The Quintessence of Human Nature - Essay Example

The Quintessence of Human Nature Human nature refers to the distinctive personalities, comprising modes of thinking, feeling and acting, that humans tend to have purely. The inquiries of what these features are, what instigates them and how this grounds bring about, and how rigid human nature is, are amid the long-standing and most significant queries in Western Philosophy. These issues have specifically crucial insinuations in ethics, politics and theology. This is partially for the reason that human nature can be considered as both a foundation of standards of demeanor or manners of existence, as well as exhibiting impediments or limitations on having a virtuous life. Some people deemed that humans are basically evil. Hobbes believed that the state of nature was so horrible, and people in their natural state so degenerate, that any form of government was preferable to it (119). Thus, Hobbes opposed any revolution in any kind, not because he supposes that kings govern by absolute right but because he believed that authoritarian governments were mandatory to keep human beings’ worst impulses under control (119). Hobbes highlighted in his theory that the natural state of humanity is war, by which he means not necessarily armed conflict but a struggle in which each person’s interests are intrinsically opposed to everyone else’s (119). In such a state, Hobbes described human nature as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short (119). Hobbes stressed that men have no pleasure, but on the contrary, a great deal of misery, in keeping company where there is no power to over-awe them all (121). Likewise, he supposes that every man thinks that his companion should value him at the same degree he sets upon himself, and upon all signs of hatred, or undervaluing, fundamentally endeavors, as far as he dares which amid them have no common power to keep them tranquil and that power though is great enough for men to destroy each other, to extort a superior value from his critics, by harm to others for instance (121). Hobbes also cited the three principal factors of quarrel that the nature of man possesses and these are rivalry, diffidence and the drive for grandeur (121). The sense of rivalry drives men to invade for gain; they also employ the use of violence to make themselves the masters of other men’s persons, wives, children and cattle. On the contrary, the principle of diffidence highlights that men dominate others for their safety; hence, they utilize hostility to defend themselves. Conversely, the drive for grandeur motivates a man to overcome another for reputation; mainly, they use aggression for trifles such as a word, a smile, a diverse opinion and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons, or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession or their name (Hobbes 121). Just like Hobbes, the Chinese philosopher Hsun believes that man’s nature is basically evil (100). Hsun saw Confucian rites as indispensable because they restrained and redirected humanity’s innate disposition towards evil (100). Moreover, he believed that strict discipline could make human beings good despite their natural inclinations. He also argued that human beings must be forced into rectitude by strict laws and harsh penalties for disobedience (100). Man’s nature is evil and the goodness is the result of conscious activity; the nature of man is such that he is born with a fondness for profit and if he indulges this fondness, it will lead man into squabbling and conflict, and all sense of courtesy and humility will vanish (Hsun 100-101). He is born with feelings of resentment and abhorrence, and if he indulges these, they will direct him into violence and crime, and all sense of fidelity and good faith will disappear (Hsun 101). Man is born with the desires of the eyes and the ears, with a fondness for beautiful sights and sounds; if he indulges these, they will lead him into license and depravity, and all ritual principles and correct forms will be lost (Hsun 101). Hence, any man who follows his nature and spoils his emotions will inevitably become involved in bickering and discord, will defy the forms and rules of society, and will end as a criminal. Therefore, man must first be transformed by the instructions of a teacher and guided by ritual principles, and only then will he be able to observe the dictates of courtesy and humility, obey the forms and rules of society, and achieve order; it is obvious from this, then, that man’s nature is evil and that his goodness is the result of conscious activity (Hsun 101). Similarly, since man’s nature is malevolent, it must wait for the instructions of a teacher before it can become upright and for the guidance of ritual principles before it can become orderly. If men have no teachers to educate them, they will be prone towards wickedness and not towards conscientious ways; and if they have no conventional standards to direct them, they will be stubborn, vehement and lacking discipline (Hsun 101). In ancient times, the wise kings realized that man’s nature is evil and that therefore; he predisposes towards iniquity and aggression and is not decent and obedient. Accordingly, they formulated habitual customs and laid down particular regulations in order to reform man’s emotional nature and make it honorable, in order to train, alter and guide it in the proper channels (Hsun 101). Hence, any man who obeys his teacher’s instructions applies himself to his studies and put up with conventional principles may become a gentleman, but anyone who gives free rein to his emotional nature is content to indulge his obsessions, and disregards traditional tenet becomes a nasty man (Hsun 101). Obviously, man’s nature is malevolent and that his righteousness is the result of intentional activity. Every man who desires to do something noble does so exactly for the reason that his nature is evil. A man whose accomplishments