Evil And Angel Nature Of Human Being - Essay Example

? Introduction The debate of evil and angel nature of human being is an ancient pondering. Different philosophical schools of thoughthave explicated their views in varied approaches. It is normally believed that human beings are created having good and bad characteristics at the same time. The prominent characteristics are identified by the environment in which an individual is nurtured. Nevertheless sometimes nature takes over the nurture but it happens seldom. The most observed and admitted phenomenon is stated by the impact of after birth growth, environment and nurture. This clearly implies the fact that both of the paths are primarily inducted in human nature but the prominent one is influenced through his or her worldly learning (Nietzsche and Faber, 1998). It can be deduced that human beings are not bad from their core; rather they are created by inducting good nature among them. Scientific Arguments In lieu of asking the least fundamental question of searching the fact about the nature of newborn babies, it is exemplified that the mind of a baby has been just similar to an empty showcase. In the empty showcase, the baby will retain the things which will be gifted to him or her in the new world. However it is medically proven that babies take the influence of the outer world before even the mother gives birth to him. Human children get direct influence from the nature of parents, grandparents, outer environment and from the mood of their mother when they are inside their mothers’ bellies. The study of human genetics reveals the fact from the study of DNA and genes. However it might also go opposite as well because it all depends over the strength of influential factors on pre birth child psychology (Ridley, 2003). Motivation behind Evil Acts Human children are as wonderful creature as they have least cultural influence at the time of birth however it goes embossed with the passage of time. Local experimental research had been conducted by the scholars of Yale University. The results explained that kids of little ages also have a comparative sense of good or bad and they are aware to prefer good over bad. However this is the part of learning which is taught to them. Still the question of evil doings arises as many of people in this world indulge in evil conducts by knowing the consequences and poisonous upshots. There might be two reasons of continuing evil conducts which are empirically examined and proven i.e., Consequences are not directly linked to harm their interests second, they are enforced to continue what they have been doing because the consequences are significant enough to harm them sufficiently. It is seldom observed that people continue bad doings while they were unknown as they are used to do well usually. Mostly this case is observed with younger beings or in religious or legal matters on the basis of lack of related knowledge (Stafford, 2013). What Makes a Man Evil? There are several psychological factors as well which are enough significant to change the behavior of an individual. For instance jealousy is a factor which further turns into revenge and conspiracy sort of evil in the society. In today’s modern and contemporary environment, everybody struggles to run faster in the race of social class, fashion, income and knowledge. Jealousy is the least damaging stage of social evils for example, after seeing someone wearing an expensive wrist watch you suddenly think, “would that it was mine” (Nietzsche and Faber, 1998). This further makes you urged to find some way in order to be able to buy such an expensive range of routine wear accessories. To make life style better and compete with others, several people ignore the limitations of good and bad. This implies that people are not naturally wrong or bad but some stimulus can make them inclined towards the wrong conducts. Most of the time these wrong conducts are backed by heavy rewards for example, a person reveals organizational secrets to any third party or rival in order to get money from them. Similarly people are found indulged in acts of illegal gifting and bribery to get the things done in an inappropriate way or earn money from dishonest sources. Evidence reveals that crime and corruption ratio is more in deprived or undeveloped geographical areas of the world for example, the countries rated as third world countries where people are living even below the poverty line. Situations, events, stimulus and several other attractive things are present which make a person evil creature. People are often in search of short cuts in order to become wealthy and well off (Stafford, 2013). Philosophical Myths Other creations than human beings which are characterized as evil creatures, include Satan, ghosts, ogres and giants. They also have influence over the nature of humans. Many myths are famous that reveal about the great battles between evil and good. Nobody knows about the truthfulness in such of the mythological stories in today’s world. The claim of good or bad does not have a predefined scale that could measure the quantity of goodness or evil in a person. It is purely defined as a subjective theoretical and societal thought (Nietzsche and Faber, 1998). Am I ready to help? Nietzsche (1998) suggests that human beings are eager to help others in the short run. It shows the positive element in human nature. But this implies to the intension as similar to the event of intending something without practically implementing over the thought came into the mind. Psychology experts at Harvard University further went through the experiments of the empirical theory in real time indigenous milieu by testing the helping phenomenon when anyone sees someone in difficulty. Through detailed survey and interviews with ordinary people of different age groups, they were now able to draw some favorable conclusion. They deduced that when anyone sees someone in a difficult situation, the first thought that comes into an individual’s mind is positive about the help. He or she suddenly thinks that the person should be helped but several elements stop him or her to do so. There might be many factors that prevent a person to go to somebody’s help for example, he was getting late from office, he did not have enough resources, he suddenly remembered that the person did not help him when he himself was in difficulty, he was not interested to interfere in another matter, he was hesitating to offer to help or he was afraid of the stranger as he had listened about