. Why people don’t feel motivation to help pave a moral path for their children may also stem from an inability to do so. It’s also an issue regarding responsibility, which some people may deeply feel and others may be totally apathetic about.
On a side note and something similar to the discussion in Plato’s Protagoras, is morality really teachable? You can provide me with examples of moral and immoral acts, but can you teach the essence of being moral? (Perhaps, with all our digressions, I ought to split the topic here and create a new one…)
Values can shift dramatically through time. An individual’s moral attitude, influencing their children or the people around them, may or may not be representative of society’s general shift in moral values. There are both broad patterns and complex forces of tension in society underpinning moral systems, many of which are out of our control. But I’d like to think we have some agency and influence, too. I think we should do what we can, the most we can, as best as we can, to perpetuate goodness in the world.