are measly longs for brilliance, an ugly man longs for exquisiteness, a man in confined quarters yearns for roominess, a poverty-stricken man longs for riches and a modest man desires fame (Hsun 103). Whatever a man lacks in himself he will look for outside (Hsun 103). Many individuals, however, still believes that man is vitally noble in nature for the reason that it has been highlighted that man was created in the image and likeness of God. One of the great Chinese philosophers named Mencius deemed that man is inherently good. In the work of Mencius where he had a series of conversations with Kao Tzu who stressed that human nature was neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically evil but a blank slate just like what Locke (125) emphasized in his principle of Tabula Rasa. Kao Tzu stated that human nature could be molded into both directions (Mencius 94), Locke added that the human mind can be developed through experience either by sensation or the information acquired through the senses or by reflection or the information that the mind derives through its own operations (125). Therefore, Locke believes that human nature is the sum total of human experience (125). In Kao’s philosophy, the love that people feel toward their relatives stems from internal human nature, but the respect that people show for strangers must be conditioned by external forces (Mencius 94). On the contrary, Mencius does not agree to make this distinction and insisted that both love and respect proceed from internal feelings that form part of human being’s nature (94). Mencius compared the goodness of human nature to the flow of water, according to him; human nature is inherently good, just like water flows inherently downhill. Moreover, there is no such thing as a person who is not benevolent, just as there is no water that does not flow downhill (95). Mencius strongly suggested that every human being is capable of doing good; every individual has a heart of compassion where there is Humanity, a heart of conscience where there is Duty, a heart of reverence where there is Ritual and a heart of right and wrong where there is Wisdom and all of these had been instilled into humans from the beginning of their existence (96). Machiavelli signified a prince as the symbol of mankind, someone who yearns to inspire and though, if he is unable to win love, he avoids hatred proving also that the nature of man is fundamentally good. Jones, on the other hand, gave emphasis that human beings do not only have dispositions in a specific direction but also are disposed towards goodness or virtues. Nonetheless, each human being can be virtuous if his or her dispositions towards virtues are nurtured and developed (121). Man is part of a system, and to deserve the name of good or virtuous a creature must have all his inclinations and affections, his dispositions of mind and temper, suitable and agreeing with the good of his kind or of that system in which he is included and of which he constitutes a part (Copleston 173). Copleston highlighted that a man’s individual or private good consists in the harmony or balance of his appetites, passions and affections as under the control of reason (173). But because man is part of a system, that is, because he is by nature a social being, his affections cannot be perfectly harmonized and balanced unless they are in harmony with respect to society (Copleston 173). If a man’s regard for his private good is not only consistent with the public good but contributes to it, it is in no way blameworthy. For example, though concern for one’s own preservation is esteemed vicious if it renders one incapable of any generous or benevolent action, a well-ordered concern for their own preservation on the part of individuals to the common good. Benevolence is an integral part of morality, and it is rooted in man’s nature as part of a system, but it is not content of entire morality. The good of man is something objective, in the sense that it is that which satisfies man as man in the sense that its nature can be determined by reflection on human nature. There is that in which the nature of man is satisfied, and which alone must be his good (Copleston 173). In contemporary times, individuals continue to unravel the true essence of becoming human, whether man is intrinsically good or basically evil. The author of this paper believes that human beings are fundamentally righteous; their love for what is noble and virtuous and hatred for what is wrong is the reason behind his righteousness. It is also evident that when an individual does something unpleasant, he is ashamed of himself and feels that he has done something disapproving, he feels guilty for doing such things and always try to make up for his shortcomings. As stressed, individuals sense if they have done something good and if they have done something right, it is obvious that when individuals were able to do something praiseworthy, they feel good about themselves and bliss is apparent in their faces. On the other hand, if an individual commits a mistake, he always tries to avoid people whom he has wronged for he feels ashamed of what he has done to that specific person. In conclusion, man is innately righteous and good as proven by a lot of philosophers of various timelines and as witnessed by what is occurring in everyday life, which is a constant struggle to do something good as motivated by human’s essential being and character unless compelled by other forces to do otherwise. Works Cited Copleston, Frederick Charles. A History of Philosophy. New York: Continuum Books, 2003. Hobbes, Thomas. Human Nature. 119-123. Hsun, Tzu. “Man’s Nature is Evil.” Human Nature. 100-108. Jones, David Edward. Asian Texts—Asian Contexts: Encounters with Asian Philosophies and Religions. New York: State University of New York Press, 2010. Locke, John. Human Nature. 125-127. Machiavelli, N. The Prince. Mencius. “Man’s Nature is Good.” Human Nature. 94-98. Read More