several incidents of terrorism etc. The above stated situations were revealed by the interviewees. The experts further explored that it takes as short as only ten seconds to decide whether to go for help or not and in 70 percent cases, people find them unable to go forward and share the problem. Still it really does not mean that the people who did not help others were bad from their core as the first glance appeared to the mind was positive. Further situations were not favorable that prevented the individual to be helped (Berne, 1964). Impact of Societal Practices In the same way, influence on the human beings to be good or bad comes through media as well. The role of media has been proven a significant stimulus to affect people’s behaviors and attitudes. The faces of media have been altered with the passage of time. The debate of violent behavior or being epic in young early teens is too wide and conclusive. For instance, children have different choices as some kids like Harry Potter as a hero; at the same time some will be in favor of Malfoy as a foeman. This again implies to the nurture and personal interests. Violence through video games, action movies and crime news coverage is empirically proven in positive means. The age of ignorance is the time when people usually choose their track unconsciously by getting the influence from the outer world without being what they actually are. Family setups are meant to be influential but the rate is not significant. For instance it was reported that a son of a priest was found indulged in a case of gang rape cum murder while drunk (Stafford, 2013). Selfishness Argument and Answer Hobbes (1684) argues that people are selfish by nature and they do not have care for other for the sake of humanity. He further reveals that the human creature is always looking for its own interests and without that a person is never going to provide benefit anyone else in his surroundings. However this was the neoclassical concept which had been believed for a long time until the new researches were not taking place to grab the new philosophies. It was a negative concept which has been completely proven wrong (Naville, 1996). It is because selfishness in a human being cannot be generalized as because when he was a kid, his mother provided him with basic necessities without any expectations of return or benefits. Similarly at the same time, he was not selfish or not aware of what selfishness actually are. It is all what he learnt from the circumstances he encountered afterwards and it gradually became the part of his permanent behavior. The cognitive psycho theory argues that a permanent change in human behavior comes because of a gradual change in his attitude which is directly influenced by his learning and external environment. A time comes when he starts thinking himself at right place however most of the people had started realizing about their sins in later age. Those sins were either committed unconsciously or thinking one standing on the right place. But later, the sins came into comparative conscious state and the person automatically became able to understand the wrong doing position held by him in the past. This also does not happen to everyone but it is also a possible situation that might occur at a later age. This provides a solid counter argument that a person is neither negative nor positive at its core and it cannot be generalized. The positivity and negativity is an instinct of external factors and becomes the permanent part of psychology with learning and development (Nietzsche and Faber, 1998). Social Morality Indeed Social set up and community guidelines are also important to play their roles in person’s personality building. A strict and clear lawful community will influence positive learning over people so that they will commit positive conducts. If they find themselves failed to do positive activities, they must be taught to remain neutral as being not harmful to anyone in anyway. Hence flexibility in morality and social setup invites several societal melodies. On the other hand a transparent, coherent and concrete system of code of conduct may put estoppels over the social evils. Systems of reward and punishment must be clearly defined and a mutually cooperative and collective social set up comes into being (Williams, 1972). Wrapping Up In a nutshell, the overall debate concludes that people do not have any characteristic of birth, all what they show in their behaviors is further learning in the overall environment in which they are brought up. The factors of jealousy and helpfulness are also related to situational judgment and people are used to decide on the spot whether to go for it or not. Inherent goodness or evil is not a rule of thumb because a son of priest can also be a rapist and murderer. A collective, clear, transparent and strict moral set ups are suitable to support morality in a true sense. Otherwise the society will remain a victim of poisonous social melodies ever after. Many social scientists have provided significant theories which elucidate the arguments by empirically tested instances. Most prominent of them is Rousseau (1971) who gave a concrete idea of neutrality in baby creation. If the society was lawless and permissive, every person would have been corrupt and irresponsible because there was no social, legal or ethical binding to confine the behavior accordingly in order to remain socialized and humanist. In this way, the idea of critically being exactly positive or negative at the core is not going to emboss its effects sufficiently as because people act according to what they feel is good or according to the behavior they have learnt to show. References Berne, E. (1964). Games people play: the psychology of human relationships.. New York: Grove Press. Naville, P. (1996). Thomas Hobbes. Paris: Plon. Nietzsche, F. W., & Faber, M. (1998). Beyond good and evil prelude to a philosophy of the future. New York: Oxford University Press. Ridley, M. (2003). Nature via nurture: genes, experience, and what makes us human. New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins. Rousseau, J. (1971). The confessions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Raleigh, N.C.: Alex Catalogue. Stafford, T. (2013, January 14). BBC - Future - Health - Are we naturally good or bad? . BBC - Homepage. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130114-are-we-naturally-good-or-bad Williams, T. R. (1972). Introduction to socialization; human culture transmitted.. Saint Louis: Mosby. Read More