The Goodness of Man
In participating in any serious inquiry of philosophy, one must first evaluate the relevant concepts of the topic being explored. Such is the case with the ancient question of human goodness — “Is human nature good or bad?” To be better equipped to recognize what the question demands, one should analyze the meaning of ‘human nature’ and ‘human goodness’. I understand ‘human nature’ in the Marcus Aurelius’ perspective of the stoic life; that we function in accordance to nature when we are appropriately social, that we can achieve happiness by living life guided by reason since that is what nature has given us, that we have intuitive moral senses as a component of Universal order.(1) In that we are social, we are creatures of empathy; compelled towards one another in responding to mutual needs and calls for altruism. As regards to ‘human goodness’, it is equitable to ‘human nature’ in the sense that living in accordance to nature (as beings of empathy, perception and other emotions with reason [mankind’s defining characteristic] as the guide to our conduct) means living in accordance to goodness.(2)
On the subject of humans being bad, it is only when we deviate from nature that we act immorally. That is, failing to use the faculty of reason; which we can be guilty of when we fall victims to the pursuit of instant gratification or meaningless pleasure. When men steal, kill, lie or hurt, it is a result of lack of reason and emotional balance, both components of man’s natural disposition. To act badly is to act contrary to our nature. Of course, bad people exist; one who argues so could easily point to the legacies of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin as examples of this. But those people did not represent human nature, because they were not living in accordance with it –their actions were committed in disjunction with the senses of empathy and sympathy, human nature’s most powerful emotions.
Human nature is good, even though human behavior may not always reflect this. But often it does; during the September 11 terrorist attacks in Manhattan, when firemen rushed inside collapsing buildings to save any one they could, during the height of Hitler’s power when certain brave German citizens would shelter potential holocaust victims from the Nazis, during the tragedy of the Rwandan genocide, when a brave hotel manager protected more than a thousand refugees from slaughter at the hands of a Hutu militia.
These are all well-documented examples of the bravery and altruism inherent in our nature.(3) Of course, one could point out that in all of these examples, those acting on behalf of good were doing so against the forces of evil also committed by human beings. In all these demonstrations of selflessness and sacrifice are also examples of egoism and evil; the terrorists responsible for the collapsing buildings in 9/11, the Fascists searching for the sheltered Jews, the Hutu militia murdering thousands of innocent Tutsis. In response to this, I refer to Mahatma Gandhi’s inspirational saying- “You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is like an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.”
It is true that Mahatma Gandhi lived concurrently with Adolf Hitler and that mother Teresa lived concurrently with Pol Pot, but to find a clearer perspective of human nature one could look beyond the legacies of these four historic figures and study the public perception of them after they died. We do not celebrate the murderous tyrants of the 20th century; collectively we reflect back on the memories of Hitler and Pol Pot with absolute scorn and shame. Yet we ceremoniously recount the lives of Gandhi and mother Teresa as those of exemplary excellence in their willpower and commitment to virtues. This contrast is telling of our values as a society; that although as individuals we are capable of selfish, shameful behavior it is the virtuous conduct achievable through mental fortitude that we ultimately seek to emulate.
And it is this admiration that reflects our true desires as human beings. We admire those that do good because internally, we strive to do such good ourselves and only fail to do so in lack of courage, emotional development, or habit of practicing logic as a ruling principle. There is a reason such deeds as lying and hurting inspires shame in us, yet the activities of kindness and selflessness draws out a sense of fulfillment in our hearts.
This sense of fulfillment is a condition of human nature when we are doing what we ought to be doing; being kind to each other, working towards self-sufficiency, living life according to the principles of reason and hence, moderation. Every struggle and tragedy in life is a result of the turmoil brought on by those of us that refuse to live according to human nature- because they either refuse to use the distinguishing function of our species, the capacity to reason, or they are not human at all, but rather monsters, demons, or whatever term would be appropriate to describe a psychopath incapable of feeling connected to an actual human being. Indeed, much of history’s greatest misfortunes could be attributed to “humans” of such predisposition that characterizes only a tiny fragment of our population.(4)
It is also telling that the behavioral sciences diagnose such beings that lack empathy and are only capable of self-interest with no sense of moral righteousness within a spectrum of mental disorders- that is suggesting such a state of being is unhealthy and thus not representative of human nature. One would suggest that it would be appropriate for me to adjust my position that ‘human nature is inherently good’ to ‘most humans are inherently good’, but I refuse on the basis of the morally insane as being accounted for as humans. To understand my perspective, imagine a fish that gives birth to a creature with no gills. In scientific categorization, that creature would not be recognized as a fish because it is not congruent with the conceptual form of a fish established by semantics of the biological sciences.(5) In the same sense, any creature that is neurologically incapable of feeling love, compassion, or commitment to others is not a human being because such a being’s constitution lacks the ingredients of true human nature; empathy and morality.
In light of this, that a human is by definition, empathetic and moral (or at least has the senses of empathy and morality), I conclude by restating my position; that human nature is inherently good, that at our greatest potential (being our true selves) we are kind and sincere towards one another, capable of self-sacrifice in demanding situations and tranquil communal happiness in times of peace and stability.
_____________________________
(1)Marcus Aurelius. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, trans. by George Long. Vol. II, Part 3. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001. www.bartleby.com/2/3/. [2001].
(2)ARISTOTLE, & SACHS, J. (2002). Nicomachean ethics. Newbury, MA, Focus Pub./R. Pullins.
(3)Ward, Adrian. “Scientists Probe Human Nature — and Discover We Are Good, After All: Scientific American.” Scientists Probe Human Nature — and Discover We Are Good, After All: Scientific American. Scientific American, 20 Nov. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all>.
(4)Lipman, Victor. “Mind of the Manager.” Psychology Today. Psychology Today, 23 Apr. 2013. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-the-manager/201304/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership>.
(5)"fish.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2013.
Web. 27 November 2013.
